Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wsn03

New Housing - Social Housing Mix - recipe for disaster?

Recommended Posts

I recently missed out on a house on a modern housing estate, we weren't as far advanced in the proceeds as our competitor, and we lost out. As an aside we have been staying in social housing as we search the area for the house we want to buy, as guests of the owner. We have now luckily found our next house in quiet street with older houses.

Social housing has been an eye opener. Very recently the area has gone drastically downhill due to one resident moving in, and the others deciding to aim low to match their new neighbour. In a very short space of time the area has become a proper sh1t tip.

I was shocked to learn that modern housing estates have a social housing mix. I have no problem with social housing, or the people in it. The trouble is a small proportion of them are benefits scrounging scum, who often don't bother to raise their children who incidentally seem to be immune from the law and have no respect for anyone - a nightmare to live with. The problem with social housing is the risk that one of that type could suddenly be dropped into the social house on your swanky new estate. I've now learned of a few cases where this has happened and the whole area has been badly dragged down as a result.

Imagine my surprise at learning that the top 6 bed exec (stupid little box toy house that couldn't even fit a full sized wardrobe in bedroom no 2...yes really) house we missed out on, had social housing tenants in the neighbouring flats just over the road. Nice.

I have since told the missus that if she wants to live in a modern estate she can do so, on her own. This means I no longer have to be ripped off buying a plot the size of a chess board in a crappy house that will look very dated by the time I want to sell it.

Am I the only one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've rented a flat opposite council houses.  Same (about 10-year old) development: 1-2 bed flats which were mostly bought up by BTL brigade, with 4 bed council houses opposite.

I was feeling being ripped off every time I walked home, watching people who didn't appear to ever need to leave house and yet couldn't be bothered to look after their gardens.  Yet they were getting it for free (or almost for free) while I was paying large fraction of my salary to some BTL speculator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five years ago my gran had her grass cut by the council. The told them to xxxx off where they increased their gardening fee from 20p to 50p. I couldn't get my head round it, it was pennies. she left her garden looking like a jungle til she died.

Council cutbacks seem to have bitten hard for council tenants. I own in a street of ex council semis. 10 years ago they were getting new kitchens, new fences etc. Not seen any work done in the past few years and just last week I saw one of my neighbours in the Daily Record complaining the council won't replaced her boiler which hasn't worked for 6 months and has flooded her home.

Round here Council cutbacks seem to have meant that the council have gone from being a 'premium landlord' doing everything by the book to a slum landlord in just a few years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wsn03 said:

I was shocked to learn that modern housing estates have a social housing mix.

This is normal now as any housing development over a certain size has to provide some 'affordable housing'.

The easiest way they can provide this 'affordable housing' and using up the least land is by putting a three storey block of flats at some far end of the estate.

There will then be an approach from a housing association to take the lot at a discount. Often this will be preferable to the developer in cash flow terms, rather than selling one by one to the general public, especially in areas where there are plenty of other flats for sale.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

they were getting it for free (or almost for free) while I was paying large fraction of my salary to some BTL speculator.

Worse, the government is reaching into your back pocket and handing the proceeds of these ill-gotten gains to these parasites (both BTL scum and benefits scum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved from a small development last year which had some "affordable housing" and the place is going downhill.  It was OK while the builders were still there as the sales office lady would "have a word" with people while they were still selling the houses.  After they left there would be more rubbish generally with some large things left for months etc.  Luckily there was a gardening guy who came every few weeks to tidy the fronts and we all paid a service charge for that.  Most people didn't do anything to keep the place up to scratch though.

Funnily enough it was my owner occupier next door neighbour who was the main reason I left though and he was" worse" than any of the social housing tenants in his behaviour.  I will be very cautious in buying anywhere like this again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

I've rented a flat opposite council houses.  Same (about 10-year old) development: 1-2 bed flats which were mostly bought up by BTL brigade, with 4 bed council houses opposite.

I was feeling being ripped off every time I walked home, watching people who didn't appear to ever need to leave house and yet couldn't be bothered to look after their gardens.  Yet they were getting it for free (or almost for free) while I was paying large fraction of my salary to some BTL speculator.

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Locke said:

Worse, the government is reaching into your back pocket and handing the proceeds of these ill-gotten gains to these parasites (both BTL scum and benefits scum)

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wsn03 said:

I recently missed out on a house on a modern housing estate, we weren't as far advanced in the proceeds as our competitor, and we lost out. As an aside we have been staying in social housing as we search the area for the house we want to buy, as guests of the owner. We have now luckily found our next house in quiet street with older houses.

Social housing has been an eye opener. Very recently the area has gone drastically downhill due to one resident moving in, and the others deciding to aim low to match their new neighbour. In a very short space of time the area has become a proper sh1t tip.

I was shocked to learn that modern housing estates have a social housing mix. I have no problem with social housing, or the people in it. The trouble is a small proportion of them are benefits scrounging scum, who often don't bother to raise their children who incidentally seem to be immune from the law and have no respect for anyone - a nightmare to live with. The problem with social housing is the risk that one of that type could suddenly be dropped into the social house on your swanky new estate. I've now learned of a few cases where this has happened and the whole area has been badly dragged down as a result.

Imagine my surprise at learning that the top 6 bed exec (stupid little box toy house that couldn't even fit a full sized wardrobe in bedroom no 2...yes really) house we missed out on, had social housing tenants in the neighbouring flats just over the road. Nice.

I have since told the missus that if she wants to live in a modern estate she can do so, on her own. This means I no longer have to be ripped off buying a plot the size of a chess board in a crappy house that will look very dated by the time I want to sell it.

Am I the only one?

I think you are correct.  I once had a neighbour on benefits who often flooded my flat.  Don't buy new build ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social housing is not designed for people that don't want to work, the kids I mixed with living in council housing their fathers all worked ... It is meant as affordable rents for local lower paid workers and their families.. Ideally social housing with secure long tenancies should be mixed with private owner occupied housing.. Nothing worse than ghettos of poor areas/no go and gated rich areas/roads.... Put a irresponsible person in a road of responsible people who keep their gardens nice clean and tidy turn them into responsible people. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a HA property on a newbuild estate. It's only a block of four but aside from some occasional "council-estate" type goings-on (occasional arguments/loud swearing) it's really not too bad. My immediate neighbours are nice enough to me 🙂

Maybe I am part of the problem haha 🙂

Might be a different kettle of fish in a more deprived area though (I live in a relatively affluent Yorkshire market town).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can usually look up in the planning documents whether there was a 'section 106 agreement' (s106) or other requirement for affordable housing in the estate.  You're right that it can just be one individual or family that causes a lot of problems.

Another cause of this type of issue is stupid density requirements where you end up living on top of neighbours or no parking is provided so there are arguments about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winkie said:

Social housing is not designed for people that don't want to work, the kids I mixed with living in council housing their fathers all worked😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

When was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When social housing was first built in 1920s, they were very strict who they gave it to. They wanted the "better" working class, there were even interviews where prospective tenants were looked over and asked questions about their morals. Two things ruined it in my opinion. First was when Labour in the 70s changed criteria to "need", so basically it was given to whoever had most kids. Second was the thatcher government, which despite a moralising tone, didnt really care about social disintegration of communities, but saw it as a price to pay for winning a war against the unions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

When social housing was first built in 1920s, they were very strict who they gave it to. They wanted the "better" working class, there were even interviews where prospective tenants were looked over and asked questions about their morals. Two things ruined it in my opinion. First was when Labour in the 70s changed criteria to "need", so basically it was given to whoever had most kids. Second was the thatcher government, which despite a moralising tone, didnt really care about social disintegration of communities, but saw it as a price to pay for winning a war against the unions. 

Are you sure about Thatcher, have you got more details?  I agree with about the need one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mix of social housing and private housing is part of those 'Section 106' agreements, isn't it? So does that mean the private owner occupiers pay a £10k-20k premium on their houses to pay for the council/HA properties? And these landlords need to properly vet the propective tenants - for the sake of the neighbours AND for their own sake.

I moved to a council flat at the beginning of the year. Not a swanky new one with super duper inslation but in a 1960s block. The stereotypes are quite accurate. One of my neighbours had a party last night (Wednesday) that finished at midnight. Not great when you have to get up early to go to work the next morning. :blink:  Also, new neighbours have moved in above me with a hyperactive young boy. This is a 1 bedroom flat. They have no carpets as of yet. It's like friggin' Michael Flatley and 'Riverdance' . 😣

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, winkie said:

.. Put a irresponsible person in a road of responsible people who keep their gardens nice clean and tidy turn them into responsible people. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a great theory but the cases I've heard suggest it isn't working. Too many cases of them bringing the neighbourhoods down for me to even consider it. I know of too many horror stories just from asking around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, wsn03 said:

Its a great theory but the cases I've heard suggest it isn't working. Too many cases of them bringing the neighbourhoods down for me to even consider it. I know of too many horror stories just from asking around

This is my experience.......the " bad" ones tend to lower the standards of the rest😒

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2018 at 20:35, MattW said:

The mix of social housing and private housing is part of those 'Section 106' agreements, isn't it? So does that mean the private owner occupiers pay a £10k-20k premium on their houses to pay for the council/HA properties?

Yes...the private buyers would pay less if there was no need for the developer to provide 'affordable housing'....or green space, play areas, road alterations, cycle paths, community centres....the list is endless.  Situation is so critical now they just need to build the houses and as many as possible...Requiring all this nice stuff sounds like good idea but if it means the schemes don't start or when they do the costs are so high  they can only sell them with tax payer subsidies like HTB....not so great in the real world for the families that can't form and the folk living with parents until 50 something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2018 at 19:13, nothernsoul said:

When social housing was first built in 1920s, they were very strict who they gave it to. They wanted the "better" working class, there were even interviews where prospective tenants were looked over and asked questions about their morals. Two things ruined it in my opinion. First was when Labour in the 70s changed criteria to "need", so basically it was given to whoever had most kids. Second was the thatcher government, which despite a moralising tone, didnt really care about social disintegration of communities, but saw it as a price to pay for winning a war against the unions. 

It began in the nineteenth century.  Buildings had superintendents, ex-military or policemen who enforced rules about noise, litter, when washing could be hung out etc.  Some tenants found this intrusive, but it was probably necessary for harmonious high-density living.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2018 at 01:52, Bear Hug said:

Yet they were getting it for free (or almost for free) while I was paying large fraction of my salary to some BTL speculator.

Its even worse than that, the amount you pay in rent is bid up (via housing benefit levels setting an effective price floor) using your own taxes. ******ing brilliant eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/08/2018 at 01:12, wsn03 said:

Its a great theory but the cases I've heard suggest it isn't working. Too many cases of them bringing the neighbourhoods down for me to even consider it. I know of too many horror stories just from asking around

It is great in practice.... Social housing is not and should not be a given for life, a fixed term, renewable depending, depending on income and behaviour ... Social housing should not be sold or sublet.....😉 

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

Its even worse than that, the amount you pay in rent is bid up (via housing benefit levels setting an effective price floor) using your own taxes. ******ing brilliant eh.

And if you want to buy you compete with landlords whose mortgages are paid via housing benefit.  It is like they hate people who work and are not rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

And if you want to buy you compete with landlords whose mortgages are paid via housing benefit.  It is like they hate people who work and are not rich.

It really does feel like that sometimes; actually most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dougless said:

It really does feel like that sometimes; actually most of the time.

The problem is that there is a large proportion of the population that supports the current system.  If you say something like "Maybe people who don't work should not be given housing in London" a lot of people attack you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 146 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.