to think that elderly people living alone in 3/4 bed council houses should not have a choice about whether they want to stay there?

[BlessYouToo]

In fact, they should be moved into one bedroom accommodation as soon as the kids leave home (this should have happened years ago of course). Having a 'spare' bedroom in case the grandchildren come to stay should not be an option when they are in state owned properties.

I have today been to view a council property with a friend of mine who has been homeless for 3 years (in temp accommodation) after finally getting to the top of the bidding queue! She was called to see a 4 bedroom house and it was absolutely rank, the smell made me want to heave. Plaster was hanging off the wall and the whole place was damp as the previous tenant either, did not or could not, heat and ventilate it properly Apparently the house was in a much worse than the state we saw it in today but the council had done some remedial work on it to make it safe so it was a bit better. The garden was also just a sea of brambles.

We were told that an elderly person had been living there and had just been moved into a nursing home. T

I was shocked that the council could rent out a property in this state. I would have expected that they would have made sure the property was up to a decent, clean standard before renting it out as any other landlord would have to do (all my friend will get is a paint allowance if she is eligible) but I am even more shocked that this elderly tenant was allowed to let the property get into this condition. Why do councils not carry out inspections to ensure their properties don't get into this state? Obviously the house was too much for the previous tenant to cope with and surely they would have been better off with a smaller property that they could keep clean?

We were told that many of the properties coming available after elderly tenants have either died, or gone into alternative accommodation, are left in a similar state. How many families with young children are left crammed into tiny flats while elderly people are living in houses much too large for their needs, letting them decay around them? I find it unbelievable that this has been happening.

I feel gutted for my friend as she has been desperate to get a stable home for her DCs and will now be going into a total shithole without even carpets on the floor, just cement. It's a bloody disgrace! AIBU?

[Grennie]

Before we bought our current house, where I lived had a lot of housing association housing, and a lot of elderly people living in 2 bedroomed houses. Some of the most frail had neighbours helping them out, fetching shopping, even helping with dressing. If they had been moved to somewhere where no one knew them, the socail care bill would have increased as they were all poor.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

SaucyJack - what if there are no small properties availablein the elderly person's community? Would you move a vulnerable elderly person who can't get out and about much, away from their community and plonk them down somewhere where no-one knows them, where they have no support network, and no friends, and where they could die and no-one would notice?

I moved to an entirely new area, away from all my friends and my support network, and it was bloody hard. I made new friends because I went out and found them - I joined an art class, a knitting group, a choir - that's how I found new friends. If I had been unable to get out of the house to find these groups, I would not have a single friend here, nearly 6 years after moving here. That could be the reality for elderly people moved to a new area - it would be hard enough if they chose the move - to force them to move would just be heartless.

[Grennie]

I thought most were under occupied by pensioners. Pensioners are exempt from the bedroom tax.

[Flipdefloo]

Does anyone know how many 3 bed council/HA houses are "under-occupied"? (I don't).

[Grennie]

Saucyjack - If you are a couple or a single person, you need a one bed place. I don't know where you live, but where I am the local council itself has said that there is not enough 1 bed flats - either private or council, for the number of people affected by the bedroom tax who would need to move to one.

I am sure there are plenty of families in a 2 bedroom place wanting to love to a larger place. This is still too big for a couple or single person.

[SaucyJack]

And tell us where these people are supposed to move. This part has been said many times, but it never seems to sink in. There are usually no places for these people to move to. No smaller places available.

Obviously the smaller properties aren't empty and waiting. But they are available. There are more than enough overcrowded families to swap with the empty nesters in the bigger flats and houses.

Go on any Homeswap page on FB and the absolute vast majority of those wishing to move will be those wishing to upsize.

[writtenguarantee]

BackOnlyBriefly: And tell us where these people are supposed to move. This part has been said many times, but it never seems to sink in. There are usually no places for these people to move to. No smaller places available.

there should be a provision for people willing to move but can't find anything smaller.

[writtenguarantee]

I am young and I have NO problem about the way I am treated by the older people on posts like these

I never said older people were rude on these threads.

You don't speak for me, you don't speak for my cousins all of who are under 30 all of who have got on very well without a degree, my sister is different she wanted to be a forensic scientist so needed a degree

well, I take it your sister got cheap tuition unless she just graduated.

If the young people you mention have no job prospects, high fees and no chance of buying a home, tell me why me and my cousins are so different, we have jobs, we have homes and we have no fees. Maybe its because we have a better attitude

You are not different employment wise. The majority young people have jobs. But the unemployment rate among the young is much higher than for everyone else, and the gap has widened. Real wages have been frozen for years while in London housing prices are sky rocketing.

As for you being able to buy a house, I don't know your specific circumstances. You probably don't live in London, or you get subsidized housing or you have wage/savings high enough with possibly some familial help to afford a house. Yup, that covers it all.

I am clearly not making up the housing crisis. Everyone sees it.

And if your grandad pays full rent, good for him. Since he isn't receiving housing benefit, he should be allowed to live wherever he can afford.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Come and tell us how many rooms you have if you think this is a wonderful idea. And how many rooms your grandparents have.

And tell us where these people are supposed to move. This part has been said many times, but it never seems to sink in. There are usually no places for these people to move to. No smaller places available.

But, that's okay because it was never about releasing bedrooms anyway. They just told people that because it sounded better.

[Curlyweasel]

I don't recall mentioning unemployed people particularly?

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Elderly people need the support of their community around them. If someone frail, who finds it hard to get out and about, is forcibly moved to a smaller home in a different neighbourhood, how are they supposed to make new friends, and build a new support network?

They are going to struggle HUGELY to do this - and will probably end up sitting in their new home, all alone 24/7, and because none of their neighbours will know them, no-one will notice if they haven't been seen for a while, and no-one will care if they are dead or alive.

This is not what I would want for my elderly mother, and it is not right to forcibly inflict it on elderly people who happen to be council tenants.

On the flip side, however, I do acknowledge that there is a real lack of housing for families, and that it can be seen as very unfair for a single person to stay in a property that is much bigger than they need (after taking into account things like needing a second bedroom for a carer or for medical equipment etc). Equally there is a big lack of smaller properties too - and I think there does need to be some planned building done, so that elderly people can be moved to smaller, more suitable properties within their existing neighbourhoods - maybe build a small block of supported-living flats or flats suitable for elderly residents in areas of high social housing, so that there is somewhere close for the elderly person to move to, where there will be neighbours who also understand the difficulties and needs of OAPs - almost a ready-made community, maybe - so that larger properties can be freed up for families.

[Flipdefloo]

Mine was to woo

[Flipdefloo]

Although it is only fair and sensible if there is adequate housing for folk to downsize to. Otherwise, such as will likely be our case, they become homeless and more likely to claim more in benefits over the long term.

[SaucyJack]

YANBU. They've had the benefit of a cheap family home when they were raising their own children, so it's only fair that it's passed to someone who could actually make use of it once they no longer need it.

It doesn't seem good use of government property to have children sleeping in glorified cupboards when there are middle-aged and older people with bedrooms they don't go in from one year to the next.

[WooWooOwl]

Curlyweasel, the only people affected by the so called 'bedroom tax' are people who claim housing benefit to live in a property that is bigger than they need. (Disclaimer - I am aware some ill and disabled people are unfairly affected, and should be exempt).

Working people are affected as much as unemployed people in that they will only be able to claim housing benefit for the rooms they need, the difference may be that they can afford to cover their rent with a combination of HB and their wages. Working people are not exempt from the 'bedroom tax'.

It's not a tax. It's a reduction in housing benefit, that already applied to people who rent privately and is being extended to those in social housing, so that people can only claim enough housing benefit to cover what they need. They will no longer be given money to pay for extra rooms they don't need, which is entirely fair.

[coolcookie]

Yabu. My mum was forced out of our home as they wouldn't adapt it. She had to move away from her friends/neighbours. We spend thousands putting down carpets only for her to die several months later.
I think people giving up 3 bed house should be given financial support to cover moving costs.

[Flipdefloo]

Of the 2.5 million accidental landlords (30% of 9 million) that have become so as a result of the economic crash and wreckless banking practice, it might be fairer to expect them/the banks take responsibility for their choices and release their property to desperate families at affordable rates. Seems fairer to me than forcing old people out of their homes.

[diddl]

"If it's about doing it for the families desperate for a proper family home you will agree that people who own their houses should also be forced to downsize?"

Hahahaha!

[Curlyweasel]

As long as the spare rooms are being paid for, then I don't think they should be forced to move. Oh, I forgot, pensioners are exempt from the bedroom tax aren't they? As are working couples who live in social housing. Or working single people. Isn't it just people on benefits who have to pay the spare room subsidy? That's right, I think. Those who can least afford it. All makes sense really.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

We have a major affordable housing crisis and it cannot be fair or reasonable to have 3/4 bedroom family houses being used by 1 or 2 people when many families are desperate for a proper family home.

If it's about doing it for the families desperate for a proper family home you will agree that people who own their houses should also be forced to downsize?

[Flipdefloo]

WooWooOwl I agree to an extent, but would add they should only have to move out if and when a property is available in their existing community and it should be encouraged with incentives, rather than forced. Individual cases should be able to be assessed/made exempt too.

I don't agree with the "most people are in their 50s/60s when their kids move out" as its quite possible for an increasing number of parents (fathers in particular) to be in their 70s in these circumstances - think first time mother in late 30s/early 40s with an older partner, possibly even in their 50s.

More young people will be forced to stay at home until they are 25 due to not being eligible for ANY benefits. So actually, as we have more and more WOMEN putting off having children until late 30s/early 40s, the age of parents with lower socio-economic backgrounds (likely to be found in social housing, or claiming benefits in private rental) when their children move out will possibly be quite high.

[WooWooOwl]

I don't agree with moving people out of their homes when they get to 70+ years of age. Not for the sake of people who chose to have more children than their current home can cope with. I really can't understand the mindset of people who think it's ok to uproot older people who have very little left in life except their home and the place in the community that they have built up, it's just cruel.

But the young families who have social housing now can rightly expect to be moved into smaller accommodation when their children have left home, they will still be more than young enough to cope with a move.

[diddl]

It does seem sensible that they should move out to make way for families.

After all, if they have had the benefit of a family sized house that they couldn't have otherwise afforded, why should they prevent other families from the same by staying in a house bigger than they need?

[Tinkerball]

The warming has disappeared but this thread is from 2011.

[MaxsMummy2012]

If it became a common practise that you move when circumstances change then older people (who dont like change) wouldnt be in a position whereby they have to move because they'd already be in the correct size property - most people are in their 50's / 60's when their kids move out having reached adulthood so people should have to move then. Social housing, and peoples thinking about it, needs to change in order to meet the demands for it.