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 didn't get your post Andrew, sorry... thrift and providence? I don't believe in passing wealth from generation to generation, I believe in building a life for yourself not on the back of mummy (daddy, etc).

Appreciate many people can't afford to purchase now but if young people work hard, make the right choices, compromise, and use government incentives it is still possible. I have young colleague, aged 27, buying a new two bedroomed flat with a sibling, using a shared ownership and government scheme. She earns less than 30,000 but in spite of coming from a large family, working from 18-21 before university, then securing a good job and taking some professional qualifications it has been possible. This is in the London region.

I agree with much of what Old English Spaniel says. We are relative oldies now but at 50(ish) we own our house outright, have worked exceptionally hard, married wisely and worked hard at making it work and have never been extravagant. We pay the top rate of community charge as well as income tax and VAT. I have paid inheritance tax (high), if we move we will pay large amounts of stamp duty. We have never been entitled to tax credits of any other form of benefit except child. Our children are privately educated with no tax benefit for not using state provision, we have private health insurance again with no tax benefit for not using state provision.

Appreciate I may be flamed but we have paid a very large amount of tax in our lifetimes and have not benefitted from that payment in any way and are very unlikely ever to do so. For as long as we are able to afford to stay in our current home because we own it outright we should be able to stay here. We won't though - we are already planning to downsize when the DC go to university for the simple fact that we are not prepared to spend our own money on the upkeep of a property that is too large for us. For the same reason our relatives downsized too - because they had to pay for the properties they owned out of their own pockets. It is very much easier to spend someone else's money than one's own when it is not necessary.

Oh, and bemybebe - one of the reasons we have worked so hard has been for our dc and for their futures. Had we not worked that hard there would have been far less tax payable into the system. I'm not sure how that would have benefitted the society overall.

Married Children need good start in life - solid loving family and an opportunity to achieve their potential when they are young. Not getting dosh when they are around 50.

It is my belief and mine only. You are allowed to disagree and do not need to feel defensive. I happen to know a lot of fantastically wealthy people who work for other reasons than accumulate wealth and who will not be giving large inheritances to their dcs, but whos children got encouragement and great education.

Horses for courses and all that.

Use the law wisely bemybebe and they can have it years before they are 50 . It's all legal, it's all been taxed already for the benefit of others and if it hadn't been for the DC we wouldn't have worked as hard so others wouldn't have benefitted as much.

CBA to read whole thread however...any HA or Council house will have fittings removed as they would then be responsible for replacing them after tenant moves in and they get ruined/broken/old.
We live in a Close, we were council tenants after being made homeless in Private rented after DH lost a major contract, then the council sold out to HA. In our road, there are 3 old people all living in 3 bed houses..ON THERE OWN ! Whilst I understand as dh says, they have memories there etc, there must be at least 2 bedrooms and a dining room, they just aren;t using. It is sad as 3 families would so love to have those homes. BUT who are we to decide to MAKE older people move?

This is really about the problem of unexpected consequences.

When the welfare state was introduced life expectancy was 60-65 years. Free healthcare etc has contributed to us all living longer.

So we have the elderly living into their 90s and thus a block in the system where houses are not becoming available as they did.

That's a 30 year age discrepancy so tenants are occupying for 30 years !! longer than they did when council housing first came about.

However, a future consequence of families relocating for jobs, as is the norm now, means that the story of poor old Granny having lived in her home for 50 years and not wanting to move won't apply. So it should be easier to get the future elderly to move ---- and with the cost of heating they will probably be v glad to.

bemybebe The wish to pass something on to the next generation - something material, as well as love and non-financial support and all the other intangibles which decent people give their children, and their grandchildren, and sometimes their siblings' children especially if they have none of their own - is one of the drivers for thrift and providence, and always has been, and always will be.

If anything, tax should be taken on what you earn and what you spend - which it is, see income tax, VAT, and all the stealth taxes - and what you manage to leave behind you should not be taxed again.

Must admit ok I'm going from private to H/A for a lot of reasons and my H/A place is good bit smaller and a part of me sighing with relief about cheaper to heat /run

But I fo think people's personal situations influence how you think

If you need bigger you Wang people to move if you want a place full stop your want someone anyone to move .If it is your parents/grandparents then your not going to want them to move

But when you own you can choose when and where to downsize to . think that is the key difference

If people in H/A had a choice of where to downsize to then more would downsize so maybe when places ate built they need to build a mix of properties so people can stay in their community

If you need bigger you Wang people to move

Is this the best failure of predictive texting of the month? :)

That and a 2am wake up

Andrew "something material" can be easily accommodated in the 1/10 of the current tax free allowance. What I am arguing against is passing wealth and capital across the generations.
We can agree to disagree, that is allowed here you know.

I have been reading this thread over the last couple of days and want to add my piece before it disappears.

The irony is that I was reading the thread and at the same time, my MIL was listening to the news headlines in the other room. Just as I was reading, a headline suddenly boomed out: "...children in the UK living in such extreme poverty that it breaches their human rights."

The housing situation in the country is desperate for so many people - yet there are some people on this thread arguing that even people in their forties and early fifties with grown-up children should be able to stay in their council hourses until they die? Just because they 'want to'. Why on earth should that be the case?

Firstly, end the right to buy. The party's over.

Secondly, all tenants in their fifties should be contacted by councils and given appropriate warning that they will be given support to downsize when their children have reached age 25.

No, those in their 80s now shouldn't be expected to move. But those who are fit and well in their early 70s could be contacted with incentive packages and appropriate support. Help with identifying suitable alternative accommodation, help with packing and moving.

I know lots of elderly people who have made moves/transitions:

My grandparents moved into a retirement bungalow, in their late 70s.

A lady who was a partner and carer to my neighbour moved cities last year to be with her children, in her 80s.

My parents moved from a home counties house to a bungalow in the other end of the country in their early 60s.

Moving to a retirement home is very common in the privately owned sector, why is it seen as so awful to those in the council sector?

Isn't part of the problem that if you have made very few moves/transitions, because of having a life-tenancy, then it actually becomes even harder to move? Maybe the long leases actually make people more fearful and resistent to moving.

Unfortunately, the sector just doesn't have the capacity to give the same home for life to everyone.

Moreover, the situation is not so clear-cut for those in the privately owned sector either. More people are beginning to embrace multi-generational living. That may be the future for DH and I - not what I anticipated when I looked ahead to my married life, but the cost of homes, costs of childcare, costs of care for the elderly.... It all adds up and the social care landscape looks very different to how it looked for my parents' generation.

On a similar vein Branchingout, my local news this evening was reporting on how the elderly who are cared for in their own home are also having their human right's breached.

It all comes down to money and blaming the elderly poor for the plight of the young poor doesn't address the problems, it just puts the blame somewhere that it doesn't belong.

I don't think it is a matter of blame, more the case that our gps. or people in their 70s/80s were PROMISED something. I posted already that my GPs who own their own house, expect to fall back on the council now that they can't manage. It's a sense of entitlement, but they are the generation that was promised cradle to grave care.

'So we have the elderly living into their 90s and thus a block in the system where houses are not becoming available as they did.
That's a 30 year age discrepancy so tenants are occupying for 30 years !! longer than they did when council housing first came about'

Not really. It's more about the fact that lots of social housing was flogged off and very little built to take it's place, plus almost none built to suit bigger families.

OP, you are being unreasonable. Your friend should be grateful, others are not in the same fortunate position of being able to be housed given the extreme shortage. I would do my utmost to lobby against any legislation that would move to force elderly people to leave their homes. I don't believe that people with families have any more right to inhabit those homes than anybody else.

What is it with MN this week and the gross entitlement of some people? Utterly selfish and self-absorbed.

No, I'm sorry, but why should my elderly parents be turfed out of their home of 30+ years just because politicians in their big mansions took the decision to sell off 95% of the rest of the houses in their street?

Selling off housing stock was a horrible mistake. But it can't be undone or recovered in any way - unless you could make those who bought a house and sold it on pay capital gains tax?

So what are people's views on my point of approaching people who are in their fifties and 60s now, warning them that they will need to move once their children reach 25?

What is so wrong with that? If it is done sensitiviely, with appropriate support and with planning in place to enable some stock of 2-beds suitable for the elderly, then the situation would steadily improve over the next decade. I say 2-beds, to allow for adult children visiting or live-in carers.

Or does everyone just wish to focus on the emotive cases of their own 80 year old granny? Who of course, I agree, should not be moved.

It's all very well to say that the big sell-off in the early eighties was a horrible mistake. But it was part of the platform on which you-know-who was elected and it helped get her party more votes than any other party before or since in 1983; General Galtieri did his bit for them too. They did especially well in areas where there had been a lot of sales.

The Opposition were going to stop sales and make buyers offer give the councils first refusal at the price they had paid!

Which is what democracy is about - people choosing what they want and voting for the people who will do it and will stand by it when it has been done.

I found the answer to the selling off of housing stock on another thread. The foreign office has £2billion worth of property abroad, used for putting up government officials and entertaining foreign dignitories. Sell that off and use the proceeds to invest property in this country for housing.

Oh the embassies and consulates you mean? Is it really a good idea to get rid of them?

it cuts both ways my elderly parents have a 3 bed up and down stairsend terrace and to be honest if they were offered a small 1 bed house on the flat they would be really happy but it aint gonna happen

Some of them, yes. The one here doesn't provide any services to British people, we have to go to Germany for that. A lot of the others can be sold and cheaper premises used. But that wouldn't account for the majority of that £2billion. According to the National Assets Register the foreign office owns 2318 properties in 126 countries. There are 44 office buildings, compounds and residences in Thailand alone. Keep the embassy if you want and sell off the other 43. 70 in Ethiopia, 62 in Russia, 67 in Nigeria ... etc.

Then there's the MoD sitting on £15billion in land and property.

And let's not forget the Local Authorities who between own brown field sites worth over £13billion which is enough space to build 87,000 houses.