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?

Anyone looked on gumtree for council house exchanges? People on there offering their large 4/5 bed council house which they live in alone to families who are very overcrowded in exchange for cash sums. Nice.

Just about sums it up I'd say. There are greedy selfish folk in every sector of society unfortunately.

That is horrible gaelic sheep. My mum suffered though s she made the move gradually. She went from a 4 to a 3 with no compensation,. Than from a 3 to a 2. However. if we had held onto the 4 and moved straight to a 2 our expenses would have been covered by council. So unfair.

im torn,

yes and no,

yes to the fact that i know there are lots of disabled familys needing 3 bedroom bungalows(my family being one) that are normly under ocupied.

no i dont think its fair to force an elderly person out of there own home if they dont want to move, but i think if they do then they should be supported and given the help they need,

when im old and dont need 3 bedrooms if we ever get a 3 bed i will move and left family move in.

I completely agree with you OP. I do not agree with the argument that "this was their family home for 40 years, why should they be turfed out" - this is what the vast majority of people in the private sector have to do

I think it is immoral that families with young children are crammed into tiny flats and hostels when elderly people are often living in two rooms of a 4 bedroom house.

As more people have moved/will move to interest only mortgages, the trend for downsizing when your children leave will increase.

I wouldnt like to see a very old person forced to move but someone in their sixties who has the capability to adjusts should have to move or fund the extra cost themselves.

why does your friend have nore rights? ie she should be grateful for what she gets. why the fuck should my money pay for her house to be redecorated for her? hardly a crack den

i wouldnt move you out now, just pointing out that there are too many homes that arent filled, rental, council and homeowners.

What i would do would never work, it would need to start from scratch.

porcamiseria totaly agree, OP your "friend" is lucky to have a home if she wants carpet ect pay for it.

she needs a roof over her head not carpet under her feet!

I don't agree about being grateful, anyone renting a house should be able to expect, it in relatively good condition. They shouldn't move into and HAVE to start doing everything. The Walls should be painted, the bathroom and kitchen in good order and the garden under control.

Even if you wnat to leave carpets and there in fantastic condtion the council will rip them up same with Laminated floorboards

And pretty standard hrtr you take what your given and sometimes theres a grant think works aboput £20 a room to rdecorate

Those people offering to swap their council houses for cash backhanders should be evicted. Greedy, immoral chancers. As my mother said,if you're nasty at 20 you'll still be nasty at 80.

What about the demographic time bomb? People are living longer. Generations will have to share. There is no way that it will be affordable for people to live in family houses alone for 40+ years. As someone upthread pointed out, what about the costs of heating these houses? It is surely unreasonable for a person to claim fuel poverty if they want to heat a 4-bedroom property when they live alone?

On the council estate I grew up on - multi generational familes were VERY common. I lived on a cul de sac with 12 3-bed semis. My GPs and most of their neighbours all moved in in the early 1950s with young families. By the time I was a child (early 70s) in at least half of them, one of the children - now grown - lived their with their partner and family, whilst the GPs / or GP (as one had died) had one bedroom/or the dining room.

In not one case were the houses occupied by single elderly people. Several of the neighbours went off to sheltered accommodation at one point whereby new families with children moved in. It was seem as quite normal then, though I guess it brought it's own tensions and difficulties. Help with the dcs when they were small, assistance for the GPs as they got older.....Maybe there will be a return to this model?

They don't need it, it's that simple - the need is greater elsewhere.

There are lots of questions to be asked about housing - like why is council tax capped at a couple of grand a month - my crappy house £1400 a year - 6 bed detached worth millions £3,000 a year.

Yet again, a rich persons benefit.

'is anyone considering the extra burden on the taxpayer of providing personal care for elderly people who cannot cope in their home, set against the reduced cost if they were to move to a ground floor flat more suited to their needs? Also, what about the cost of heating these large houses for elderly people who can ill afford it?
'
Agreed but to be balanced with teh current reductions in HB and how it is deemed OK to force people to move away from loved ones who can provide care for free- there is no exception to lowered rents on that basis: I suspect that one will cost ££££££££££ in Government costs. Or rather it won;t, epople will just live and then die alone, neglected and in a state.

The asnwer is to look on estates / pockets of housing as environments in which there should be a range of provision from bedsits through to 4 beds and shelted hosuing, and then residential for after thjat / disabled adults.

'Generations will have to share. There is no way that it will be affordable for people to live in family houses alone for 40+ years.

That's a moot point as the Government is bringing in tenancies that allow people to be moved and regualrly reassesed as to housing entitlement thus ending home for life situation.

It is only people on exisitng tenancies that this applies to. And I am told that legally theya re secure and the Government can't do much about it. Except offer suitable options.

Yep, just looked up council tax banding - mine is £1450 a year, the most expensive it can be round here (south-east, lots of houses 1-3million) is £2900.

So my crappy Victorian town centre terrace worth £250k is charged half per year of a house in the next road to mine on at 2.8 million in council tax.

A massive tax on working families. And a huge benefit to the rich.

Yes thats not fair. But £250k is still an expensive house you know.

Laurie I suspect you would be singing a different tune if you happen to live in an expensive area having bought your house 30 years ago, when it wasn't... how would it be fair if people were pushed out because of relentless house inflation and not because you are "filthy rich"??

Its relative. Its your standard crappy Victorian 2 up 2 down workers cottage they have up and down the country. It's the same house that was 14k when I lived in middlesborough.

What's important is the banding - so my little house is band c, the top band (g) is only twice the cost. So someone in for example the big Downton Abbey type house is only paying double the council tax.

I think the answer is to make it properly relative so that it went up proportionally. This would then bring down the cost of housing gradually. And it would get rid of bloody second homes.

And no my tune wouldn't be different if I was rich.

The person in the million pound house fairly obviously should be paying proportionally more tax than me. If we want a more equal society.

Proportionally the rich pay MUCH less tax than the poor.

Having an expensive house doesn't always mean the person is rich. One can just look more carefully at the areas that came en vogue over the past 20 years. If you would like to drive out the folk that happen to strike luck by buying a house that went up in price you will be creating all sorts of socio-economic distortions into the "gentrified" area. Very blunt approach typical of someone who does not think of the consequences.

"And it would get rid of bloody second homes."
How? By banning second home ownership? Maybe you should move to North Korea or Cuba instead?

It does mean the person is property rich - it means they have benefited from the ridiculous and unsustainable house price rises.

My dh's grandparents raised 4 children in Surrey on one public sector clerical wage and sold their bog standard 3 bed semi for 750k.

There is no way that is fair or equitable. Massive amounts of money in very ordinary families.

Put council tax up - property prices will gradually come down. It's not rocket science.

And putting council tax up will price out second home owners - which cripples areas like Devon and Cornwall - instead of people getting a bloody discount!

Laurie, 1. Most of the tax that the goverment is missing out on is in legal loop holes you can bet the majority of footballers etc have brilliant tax advice.

1. basing tax on house value is ridiculous and unfair.

we bought our house (a fixer uper) 10 years ago, it is our pension fund. We were able to negotiate a good mortgage at the time because:

1. we have paid double mortgage on our first house (didnt trust pension schemes, used the money against the mortgage instead) and therefore had a good deposit.
2. Drove 10 year old cars, did not renew furniture etc so had no hp.
3. Hardly bought any new clothes.
4. Didnt eat out
5. Worked 70-80 hours weeks for 4 years - more hours more pay. At one point I had 3 jobs.
6. Took 1 x 2 week holiday each year (in the days when you could get a cheap holiday last minute, literally the only thing you knew was the country you were going to..)
7. Got married in that time - i made my dress, we did our own flowers, used our own car etc

We bought the worst house in a good area. Now the value of the houses around us have virtually doubled. However, whatever value we have in our house is tied up in the house. Our house did not come from extortionate incomes it came from MONEY WE DID NOT SPEND. Furthermore the value we have in our home will hopefully enable us to be a burden on the state when we retire. Given all of this do you really think we and others who have made similar sacrifices should pay more tax based on the value of our house?

Property rich does not mean disposable income.

not be be a burden on the state.