My feed

to access all these features


Council housing - move tenants subject to decreasing family size?

350 replies

whatever17 · 29/05/2011 00:47

Do you think that tenants in social housing should be moved after their family's have grown?

For instance, a family gets a 3 bed house then the kids grow up and leave. Should the parents be forced into a 1 bed property? SHould they have to leave their family home after 40 years?

If so, surely no one would have any pride in the property. If they feel they have "a home for life" they will beautify the garden and keep everything respectable.

Should the solution be that there is enough social housing for everyone in need?

OP posts:
usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 11:16

People talk about council tenants as if they are not people

They are in the main ,just the same as you

I don't see many home owners willing to do their bit for the homeless

wikolite · 31/05/2011 11:17

onagar- Its to do with private proiperty rights. If a person owns their home then they can decide who lives in it, if 1 person owns a 6 bed home and lives on their own then they can do that as they legally own the home. Council tenents do not own their home, they rent it and therefore the council or HA who own the property are within their rights to allocate the home they own on need.

Lunabelly · 31/05/2011 11:19

In my shithole town, there is a road which is full of (council owned, I believe) empty office blocks. Empty. All of which, which a bit of tweaking, could make quite snazzy HA apartments. Could house THOUSANDS of people.

But they stand empty, like they have done for about twenty years. That is the fecking scandal.

But even though I know that it's common sense for people to downsize (to other HA accomodation if necessary) when space is no longer needed, I can't help thinking that that and the 2-year contract idea (stupid idea - more harm than good), are machinations by the haves against the have nots, denying US what they take for granted - security.

porcamiseria · 31/05/2011 11:24

on paper it makes 100% sense, why should a family of 3 live in a 3 bed house thats fundamentally tax payer funded

but its not a set of assets, its people and its their home

thats why they need to make the rules better MOVING FORWARD

its hard i see at least two batty old ladies on my road alone living in 3 bed houses, its fucked up

Lunabelly · 31/05/2011 11:29

When I'm a batty old lady, I shall get some other batty old ladies to move in with me and we can scare the postman / local kids, crochet feather boas and drink gin for breakfast, all without impacting on the housing issue.

By then, my veg patch should be mentally up and running and we can supplement our pension by selling herb fruit, veg and homemade jams. All laced with gin.

I don't even drink gin or smoke anything at all, so this is almost something to look forward to...I think?

Ishani · 31/05/2011 12:30

I genuinely do not know anyone who bought in the last 10 years who has a spare room, who would pay £50,000 premium for an empty guest room because that is what you'd be looking. So since it's unaffordable I. The private sector it ought be considered unaffordable everywhere.

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 14:17

Don't the children of the home owners ever leave home then? leaving empty rooms?

latitude · 31/05/2011 14:47

I think that tenancys should be reviewed every few years and if you are occupying a home with more rooms then you need, then you should be moved on into a home that is the correct size.

penguin2003 · 31/05/2011 14:52

I don't believe that they should be movd to smaller properties. My in laws have lived in their 3bedroom house for 20 years and have just been offered a 1 bedroom flat in a village 10 miles away. mother in law doesn't drive but has a job in the village where she lives, her house is lovely and she doesn't want to move, she will stay there until her health says otherwise. On the other hand I can understand why they are trying to do this as their is a shortage of housing, my family and I ourselves have been waiting for a council house for 7 years but because we are private rented and paying £600 a month rent then we are not high enough on the list.

Ishani · 31/05/2011 15:59

You cannot compare home ownership with state subisidised housing US it's ridiculous to do so. But in years to come I will sell my house when the children leave home, we won't be able to afford not to do to house prices eating into what should be our pension savings.

ikoto · 31/05/2011 16:02

Are people really suggesting that homeowners should be made to give up extra rooms to other people?
Are we in Stalins Russia? Have property rights been abolished?

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 16:03

Ah I see you don't live in a council house ,not many do that think chuck em out

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 16:04

So the havenots do their bit

The haves do SFA

As usual

poopnscoop · 31/05/2011 16:16

I don't see why someone, who has had YEARS of funding from the govt... free windows/heating/subsidised rent etc (as has been stated here), should have such a sense of entitlement to believe that their SOCIAL house is their's for life even when that size is no longer needed by them? There are big families squashed into tiny flats, then there's 1 tenant having the luxury of a big house... which they don't even pay for/are heavily subsidised for. Not fair.

Doesn't make sense to me at all. But then I think this govt has hand fed this nation for so long already, people have come to expect handouts. I prefer to work for my money and pay for the roof over my own head.

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 16:18

Council houses are free then?

council tenants don't pay council tax or income tax or NI or rent?

They will be expecting bloody swimming pools next Wink

Lunabelly · 31/05/2011 16:32

We work and pay our rent etc. Why indeed are people thinking that council housing is free? It's not. It's reasonable rents.

As opposed to pie-in-the-sky ridiculous rents.

We also pay our own heating bills and other bills. I am confused as to why someone would think it's all free. It's not.
Instead of criticising people who have council houses, we should criticise a system that allowed housing costs to get so ridiculous, and the fact that there are roughly one million empty homes in the UK. That there are empty commercial premises that could house hundreds of thousands more. We should be criticising a system that allows the haves to piss on the have nots.

likale · 31/05/2011 16:36

Council rents are way below the market rate so it is subsidised by the Government. As you are benefitting from state aid I don't see why the state shouldn't move you into a property that still meets you needs in order to give your property that exceeds your needs to people whose needs it wouls suit. Private homeowners do not have subsidised housing from the state so what they do with their house is their business.

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 16:43

Private homeowners perhaps receive child benefit or tax credits which may help to pay their mortgages they get state help too

Is it just the nasty council tenants you object to getting state help

likale · 31/05/2011 16:49

I don't object to state help in housing at all but private homeowners don't and shouldn't recieve direct state help towards their housing and therefore have more freedom.Council house owners do as they pay rent at below market rate. Any attempt to take properties off homeowners or force them into taking people in would probably be classed as a violation of human rights so its a pointless discussion.

Ephiny · 31/05/2011 17:07

"I do think keeping the garden nice and putting curtains rather than nailing blankets up and investing in the community comes from having a "home for life"."

Sorry, but I think that's an outrageous thing to say. I've moved on average every 2-3 years since leaving 'home', first renting and now owning, and expect to move again in the next few years as my work situation may change, and we hope to have a baby soon so will need more space. And somehow I've always kept my home and garden in decent condition and never nailed blankets over the windows Hmm.

Really I think the concept of a 'home for life' is a very old-fashioned one, and that just isn't how most people live these days. Most people move multiple times because of study, work, and changing family or financial situation.

Firawla · 31/05/2011 17:19

usual suspect you really have a chip on your shoulder!
i don't think its the case of people objecting just because of an 'oh its nasty council tenants' type attitude, but why should some people get a home for life when many others can only dream of having that level of stability?? it's a real issue that many people are having to struggle in the private sector of rents, so seeing people with such an entitlement to the council properties that may be bigger than they need, can seem quite unfair. as the previous poster said, most people dont have the option of a home for life. especially if you are renting, its just totally unrealistic, so why should it be one standard for council tenants and something else for others? and if anyone raises the idea that maybe it's not ideal for so many people to over occupy, then just taking the attitude of "its because you hate us and think we are scum" - i don't think that is the case. those who have been given a council home are very fortunate to have it, and if they are in big homes as a single person then others should be given the chance. yes it would be lovely if they were given out to keep for life for everyone who needs it but life does not work like that, especially these days

usualsuspect · 31/05/2011 17:22

council house envy always gets on my nerves

so yes I do have a chip on my shoulder

Lunabelly · 31/05/2011 17:38

You say rent below the market rate...

Our old flat was £XXX a month. It was that when I moved in way back in't'late Nineties, and the LL never increased it as to do so would have meant bringing it up to a lettable standard and paying heed to slightly legal things such as gas safety checks.
Now, I do understand that prices do increase over time, but housing costs have increased ridiculously.

The market is driven by many things, but nothing...solid, IYSWIM.
It's mainly, to my mind, driven by greed and overcrowding.

Ten years ago a pal bought a 2-bed house for £120k, now it would be worth close to £500k. Why? Has is suddenly sprouted solid gold gew-gaws and frou-frous? Has it suddenly grown 12 extra bedrooms and a truffle tree?

Our house was built about 60 years ago, so the building costs have long since been covered, and where we were leased a house that was uninhabitally decorated - sheets of paper hanging off the wall, splashes of...well, it might have been gravy. Or blood. Or something that I don't even want to think about...everywhere, a bare, dusty garden, and we have decorated it to a high standard (am trained in fancy decorating interior design), and taken the bare dusty garden and transformed it into a lush oasis with a thriving veg patch in just 11 months.

The rent isn't subsidised. It's reasonable. It's more in line with what rents should be.
If the authorities did something about the private sector and all the empty buildings in the country, then we'd all be paying reasonable rent.

smokinaces · 31/05/2011 17:44

When I'm a batty old lady, I shall get some other batty old ladies to move in with me and we can scare the postman / local kids, crochet feather boas and drink gin for breakfast, all without impacting on the housing issue

Best quote of the thread. I am going to do exactly this, with a house off of cats too Grin

We work and pay our rent etc. Why indeed are people thinking that council housing is free? It's not. It's reasonable rents.

Agreed. As I said before, our rent isnt subsidised. Private rents are just overinflated.

smokinaces · 31/05/2011 17:45

Here here lunabelly

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.