Council Property And Buy Another One

[pavel]

i live in council property at the moment and i would like to buy another property for rent in different area - over 150 miles from my current main place - it is legal to stay at council property?

[woofgang]

You need to speak to your local council as its will depend on what their rules are about tenants owning buy to let properties.

[Rosetta]

Legally, I am not sure but morally social housing is needed by those that cant afford to buy, or rent privately

[ladybirder]

I hope it isn't. Council houses are subsidised accommodation for those who cannot afford to buy their own. If you can afford to buy another house then you should live in it and free up your home for someone in need.

[DarceyK123]

No, it's not allowed and quite rightly so.

Council housing is for those who cannot afford to buy their own.

[Buenchico]

Are you sure of your facts, DK123?

I've just checked the policy of our local council and property ownership does not, in itself, bar someone from being considered for a local authority property.

Someone who's living in a council house in, say, Swindon might inherit a property in, say, Wigan. They can't simply move to Wigan if their employment is in Swindon and there are no rules which would force them to sell the inherited property. So they'd be free to let out the property in Wigan (while continuing to live in a council property in Swindon).

As I see it, Pavel is only seeking to put himself in a similar situation through purchasing a property many miles from his home. So I can see no legal (or, indeed, moral) restriction which would prohibit him from doing so.

[david small]

Tip of a very exploited iceberg. Many err not British born, sublet and use incomes to purchase further properties. Many way more than one or two. Empire builders? Or capitalising on opportunities?

[fiction-factory]

The stories from Grenfell might have given that impression, david. I didn't realise statistics nationally were kept on the place of birth of subletters though. Do you have a link to the figures please?

[Old_Geezer]

It's one thing to find oneself in a position and need time to solve it. It is quite another to deliberately cause a situation.

If one can afford to support oneself including in housing, then one is morally obliged to do so. The council housing only exists to cover a need for those unable to support their own housing needs, not a freebie for those who get themselves on the list. So of course there's a moral responsibility to move and free up accomodation that one clearly no longer needs as soon as one is able. Not continue to live in taxpayers' housing, of which there is limited amount, and instead use the money for investment instead.

As others suggest, your council can tell you if this abuse of council housing is allowed by them.

[Peter Pedant]

something here

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_tenants_with_second_home

what do they know site can hardly be called balanced
[ you FOI (*) a quango(*) which is usually because you dont like them, put the question triumphantly on the site and then fill in the answer when it comes - sorry post the useless and spazzy answer when it comes...]

(*) wot dey den - the usual AB jokesters will quip

[DarceyK123]

It's defo not allowed in my Borough.

I know someone who got 'caught' doing this and was forced to hand the Keys of the Council house back.

As others have said, seriously speak to your Council before doing anything.

[AuntLydia]

Inheriting a property and either selling of it or renting it out for income is within the Law .You could argue for various reasons the property would not be suitable for your accommodation. However, actively going out to purchase a rental property , while living in subsidised housing, whether Council or Housing Association, could be against the Terms and Conditions of your Tenancy and could result in eviction. It is not yet 'against the Law' as in you could not be prosecuted (yet) but Morally its abhorrent, but that's just my opinion.

[rowanwitch]

I think even if it is allowed then it shouldn't be. With so many people desperate for a home they can afford it seems wrong. The exception might be someone living in sheltered housing investing in anticipation of future residential care needs. That in the long term would have social benefit as the care costs could be covered by the sale of the second home.

[woofgang]

So its the fact that it's a house? Would you respond the same if it was a combine harvester, a secure storage space, a paddock with a stable, or any other rentable piece of property? and remember that private landlords contribute to the supply of housing too.