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 don't see why an elderly person is more deserving of the space than a family who would make full use of the rooms (and poss garden, depending on the property).

I agree with you OP. I can't understand why council tenants feel they should stay in a house for life. While it maybe their home, it is not their house - they rent it, they do not own it. It is social housing and it is needed by all ages. I also feel that a tenant should be made to keep a council property is good condition or they are moved on. If they cannot look after a property then it is obviously too much for them to cope with and they should be moved to a smaller/more manageable property.

The first thing to sort out is the supply of suitable 1 bed housing for older people.

Many people forced out by the 'bedroom tax' (and I do think there is merit in allocating social housing according to size need) are being shunted into private rentals where the benefit system ends up paying sky high rent to private landlords - and the poor tenant has no security.

The third age is not the time to be pushing people into top floor 1 beds, amongst noisy 20-somethings with no security of tenure.

An elderly person in unsuitable accommodation quickly becomes a person in very expensive hospital or home accommodation.

I also agree with you OP. Doesn't seem fair. Also ... I must have misunderstood the 'bedroom tax' - thought that applied to anyone in council properties ... are elderly people exempt? Or does it just refer to the rate of housing benefit?

It's normal for council houses to be given to new tenants in a less than perfect state. On the day we got our keys there were 13 skip loads of junk in the garden, a family of rats, no floor coverings, smears of faecal material up the walls in all rooms, drugs packaged up into deals, mouldy food in the kitchen, food up the walls in the kitchen as far as then ceiling and the front door had only been shoddily patched up after being kicked in by someone. The previous tenant was neither elderly nor infirm, our next door neighbour is in her 80s and her house and garden are immaculate.

I totally agree with OP - YANBU at all. I know it's nice to be able to stay somewhere you call home, but private renters and people who have to downsize to pay care bills are unable to stay in their homes. It shouldn't be just the very rich or very poor who can have security of staying in one place all their lives - nobody else has this luxury.

As a taxpayer I absolutely think elderly under-occupiers should be helped to move (so not expected to pack all their own stuff etc if they're incapable) to a property that meets their new needs, and stop hogging space and preventing families in genuine need from having adequate housing. It's selfish.

The elderly are exempt from the bedroom tax.

I'll say this slowly taxpayers do not pay for social housing unless there is housing benefit involved write it out a hundred times until it sticks.

As a taxpayer indeed!

But social housing is let at a rate far lower than the market rent would be. If councils were charging the market rent, they could lower council tax.

Council house tenants pay council tax too.

oh well shes elderly lets just chuck her out of her home .probably full of memories .we will just put her in a council run old folks home .where she will get ignored .crap food and feel isolated .just so the op friend can get a decent home .

Council houses have paid for themselves many times over. In fact the government were taking a hefty chunk of the surplus until a point.

And yes council tenants pay council tax as well. Council tax is nothing to do with council rents.

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?

Why do people have to leave their homes because some people have decided to have more than 2.4 children?

Oh, and I'd like to point out OP that, just because you're married, it doesn't mean that you always share a bedroom.

Many couples don't, for a myriad of reasons.

I agree with you OP. If you are a council tenant you should accept that you will be provided with a home that fits your needs at any given time. That means you will probably move a few times over your lifetime as your family grows and then shrinks again. I really don't think council tenants can argue that they should be allowed to stay in properties that are too large for them just because they've lived there for x number of years, because that's unfair on families waiting to be housed in larger properties. The council housing stock should be allocated to those in need of that size of property, not based on how long you've lived there.

As a taxpayer I absolutely think elderly under-occupiers should be helped to move (so not expected to pack all their own stuff etc if they're incapable) to a property that meets their new needs, and stop hogging space and preventing families in genuine need from having adequate housing. It's selfish.
So is your attitude. As a taxpayer I demand you get an education which involves some sort of moral philosophy. Not going to happen though, is it? Your taxes are completely irrelavant.

Oh, and many councils do have incentives for the elderly to move if they so wish.

Ooooh I have an idea.. All those people who have paid off their mortgage and the value of their house has increased in the meantime. Maybe they should have it all recalculated and start paying until they've paid off what it's worth now. Yanno in line with what has been set.

Because that's how stupid it sounds when people go on about social housing as a taxpayer when it's nowt to do with them.

We need to get over the idea that council housing is for life. There is no longer enough housing to go round for people to have the luxury of staying in houses that they no longer need or can maintain because we're 'turfing them out their home'. It's not theirs; it belongs to the council.

And right to buy should be banned too. That is at the core of the chronic shortage of council accommodation

There isn't a shortage all over the country.. The country extends further than the south. Hard as that might be to believe.

has this thread actually been going since november?

no i am not going to frtt btw

That's true gamerchick. Unfortunately there presumably aren't any jobs there if houses are standing empty.

or is it rtft

Oh arse! Even worse slarty - it's November 2011

The thing is, things are so different financially and socially now.

I don't think the answer is kicking old people out of their homes now. I think it has to be looked at as a long-term change. Maybe those that are going into council accommodation now should be on a five or ten year tenancy plan with a view to reassessment after that time? People that own their own homes or rent privately are not immune from losing their homes because of circumstances changing, I'm not sure why people in social housing are? I could be made redundant and then lose my house to repossession this year; a social tenant could go from single unemployed to married with a £50k a year job and still keep their housing.

Oh FFS zombie thread!

I agree with you OP council tenants shouldn't have the right to stay in a house that is larger than their requirements. Social housing is there for when people are in desperate need, it's not a forever home, and if their needs change i.e they start earning enough to afford private rent / mortgage or their children leave and they no longer need multiple bedrooms then they should be moved to another property or out of the system altogether to make way for others who are in need of help. I think the argument of people 'owning' their own properties and not being forced to leave when their children have moved out IS different because they have bought the right to stay there and also their house being sold wouldn't then help someone in a desperate / homeless situation. Social housing should be temporary and subject to change, not forever!