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?

Surely they should be responsible for lagging?

What gets on my wick is people describing council/Ha houses as subsidised by the state, can you explain how exactly these houses are subsidised by the state? I live in a ha,ex council house, most likely built in the 40's, it may have been built at the expense of the state, however somebody has been paying weekly rent on this property for the last 70 years.

I imagine this is a mortgage ++++, I pay weekly rent, this costs the state nothing, the money goes to the HA to do with as they see fit. Where exactly are we leaching money from the state?

Even if we get housing benefit it is greatly less than if we were renting a private property paying the mortgage of a greedy bastard.

I also love the phrase "We can't afford" as if you are a member of the ruling twonks, believe me you will be on the scrap heap with the rest of us useless eaters.

Well Gaelic I'm about to piss of a load of people by moving into a new built 3bed .H/A house . Do I care nope not a jot . I needed it kore than they did

They want up trade of with mr than I would be up for it

Oh and to point out here if you have to many bedrooms unless exceptinsl circumstances or adaptions been carried out . Even on Hb your not entitled to full Hb

Think one room extra is £13 a week 2 rooms is a cut of 25%which does not sound a lot but it is if your on is or pensions .

I think moving people on is not a good thing - people have lived their whole lives in their homes and often invested heavily in those homes - it might not be logical to us but incentivising people to move is one thing (and completely correct) - forcing them out is not right at all.

I also think the right to buy is a good idea. I know in theory it is wrong but only wrong because they stopped building council houses to replace the stock. I think it is a good idea because I am going to buy my council house - I will get about £15k off the price as well as a reduction for all the improvements I have done. I am doing this because one of my children may not be able to make her pown income in the future and I would like to give her a stable home here or let her have the rental income from this place. I couldn't give a fuck is it is immoral I am providing for my child who would otherwise have an uncertain future.

It is all very well people moralising about how others live their lives but honestly if you could rent a nice house (and mine is in the countryside, not on an estate, big garden etc) would you not all do it? If you could buy it and get yourself/your family on the housing ladder, would you not do it?

Huge discounts are now a thing of the past. My HA (used to be the council) cap the discount at 32k here no matter how long you have been in the system. IN my area houses are very expensive to 32k might sound a lot but actually getting a big enough mortgage is pretty tough for most families. My parents bought their council house in the 80's (as I am sure a lot of our parents did) and I will do the same. Sorty but I will put my social conscience aside when it comes to protecting my family in the future.

FWIW - in my area HA rent for a 3 bed houses is about £400 or so a month. Commerical rent is about double that. When I got this house I was incredibly hard up and nursing my terminally ill Mother at the time. Since then I have been even poorer and on my own when my marriage broke up but since then I have met someone else and things have turned up and we have a large income now. Should I be kicked out just because my life has turned around? Living in a cheap place has enabled us to save a deposit for instance. Surely I am not alone in taking advantage of this?

the people I see complain most about council houses are folk who don't one.

*have

exactly Creamola and I reckon most of those would bite off proverbial hand for one too.

pinky "I couldn't give a fuck" is the attitude which got social housing in the state it's in.

no echt you have to take pinkytheshrukenheads point of view of board.

She didn't invent the rules re sale of council houses .....Margaret Thatcher did ...she is only playing by the rules to do the best for her family. Wouldn't you do the same?

Personally , if was in charge , I would never have allowed the sale of council houses , but I obviously have a different viewpoint to the Uk government of today

There will be more for sale at 50%off in today's Times

I don't have a problem with the sale of council houses - it's a great way to introduce social diversity into an area and encourages people to take more pride in their home and area.

The problem is that new properties are not being built to replace those sold, creating a housing shortage problem and a situation where demand outstrips supply and forces prices up for everyone in the private sector.

Whose fault is that? Not the tenants for sure.

It was also the greatest way to redistribute wealth.

sunshineandbooks makes a good point about social diversity - that has been the case in my area. A council estate (which my Mummy would never let me go and play on when I was a kid) is now considered really quite posh and has a great secondary school too. That is in 30 years or so - I cannot think of any other way in which this transformation could have happened otherwise.

And actually I do disagree in theory with the sale of council house - it is bonkers if you don't replace them.

Yes I read the thing about the Tories making them available at even bigger discounts - they say that all the profits will be ploughed back in to social housing but we shall have to wait and see about that. I hopefully will get a bigger discount, I was offered 13.5k off about 6 years ago so it should be much better now.

I know I sound mercenary but surely in my position you would all do the same to provide your child with longterm stability. It just comes way above my social conscience.

Echt

I can see where pinky coming from I will never be in position to buy mine but I don't give a flying feck that I'm moving into a H/a house in a area where local people been waiting years fOr one .

My need outweighs there need so tough shit for them

This only works if there is suitable housing in thata rea.

Mum and dad are in a 3 bed, they would move to a smaller place on the estate (it would leave my sis unable to work her night shifts but I am sure MN would be supportive in understanding that ). The nearest place they have been offered is an out of town estate; no transport to where dad still works, and they don't drive plus Dad won't admit it or ask for help but his mobility is on the way out.

Yes in basis it's a move (and I say that as somone likely to need an emergency housing allocation at some point) but only if the appropriate housing is there.

I presume OP will recompense all the house improvements paid for by OAPs who were told they were there for life as welll? No home for life- no expectation of input; home for life- everyone in LA Housing I know on a personal level has amde huge investments into their abode they never would have otehrwise.

I do agre ehousing should fit needs but it needs to be something in contract from outset, and only with moves to local alternatives. Taking a pensioner and moving them away from their netwroks, people who could care for them (costing £££££££££££) unwillingly and with no warning is cruel.

Also worth remember ing is that when people my parent's age moved on teh estates they were very different: certainly in my home town you ahd 2 'posh' estates of owned homes and everyone else went into council- working people for whome a mortgage just seemed something someone else did. thatcher / ownership came later and apssed them by as theyw ere already raising a family.

And WRT to sales of housing- yes the issue is alck of replacement, abbsolutely.

And WRT to a dismissive tone some people us ((only a few) about tenants- when i go back to Mum's estate the scruffieest, decrepit houses are owned not by the LA but by BTL landlords.

'council housing stock could be increased by buying repossed properties'

Pay off debt / mortgage on houses due for reposession

Allow householder to rent that on a lifelong lease

Council gets ownership when tenant passes away or moves on.

Someone else on here's idea but valid.

HCA Your needs do, anyone who begrudges you that is an idiot.

There's a few and i was quite taken aback by it rspecially as they knew why and its people that are wanting housing themselves

but to be fair peachy most are ok I'm one of those that are classed as the deserving poor So I suspect most the neighbours on the private estate that have brought will be ok .

But I know H/A round here will infact do your idea or buy half the house especially when there is no alternative . Even the homeless hostel here has a waiting list

Defintley need more built

And yes as I know I have s home for life I. Will spend more on it knowing that I'm not going to be moved in 5 years so incentive is there for mr to look after and invest in it

Be intresting to see as in LA there is a move for new tenancies ( very few are now homed for life )to only have a 5 year lease to see if areas take a downward spiral

In my previous area they are now only giving 12 months . Where is the incentive to invest in that ?

No-one should be expected to leave a home they have lived in for 50 years unless it is their choice. BUT:

My grandparents, in their late 70s, sold their large country house with lots of land and moved to a bungalow. They did this because the house was too large for them to manage and they did not want to keep spending their savings on repairs, heating and maintenance.

My mother and dsf sold half their garden to a property developer because they could not manage the garden anymore. Ten years later they can no longer manage the house and don't want to spend more money than necessary. They are looking for a smaller property.

DH's mother, widowed four years ago, has decided to sell her large three bedroomed semi because the house and garden are too much for her and she is not prepared to keep paying for help to keep it decent.

Does anyone note the similarity here. All have or are downsizing because they do not wish to keep dipping into their own pockets to pay for something they no longer need.

Yes but their choice and buying means they can choose the area they want . Rather than being told you will live here !! . Even if it is not pratical in way if support:Drs /shop etc

Point well made and accepted humancatapult. I hope my first sentence made my views clear. I did say that no-one should be expected to leave a home they have lived in for 50 years unless they want to.

I think it's sensible - in theory. If you don't need the space but others do, then moving is the reasonable thing to do. Of course, you should have help to move - including the council paying for removers to pack up and unpack for you, of course, if you want that.

However, I have zero emotional attachment to houses and don't understand why people do. It makes no sense to me. It's just somewhere that you live. [baffled] If it's not costing you to pack up and move and someone is doing it for you, I don't understand why people hate/fear it. It's just - shelter.

To me.

But even though I don't understand why many people do get attached to a pile of bricks, I recognise that they do and that they are genuinely distressed at the thought of having to move. And for that reason, I think YABU. People who are currently in council/ha accom should never be forced to move. They can be encouraged by way of financial incentive and given every support if they agree to move, but they should not be made to move.

That wasn't the agreement when they moved in and to spring it on them after 40 years is totally unfair and really cruel.

That said, I think that it would be a good idea to change tenancy agreements now so that underoccupation was a reason for moving you, and make that clear to new tenants so that they know right from the start that they WILL move when their circumstances change and they are prepared for that. If you know the deal when you move in then it is not unreasonable to be required to move.

Has anyone mentioned the govt proposals to change HB rules in April 2013??

Apparently, when the proposed changes come into effect, tenants on HB will only be able to claim HB for the number of rooms they are deemed to need.
DC under 9 will be expected to share a room regardless of gender, and DC under 15 would be expected to share a room with a sibling of the same sex.

Alot of people on this thread have said they think it's completely wrong to expect an OAP to downsize if they have lived in their council home all their life, brought their DC up in that council home.
Wouldn't it be lovely if we all had the opportunity to settle in a council property for life?? No more moving ever.
OTOH there are thousands of families who do have to move regularly, due to being in private rents and tenancies being short term.

To allow anyone the opportunity to remain living in a council property for as long as they want, regardless of whether they need the extra space or not is an ideal that most of us would like to see, but it is just not possible atm, there are too few social housing properties and too many families who need them.

All the posters who say that OAP's who have lived in their council properties for their whole lives should be allowed to stay in them, will be relieved to hear that OAP's are exempt from the new proposals. They will not have their HB slashed when the new HB rules take effect in 2013, regardless of how large their council property.

The people who will be effected are working age claimants. This excludes pensioners from the changes and no one else. (Can't see a DC under 16 having a tenancy on their own.)

I've heard of systems where rent on social housing can depend on your income, weighted appropriately for family obligations. So if you've got a council house and your income improves or your need for that house goes down because you have fewer dependents you're not put out, but your rent increases, getting closer to market rates as you get richer. If you decide to stay put, the extra money goes to the housing division to be invested in more housing... it seems like a better compromise than putting people out.