Down sizing property's

(85 Posts)
Angienoonoo123 Thu 13-Dec-12 19:55:10

Hi everyone what are people's views on people under occupying there council homes , I no of a couple of people that are over 65 that live in 4 bedroom houses by there self they have to pay no rent the state of the houses are disgusting as they are to fragile to clean the houses they are in surley the council should In force a law that just because these people have lived in these houses for years dosent mean they should keep them they both have 3 spare bedrooms just sitting there shouldn't they be made to downsize ?? To a 2 bedroom or something it's not fair that these young couples with 3 -4 kids have to keep them in a flat with no garden while these oaps can't Evan take care of them selfs properly let alone a massive house !!

Stuffingballs Fri 14-Dec-12 07:48:01

Did you watch panarama last night? it was heartbreaking, so Fuck off OP.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Fri 14-Dec-12 07:51:05

And when it comes to social housing, I can't see why this can't apply.

I originally had an old tenancy for life. I happily have that up in order to have a larger home for my DC's. and equally, when my DC's have left home, I will be quite happy to downsize, because I already have limited mobility, and at the point that I no longer NEED the extra bedrooms for my DC's, the size of the house will be like a millstone around my neck, especially wrt cleaning.

I don't see, AS a Social Housing tenant, what is so wrong with enforcing the same rules on all but the frailest of pensioners, on a case by case basis. If moving house would kill that individual pensioner, they could be allowed to stay on medical grounds, surely. Then the rest could be made to move to free up the houses.

The problem with Social Housing is that the chain is broken - there is enough social housing IF people move up and down the chain when necessary. But there is a stall at the top end, which is stalking the whole system, because OAP's aren't being made to downsize.

Social Housing should be based on NEED, and they no longer NEED a property that large!

FlourFace Fri 14-Dec-12 08:32:24

What was it about Panorama that makes you think OP should "fuck off", stuffing?

PessaryPam Fri 14-Dec-12 08:36:17

I agree CouthyMow, but they should be given as much help to do so as possible as downsizing is a big and scary task to do, and often elderly people are not in the best health and maybe recently bereaved. It should be done sensitively and for their benefit too.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 14-Dec-12 11:41:47

Pessary they already are given that support the problem is a lack of small property's

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Sat 15-Dec-12 14:20:59

Round here there are small bungalows in supported schemes sitting empty because OAP's (and I'm talking 65-75, not really elderly people) are refusing to downsize from their 3/4-bed properties.

Meanwhile I have a friend living in ONE ROOM in a bedsit with her, her DH, and their 3 DC's, as their house was repossessed when he was made redundant.

Why should the 65yo who flies abroad for a holiday each year (so not exactly frail) be allowed to sit in a 3/4 bed house when whole families are crammed into single rooms?

There's just no reasoning behind that other than selfishness.

They won't give up their house so someone else can enjoy raising their family in the larger house like they did.

If Social Housing is based on NEED, then the family of 5 has a greater NEED for the 3-bed property than the single 65yo!

Frailer OAP's could be allowed to stay in their property if a move would make them sicker or kill them by applying to the medical needs board that every LA has, and get special dispensation that way, as they will be able to prove their medical issues mean a move would be detrimental to their health. Simple.

Not unfair on anyone, nobody frail is made sicker by being downsized, yet the less frail, fitter OAP's are freeing up larger properties for young families that NEED them more.

Job done, satisfactorily for all. grin

Anniegetyourgun Sat 15-Dec-12 14:48:29

Or, we could just have more social housing.

OodKingWenceslas Sat 15-Dec-12 15:07:37

Both. I think it needs a re think in each area.our area seems to work on turning down as many as possible and eventually backing down and accepting they need to house people. Fingers in ears appears to be the policy regarding overcrowding.

TakeMyEyesButNotTheMulledWine Sat 15-Dec-12 16:21:13

My FIL lives in a big 3 bed council house alone. He won't move to a smaller place, DP and his sister have been talking to him about it for ages as he struggles with cleaning it due to health problems. DP and SIL both go to help him clean and cutt
he grass etc as he can't manage.

He won't consider a one bed ground floor flat because he likes where he is living.

I love him to bits but it is wrong that he can stay there. Mentally he is well so no reason why he shouldn't move.

He just refuses to.

TakeMyEyesButNotTheMulledWine Sat 15-Dec-12 16:22:11

Phone went crazy for a moment. Excuse the typos.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now