To think if all your children have grown up and left you should give up your 5 bed council house?

[dilemma456]

The housing list are so long and especially for bigger properties.

I met someone who lives by herself in a 5 bed council house last night. Her children have all moved out. There are people who really need that house crammed into much smaller properties.

AIBU to think that if you're massively under occupying social housing you should be under an obligation to move out into something smaller and that the council should offer you support and encouragement to do so?

I don't think home-owners should be given incentives to downsize. If you own a property you can live in it as long as you like, as far as I'm concerned. But council tenants definitely shouldn't think the place they rent is theirs for life - no matter how many memories they have. Private tenants certainly don't have that luxury and they don't even get subsidised rents.

My colleague lives in a cul-de-sac of about 30 3-bed council houses. Only two are occupied by more than two people. Makes no sense

I think they should be very strongly encouraged to downsize, but be given help in the costs of removals if that would cause hardship.

I disaggree with reducing the tenants other rights etc, though. All people should feel secure in their home as long as they are paying their rent.

Private renting should only be a short-term option for those who have prospects of one day getting a mortgage. For those who probably never will get that chance, I find it obscene that they have to pay for someone else´s buy to let mortgage, while being refused a mortgage of their own.

Right to buy should (and I believe it is) be scrapped.

I can see the side of the story that there are life long memories in that house etc it is sad for the one that is left behind - I agree

But it is also sad that people have to sell their homes, that they have worked hard for all their lives to pay for own care when they are . That's just the way it is going in this country.

YANBU, I'm in housing association but moving into a private rented as my mum has offered to rent me her house when she moves. I thought this was great, this house can go to someone else who needs it. However all the reactions I've had so far have been negative, I've been told if anything happens I've made myself intentionally homeless and won't have any house at all! People are saying that I'm mad to come out of housing association, I thought it was a good thing

But salizchap, the rent on council properties is generally subsidised. Fair enough if they were paying market value, but generally they are not.

The right to stay in the house you have memories in is not really solid arguement if you are not living in a house that you own.

Bunty I live near Worthing on south coast. We have been fighting for years to stop them knocking down the woods. We even have our own tree dwelling crusties
Tesco just carry on buying up the town in little parcels and building a massive superstore that has meant people gardens becoming unuseable etc.

So anything that means people moving out of big houses to make room for families is ok with me.

I just dont understand the reluctance of people to sell their house to pay for care when they are old! Who should pay for it then? The older generation have banged on about the house being their pension. Well use it then!

YANBU!

When a person/couple in private housing gets to a certain age, they often take the view that the house is 'too much for us' and comments of rattling around in it like a pea in a drum may be used.

They down size, saving on bills, cleaning and maintenance. LOGICAL.

Why can't social housing be subject to review?

If a council house is awarded to someone in need, why would it become their house in perpetuity? Surely logic dictates that it'll always be social housing unless they actually buy it from the council. Which is a whole other thread entirely of course....

you dont own a council rented house and so should be forced to move out when your children have grown up and left home. its unfair that granny gets to sit in her 4 bed house reminising about her children growing up when single mum cant create her own family memories stuck in a 0ne bed flat with 3 children.

If the gov can be cruel enough to cut benfits to the sick they can grow some balls and kick single and older people out of their council BORROWED houses for families to move into instead.

can see where you are coming from ronshar wrt to paying for care. but if you haven't paid a mortgage all your life and own your own property, who pays then? it seems as though if you don't bother trying look after yourself and your kids in this country, someone else will! how is that fair?

ronshar I thought that might be where you meant - we know some of the crusties

Can I be devil's advocate? What if you've ploughed loads of money into decorating & furnishing your house and have to move somewhere smaller where your furniture won't fit? What about fitted furniture and plants in the garden - if you've lived in a house a long time with your family, you'll have made a lot of changes to make it suitable for your needs. Also, would people be guaranteed a new home near where they live, so they can keep in touch with friends & family? I totally understand that people who rent privately have the same problems but you can't always say 'they've got it tough so you must too'. Plus, if people feel like it's their permanent home, they're more likely to take care of it than if they're worried about being moved on.

Having said that, I agree it's daft when people have huge houses, struggling to pay massive electricity bills whilst a family with young children are cramped into one room.

yes i agree! how can that be allowed to happen?

she should be moved into a smaller property; 5 bed houses are rare as rocking horse shit where i live.

I know what you mean TEIF but this is social housing and if people didn't think they could stay for life then they would treat it like a rental property. It's an absurd system where there is such a chronic shorting of housing.

Curleymama, the market value is way to high. The market value in my area for a basic 2 bed flat is over 500 pcm, where most people earn only around 800pcm (most jobs here are minimum wage, but there are a high proportion of retired people with good pensions plus the problem of second homes and holiday lets).

On the fence on this one. In principle I agree, but I think there could be a very detrimental psychological effect on, say, an elderly person having to give up what's been their home for decades. In an ideal world there would be enough houses for all needs I suppose.

unfortunately the vast majority of social housing tenants that I personally have come across have considered their landlord (their local council housing department) as social services some people do not want to help themselves and are more than happy to let others do things for them.

We have a special decorating scheme at our local council which is a great benefit to those who really need it and fit the criteria. but even that is taken advantage of!

My Mum lives in a council 3 bed bungalow as she has for 25 years. She has worked hard and raised 5 children in it, though only one is left at home now (still at school), why should she be made to move out of her home?

We love the crusties Couldnt be one myself. Far too dirty.

It should be part of the contract that if you are supplied housing then you keep it to a certain standard. This includes looking after ther garden etc. Not leaving broken white goods in the back garden or a car on bricks in the front.
If you have pride in your surroundings then you have pride in yourself!
That should help to keep social housing to a good standard even if the tennents are only on short term contracts. By short term I mean 10-15 years or until children leave.

As a country we need to change our relationship with our houses. They are somewhere to live! Nothing more.

TEIF/Devil's advocate, they have been able to enjoy the things that they bought when they bought them, and furniture can always be sold. People wouldn't buy fitted furniture if they knew thet weren't going to be there forever. If they damage the property in any way because it's rental, then they should have to pay for that. There could be some sort of a deposit payment scheme where you pay a little each month, and get it back at the end of you tennancy if all is well. I don't think council tennants do pay that much to maintain their properties, if they need anything doing they get the council to pay!

Who should be the judge on who is more deserving of a home though?

My friends aunt is a very independent, very mentally and physically with it 92 years of age. She has a beautifully kept council house and has lived there since it was built around 60 years ago. She has worked all her life (gave up a little cleaning job around 12 years ago as the person she cleaned for died) and has brought up a family pretty much on her own as her husband died when the children were small.

Her 3 bedroom council home is lovely, she has been an excellent tenant and although she says there are people out there needier than her she does not want to move out unless the accomodation offered is precisely what she wants (size, area etc...)

A move at this stage in her life would not be of any benefit to her wellbeing unless it was of her choice. And believe me, the council the bastards are breathing down her neck at every given opportunity.

Obviously if health/mobility reasons forced a move into nursing care there would be no arguements but surely its nicer for her to live out the rest of her days in comfortable, familiar surroundings for as long as is manageable?

Also, her house is one of about 4 left actually owned by the council - everyone else in the street (of around 30 houses) has bought theirs.

I have heard of a scheme where a person downsizing can get £500 per bedroom they are giving up plus their removal costs, and yet this is not widely known. I have 2 boys and a girl in one room and have been told we have a wait of at least 8 years to get a 3 bed house.

shadesofviolet. Because there is another mum with three children who is desparate to live in a house rather than a one bed flat!

We I think they ought to just stop paying single occupiers housing benifit and then they would have to move.

If the occupier(s) work and pay their own rent though they should be able to stay.

My parents live in a HA house they were allocated after our family house was reposessed during the 90s recession. It's a 3 bed and my Sister has just moved out so they are in it on their own but they pay all their own rent ( full rent too!) , are both professionals on a good income and do all the maintanance on it themselves. I absolutly agree the government shoudn't be paying for people to rent houses that are too big for them but people paying their own way ought to have as much right as any body else to live in whichever house they want to!

Salizchap, I know that markeyt values can be ridiculous, but that is just the way it is and we all have to suffer the effects of things like that. I don't see why council tennants should be immune. They should get the housing while they need it, but when they don't, they shouldn't.

Shade of violet, I really don't mean to sound so harsh, but she should lose her home because it was never hers in the first place. Someone else would probably need it more.

Quitefickledobby - if she's 92, presumably her children moved out many years ago? If the rules were changed, then she would have been rehoused when they left home and she would have spent many years in a smaller place.

It's not actually her house, however happy she's been living there. It's a building. I've never understood the sentimental attachment the British have to bricks & mortar