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?

I think the govt are a huge bunch of wankers for doing this to anyone. It is not solely for new tenants. It will affect tenants even if they have lived in their homes for decades

Or perhaps [http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx this link]] makes it clearer who this reform will affect, including foster carers, families with disabled children, disabled people including those in adapted or specially designed properties.

sorry, this link

When I said (pages ago) we can't afford it, I didn't just mean financially. I meant that the need for council homes outweighs the provision - the need of those waiting for homes outweighs the preference of people to stay in a home larger than they require. In the past few decades no council has built/bought enough properties to keep up with rising populations. At the same time Right to Buy has removed stock. And this isn't the 1960s. Divorce and separation mean that even the same number of people are likely to need more properties to live in. Add onto that the fact that in many areas of the South and most of London private rental costs are so high that couples with average salary full time jobs struggle to afford them - and these are the areas that have seen the greatest rise in population.

The situation isn't going to get any better. Far from the Daily Mail view of council houses being handed out to teenagers at their first scan appointment, the reality is that people are waiting on lists for years, and many, many more are told that there's no point even going on the list because they earn too much etc. and will never get enough points. The system needs to change to survive.

I believe that there should be huge investment in public housing, along with altered tennancies, so that people actually get the housing they need when they need it. And that everyone should have the option of council housing. I think that the requirement for new developments to contain % of social housing are a cop out that sound good whilst making practically no difference.

If you really want social diversity, instead of selling off homes why not house more people? Nurses and teachers salaries don't go far in London. Why not aim to offer housing to all those on a household income of 40k or less, with rent staggered by income? Affordable housing with long term tennancies. Use tax regulations to push private landlords out of that section of the market.

That isn't going to happen though. The current government have the economic excuses they need to make the cuts they are ideologically inclined to. They have handed over control of an NHS hospital to a private company. What do you think they will do with council housing? They will chip away at the current system, encouraging those who can to buy and bringing in private companies to take over from housing assocations. The rents will be raised, the length of tennancies will be cut and what's left won't be fit for purpose.

Just in case anyone missed it, a listed company is now running an NHS hospital. Really.

So...old people living in enormous houses which they own are fine to stay there but old people in council accommodation should be kicked out of their homes to make way for young families.Errr no I dont think so.I do think that the elderly should be offered the choice but should not be forced.My paernts had a 2 bed council house for 40 years then were offered a 2 bed bungalow which they accepted.
Dh and I chose to move to a 3 bed bungalow which we own-having extra bedrooms for visitors isnt a luxury for many old folk it is essential as they see little enough of their families.
Try some compassion and be aware that most elderly people would jump at the chance of an easily maintained ground floor home..as long as it had room for their needs,didnt exclude pets,was in easy reach of amenities etc.

So...old people living in enormous houses which they own are fine to stay there but old people in council accommodation should be kicked out of their homes to make way for young families.Errr no I dont think so.

Why not pranma? When you buy a house that is one of the rights you buy with it - that you decide when it is time to downsize and no other bugger, not your family, not the state in any shape or form.

If you rent privately again it's not the business of the state to take that decision for you.

When your home is provided for you by the state, you don't have the same right.

OP YANBU, I can see a strong case for short term as opposed to lifetime leases, 5 or 10 years and then the need for the property is reassessed, like another poster said earlier every case on its own merits.

I think they should be heavily incentivised rather than forced to downsize. There are too many overcrowded families who should be able to swap with single people/couples.

Social housing is a limited resource and allocation should be based on need. I also think that people who earn over a certain amount should be made to pay standard market rental rates for the area.

what is the difference between "heavily incentivised" and "forced"?

what about heavily disincentivised from staying in their too-large property - is that the same as being forced? Even if they have capped the Housing Benefit so an old person is no longer getting all their rent covered by HB, and has to pay a top-up, they are NOT being forced to leave - they have the choice of trying to find the extra money to top-up their HB in order to stay there, or downsizing.

No different to the situation anyone else in Social housing will face - they HAVE a choice, admittedly between two fairly shitty options, but it's a choice nonetheless!

There is always a choice there -

Option A) Stay in house but only get the HB paid for a 1-bed property, and have to find the rest of the rent out of your own income. Even if it means you can't eat or heat your house.

Option B) Downsize to a smaller property that ALL your rent will be covered by HB. Even if it means leaving the area you are used to and your support network is in.

Still a CHOICE, albeit between two shitty options. NOT forcing, leaving them to make their own decisions between two crap choices. Same as the rest of us will face.

The choice should be to move into a smaller property in the same area, designed for an elderly person.

No elderly person who has been in a house and who has had a reasonable expectation to be there for the duration of their lives should be expected to move. The situation does though need to change because the state should be there to provide for needs not for wants.

The OP's being unreasonable but clearly won't see that until it's her Grandma or Grandpa who's wrenched from all they know and love by some idiot borough council.

fortyplus - Your comment here : 'This will have the effect of discouraging better-off families from the social rented sector whilst having no effect on those on housing benefit whose rent will be covered anyway provided that the property isn't too large for their needs.'

Total CRAP. My Council has already changed Housing Benefit, and capped the amount you can claim. A 4-bed HA house in my area rents for around £800 pcm already, a 4-bed Private house rents for £1200 pcm. The maximum amount of Housing Benefit that my Council will pay for a 4-bed, if you are entitled to FULL housing benefit, is £865 pcm. So if they raise Social rents to 80% of Private rents - Housing benefit will not cover the full rent on a 4-bed (or any other size house, as the caps are different in my Council depending on the size of house you are 'entitled' to) EVEN if you are in receipt of ESA or IS/JSA.

Shared room Maximum rate Nov 11 - £63.50 Weekly, £275.16 Monthly
One Bed maximum rate Nov 11 - £99.23 Weekly, £429.99 Monthly
Two Bed maximum rate Nov 11 - £126.92 Weekly, £549.99 Monthly
Three Bed maximum rate Nov 11 - £160.38 Weekly, £694.98 Monthly
Four Bed or larger maximum rate Nov 11 - £206.54 Weekly, £895.00 Monthly

Which means that MOST properties are NOT fully covered by HB. Get your facts right, please, before claiming that families will get all their rent paid - we don't, even if the house IS the size we need, if they raised Social rents to 80% of Private rents - people on JSA/IS and ESA will be evicted for non-payment of rent in their THOUSANDS.

But if they are in a Borough Council like mine - all the suitable housing is in ONE area of the town - which is two buses away from this end of town - so there is just NO WAY that someone could downsize and stay in the same area here, when there isn't one bungalow on my entire estate.

I agree those in large houses not just old should be made to move. If people are allowed one bedroom and a spare (and lets be honest there are lots of 2 beds that were built and left empty as most needed one or 3 bedrooms) it would be a good comnprimise. Down sized house with a room for family to stay should they need to.

It isnt fair that those who own their homes can live in 7 beds if they want, but there are laws there to protect them, there were also for the poorest but those were erroded so why not home ownders too?

But then i dont think individuals should be allowed to own homes at all. all state owned and rented out at decent rents (am very aware no one else agrees).

Also the NHS, well now the tories want to stop frs from being the ones who write off the sick and instead are letting a private compnay do that, one hired by the tories. hmm vested interest? not much.

I do agree that for all new tenancies there should now be a "lease period", maybe 10 years with a review at the end of that time. I agree it is wrong that the elderly should be "forced" from their (large) homes if they don't want to move, but that they should be offered a more suitable alternative if it exists with some kind of premium if they do move.

I have posted often on MN about my experience of renting in the Belgian system - which is MUCH more secure. The standard lease is 9 years. You can give notice after 3 without penalty. The lease is registered centrally and a deposit is held in YOUR bank - and can earn interest. Responsibilities for upkeep are clearly defined. An entry and exit survey is done with a 3rd party. Rents are linked to indexation - so can only increase in line with inflation.

The landlord can only give you notice if THEY or someone in their immediate family wishes to live in the property (if you keep to the terms of the lease of course) If they sell up, the property comes with you in it. You can decorate - but if you want to paint a room bright red or something, you would be expected to return it to more neutral colours when you leave. Decorating costs amortise over the 9 years. All this would of course discourage btl lls trying to make a quick buck but would encourage decent lls who want good long term tenants.

OK knittedbreast is the State going to buy houses at a fair valuation as they come on the market or are you just going to confiscate them?

If you want empty-nesters to downsize here is a practical suggestion. A Treasury bond in which they can invest some or all of the proceeds: to change in value in accordance with house prices (perhaps in the area rather than nationally) but not to be cashed until death - at which point it will count for inheritance tax but not for any other tax. And it will not during life or on death be counted for considering the owner's eligibility for help with nursing home fees if that becomes necessary.

So the seller's estate gets the benefit of house-price inflation - as it does now - but the seller protects the inheritance.

And a property is freed up for a family.

YABU on a quite spectacular scale and I speak as someone who is overcrowded and told I would wait for 10 years for a larger property. I could write pages but I'm really so disgusted that I can't be bothered.

OK, I don't know very much about council housing, but I'm presuming the rent on a 4 bed house is higher than a one bed flat?

If so, then surely a pensioner is making a conscious choice to have less disposable income by staying in the larger house where they raised their family, and know their neighbours, than move to a one bed flat on the other side of town.

I think this speaks volumes.

knitted breast. How precisely would you remove us from our 6 bedroomed home when it is bought and paid for in full and legally ours. We already pay vast amount of tax every year to contribute towards those who are more needy. The system you describe lasted for a while in the USSR - not for many generations though because so many people disliked it.

Indeed marriedinwhite and in the USSR the nomenklatura were better housed than the "proletariat" - the really important had dachas which were effectively theirs whether they technically owned them or not.

maybe we should be asking why the government isn't giving incentives to build social housing

should be ask why property developers are buying land cheap and sitting on it?

there ae lots of questions we could ask

but lets not

lets get straight to the fucking base level of shitdom and start eating our own arses

why not just set up a pit and get poor people to fight like cockerals amongst themselves

becuase they are clearly too fucking short sighted to see the bigger picture

i think we should get poor people to stop breeding so much and let old people have their social housing mansions and live in the life of luxury to which they are accustomed.

I DO think that the retired generation now has seen, well if not luxury, but security not available to any before and certainly not to any now. My gps are in their mid 80s. They were children during the war, though my gd did his national service afterwards. They were allocated a lovely council house when their family was young and bought it later under the right to buy thing. They then sold it at HUGE profit and bought another house outright. They have savings and a reasonable pension after working at low level jobs.

Now they have health and mobility issues and have actually gone back to the council asking for a flat (whilst they try to sell their 2 bed house)! They seem to think they can dictate in which area they might live. I have tried to point out that their need is not as great as some, but they assure me the application is going through Well their need IS great for appropriate housing - but to me they should have moved before.....and there is NO justification that the council should supply it.

This is the generation that was promised it all and they expect to get what they were promised. Cradle to grave and all that.....