Round here there are small bungalows in supported schemes sitting empty because OAP's (and I'm talking 65-75, not really elderly people) are refusing to downsize from their 3/4-bed properties.
Meanwhile I have a friend living in ONE ROOM in a bedsit with her, her DH, and their 3 DC's, as their house was repossessed when he was made redundant.
Why should the 65yo who flies abroad for a holiday each year (so not exactly frail) be allowed to sit in a 3/4 bed house when whole families are crammed into single rooms?
There's just no reasoning behind that other than selfishness.
They won't give up their house so someone else can enjoy raising their family in the larger house like they did.
If Social Housing is based on NEED, then the family of 5 has a greater NEED for the 3-bed property than the single 65yo!
Frailer OAP's could be allowed to stay in their property if a move would make them sicker or kill them by applying to the medical needs board that every LA has, and get special dispensation that way, as they will be able to prove their medical issues mean a move would be detrimental to their health. Simple.
Not unfair on anyone, nobody frail is made sicker by being downsized, yet the less frail, fitter OAP's are freeing up larger properties for young families that NEED them more.
Job done, satisfactorily for all. 