to think it cant carry on young families living in cramped flats while protected pensioners rattle around in 5 bed houses

[generationrentsucks]

I just think with the Tories in now, nothing will change with housing, they will keep prices high by carrying on with these help to buy that just allow sub prime loans.

Also I think hardly anyone actually ever downsizes, everyone says they do but not many can actually bring themselves to do it.

Nothing to do with pensioners downsizing - that's their choice. The issue is not enough affordable houses being built, the house builders charging too much for new houses, all resulting in low supply high demand and daftly high prices.

The government should focus on house building.

Nothing to do with pensioners downsizing - that's their choice.

when the state is supporting them, I think it's fair to withdraw some support to encourage downsizing (i.e. bedroom tax).

only read in a few pages so far but:

OP sub prime loans? really do you have any idea how hard it is to get a mortgage these days?

old people worked their arses off and so should younger people
My Grandparents live in a 5 bedroom house, (rooms with beds) in total there are 12 rooms in the house, they did work hard, they got a nice house - and bully for them.

but lets examine just how hard they worked?
My Grandad was a farm worker, - before he became a gate maker at a local timber yard. - what I mean is he worked unskilled jobs his whole life, the kind of jobs that get you minimum wage, or minimum wage plus a couple of quid.
My grand mother never worked. instead wanting to be a stay at home mum to a large family, - she had ten kids in all, (and would have had more) (it's a wonder my Grandad ever got the energy to work!)
they bought their house in 1961, I don't know how much for, but they had a life time fixed rate mortgage, (and thus avoided loosing that house in many recessions and times of high interest rates.).

The price of their fixed interest repayment mortgage was very low, (roughly the same as what my father is paying for his 2up 2down with kitchen and bathroom tacked on the back (6 rooms total)) except in the case of my father he doesn't have a repayment mortgage he has an interest only mortgage. my parents were not so lucky to have had a fixed rate like my grandparents, so more than once they "lost" their house. - i,e is was repossessed. that is despite two of them working, and working longer hours, and having a smaller family.

Move a generation further down, and I, my wife, her father his mother in law, his step daughter are currently living in a three bedroom house (where a room down stairs is converted for his disabled MIL), plus my wife will give birth soon, so that will be one more there.

I earn a lot but have high debts and thus high repayments (mostly due t sending a child to nursery.) My wife earns slightly less but also has high debts. if we were to "put off having children until it was financially right" (as some in this thread have suggested) we'd never have any.

What you will find is that as you examine almost anyone situation what should happen as society progresses (standards of living improve) actually goes backwards.

My grand parents left school with little education (left at 16) yet could afford a huge house on a single 'unskilled' wage from a 9-5 job and to support a large family.

My parents were a mix of some and little education (1 left at 16 and another at 18), worked in both skilled and unskilled jobs, but struggled their whole lives to support a much smaller family in a much smaller house. from the wages of a professional 9-5 job and an unskilled (self employed) work practically all the hours you can job (mostly lets say 9-5 weekdays and some weekends too)

My wife and I are reasonably well educated (she left education at 18 I left at 21) both have skilled jobs I also work on call shifts and take a much over time as I can. we cannot afford a house (and cannot afford to rent privately as well as save for a house) and are simply told no! by mortgage providers at the very idea that we might pay a mortgage. (it's not just that I can't get a low fixed rate for lifetime, (great deal) or that I can't get a low payment size on a repayment only, I can't get anything at all.
(in one case family members helped us raise a deposit for a shared ownership, where the rent and mortgage payments were lower than rental payments in the area, and the bank told us that they would not lend because we could afford it (clearly we should go back to paying more and struggling more?)

The long and the short of it is, I don't begrudge my grandparents what they have, and I don't want to see them out on the streets or forced from the house that they've owned for 54 years.

but lets have a sensible conversation about what sorts of things can be done. telling me that you've worked hard for what you've got and you're staying there will (understandably) fall on deaf ears, as the bar to enter the housing market have been raised significantly since anyone saying that entered. (i.e harder to get loans, more skilled jobs needed, larger deposits needed, not as good mortgage deals, higher house prices,
lower house qualities, smaller houses - that cost more etc.)

The Mantra that if you work hard you do well just isn't true.
If you work hard you can have a few shiny trinkets now, but nothing of any real worth or value and nothing to give you any security. and lets face it most people work hard, either working over their hours, or doing that and being available and responding to emails at all times of day and night, over weekends etc.

Kicking old people out of their houses won't solve that though.

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this point has been made already.

Yes, we do need more affordable family homes to be build to ease the housing crisis.

However I believe we also need to build homes that are suitable for downsizing pensioners, to encourage them to pass on their big family homes to they younger generation. Couples who have worked hard/saved and own a big fancy place don't want to move to a small cramped one bed flat which is understandable (even to the embittered rental generation). We are living longer, so couples are enjoying more and more time together after the child-rearing part of life is done with. If they can afford it then of course people want to do this somewhere nice. The problem is small houses/flats tend to be cheaper and in less lovely locations. Eg where I live (new build estate) you can get a two bed house, small garden, less nice part of the estate, for £200k. Or you can get a four bed, medium sized garden, nicer view etc, for £300k. Or a five bed 'beast' of a house, big garden, great view, for £400k. But the flats (none more than £150k) are almost all in what is considered by many the 'least desirable' bit, have no garden, no view etc. if a builder came along with a genuine understanding of the needs of downsizing baby boomers I think they could do very well. Eg a 'grand style' in a smaller scale; nice view/garden if possible; spare room for visiting kids and grandkids.

In short, you can't just say 'they need to get out of these lovely family homes' without something nicer/more suited to their needs, to tempt them out with!

I think all the "people should work and save and buy their own place instead of turfing out pensioners" posters are missing the point. Family houses are simply unaffordable at the moment - however hard you work. And it's hard to save when you're spending so much in rent.

The current market isn't achieving an efficient allocation of the available housing stock - families are in small flats and single pensioners are in large houses. I think it's sensible to ask whether there are fair ways of redistributing the current housing stock according to people's needs.

Building more housing is part of the answer, but all the housing charities say that under occupation is also a massive contributing factor to the current housing crisis.

Not all houses are unaffordable to everyone. Otherwise the housing market would come to a halt.

If you own something well that is yours to do with what you will.

However my DB brought a 1 bed ex council flat in Central London (and it really IS right in the centre). He is surrounded by older people who are living at the tax payers expense in 3 bed flats. One is trying to see whether she can transfer to her non working son who is of course 'looking for a job'. This lady has never worked, however she is over 60 so has avoided the bedroom tax and and as she told my brother - this is MY home, why should I leave? I know the area, etc etc.

Actually it ISNT her home. It belongs to the council and she is seving no purpose living in it when others are in cramped conditions

This is why social housing shoukd NEVER have been sold off. Poorer people will always need somewhere to live too. I accept that nobody needs to live right in Central London, however, London still needs its minimum wage workers too and there HAS to provision for affordable housing there too. No use making minimum wage workers live further out as it makes the cost of travel into London unaffordable.

There needs to be incentives for people to move away from big properties to smaller ones when they no longer require them. They do need some help as they will inevitably have to replace carpets, pay removal companies etc.

In terms of bedroom tax and council tenants, there are some interesting realities. My old neighbour had a three bed council house she got by exchanging from another village, 20 years ago. She had one son. This was her home and she loved it. He grew up, left home and she couldn't pay the bedroom tax which I'm guessing would be around £22 per week for two empty bedrooms. Not that they were empty as her son and grandkids visited, and she had hobbies.

Now this woman worked for a living and worked hard for years - she was self-employed. But when the recession hit, her work dried up. Hence her having to claim benefits. For many years she had been a working single mother and worked damn hard. That house was her home.

Needless to say she lost it, because of the bedroom tax.

Now what did our council do? Only two 3 bed houses came up in this village in the prior 12 years. Before bedroom tax. One - I got. I have 5 kids, two of whom are disabled. The other, another family got - who had 5 kids, one disabled. I moved into this house with 5 kids aged 11 and under, as did the other lady, just about. Are we being compensated to the tune of say £22 a week backdated for all these years for having to live in overcrowded conditions?

And what did the council do, now bedroom tax is in place and had forced a person out of their much loved home? Put in another family of 7? No. The moved in a family of 4 - a couple with two kids under 3 - who would be fine in a two bed tower block. These new tenants were not homeless, in fact they told me they were living in a nice detached private rental in a neighbouring city - not even this council area. They did not even need to be housed here - no family here - no jobs. My old neighbour, once things picked up, may well have restarted her business, paid taxes, contributed to the community. These people are paying bedroom tax (they told me, I am not guessing) from the day they moved in. Rich mummy and daddy paying it for them I suspect. They're unemployed - those people Cameron tells us don't exist any more.

So has the bedroom tax freed up houses for families who need them? Not here.

It must be a myth that bedroom tax is clearing empty houses for those in need, as these houses used to only go to people in need prior to bedroom tax. Now they are being handed to people who don't need them and are also paying bedroom tax from the hour they move in.

And no I'm not going on supposition - the tenant herself told me they had a nice private rental her husband didn't even want to leave, but she persuaded him to take this council house, and I quote "Because I liked the French windows!"

...and like it or not Hillingdon it IS her HOME. It's not just bricks and mortar for her. As for her non working son, he may indeed be looking for a job, how do you know otherwise? You don't know him, only what your brother has to,d you. Nice that you have judged him so decisively on second hand information,

Then again "second hand" info seems enough for people to make narrow minded judgements these days. Perhaps this is why my exSIL judges ME as a scrounger (I believe her description of me was "benefits queen") despite the fact that I worked for the previous 30 years and have a disabled child.

however, London still needs its minimum wage workers too and there HAS to provision for affordable housing there too. No use making minimum wage workers live further out as it makes the cost of travel into London unaffordable.

there are other ways of doing this other than massively subsidizing rent (HB is a huge component of benefits). travel could be subsidized, OR, you could make MW in the capital higher.

As for her non working son, he may indeed be looking for a job, how do you know otherwise? You don't know him, only what your brother has to,d you. Nice that you have judged him so decisively on second hand information

whatever the story, why should she be able to pass it to her son? Her rent has been massively subsidized, so her son's should as well? What's the justification for that?

Why should someone sell their large family home so a stranger can live in it, most pass on to their own children so they can have a family home. It's always been this way. Sure some may want to downsize, but why should they if they have lived somewhere all their life and love it there?

I agree that the lady Hillingdon spoke of shouldn't just be able to pass the flat to her son .
However, I do get a tad fed up with people assuming on second hand information that someone unemployed isn't looking for work and doing that sarcastic "says he's looking for work" stuff. It's horrible when people make that assumption without any real idea of the circumstances.

What it DOES show me is that the media and the Tory press have done a very successful job of demonising anyone on benefits. It's been so successful that even those who are intelligent believe what they hear and read without question. That is appalling and sad.

I do t think this is about people who own their homes AuntieDee, more about those in social housing allocated to them when they had families but who are now rattling around in three/four bed homes while families are crammed into one bed flats....and I have seen this. As a user of social housing I would be in favour of five year assessments and support/help to move if needs have changed. This would be better all round for everyone.

I don't know anyone who's passed their home onto their children so that they can live in it. I know plenty of people who've inherited their parents home and then sold it for a tax-free windfall.

But I don't think that hanging onto the family home is actually in anyone's interests. Older people should be trading in their larger homes for something that better suits their needs, and it's more tax efficient to give away your assets before you die, as 40% tax is payable on anything over £325k upon your death. I'm not saying that people who own their own homes shouldn't be free to do whatever they like with it, I just don't think that staying in at all costs, is necessarily the right thing to do.

While I agree that under occupied social housing tents need incentives to move on, I wonder where the supply of smaller units with ground-floor access is coming from. Were an older person in this situation, this would be what I would require.

Tenants, not tents.

Hillingdon, would you prefer the old lady who has lived in her central London council flat should have a son who would fund her buying the flat from the council, then she could move out or better still, actually die and then the flat can be rented out at a vast profit.
Or would that be ok? Someone making a fast buck.

I'm shocked that you think a rented house is not a home.
Think a bit further again, maybe a mortgaged house isn't a home either because it belongs to the money lender. Miss a couple of payments and that becomes very obvious.

Instead of demonising council tenants and those in receipt of HB, why don't you think a bit harder and demonise those who benefit from high house prices, ie the money lenders and the developers.

If it's so desirable to fill council houses, now I only have 2 kids left at home and my odler 3 are adults, I'd be happy for Cameron to let me buy this house (or rather my oldest son buy it for me as he can afford it), then I will privately rent it out to a massive family. Seeing as my council use bedroom tax to lever people out of their homes, then put in families so small they are also paying bedroom tax...

Bedroom tax isn't working, is it? If the tories are so obsessed with a trickle down economy then let me buy my council house for say £2000, and I will rent it out to a massive family.

Interestingly, with two kids I would be technically under-occupying, like my unemployed neighbours with two tiny kids in a 3 bed house. Yet weren't three bed houses built for nice little nuclear families of 4 people? So how can a family of 4 be under-occupying? Why is it OK for plebs' kids to share bedrooms but no tory lady would dream of having two kids in a bunk bed in a tiny box room...

My tory MP (Nigel Adams, not very bright) had no answers when I emailed him to ask what bedroom tax is for if it is used to lever people out of their homes and then given to other people... paying bedroom tax.

I wonder why they won't get rid of restrictions on right to buy? In the 1980s I had several working friends who bought their parents' council house for them. Now my son would happily buy this for me (which would mean we could sell it in a couple of years and move out, and a larger family could move in...) but he isn't able to.

I should add, that surely my unemployed and under-occupying neighbours have a huge incentive to now have another kid, so they wouldn't have to pay bedroom tax? Another reason it can't possibly work.

Bedroom tax isn't working, is it? If the tories are so obsessed with a trickle down economy then let me buy my council house for say £2000, and I will rent it out to a massive family.

The bedroom tax isn't working because it doesn't apply to everyone.

The problem is that people are being propped up in larger than needed places through subsidized rents and WFA, etc etc. There are good reasons to downsize, as it costs more money to run a bigger place. But if someone else is getting the bill, there is no incentive to do so.

I should add, that surely my unemployed and under-occupying neighbours have a huge incentive to now have another kid, so they wouldn't have to pay bedroom tax? Another reason it can't possibly work

I agree!

Well, I have thought about this for a while now. I think there has been a shift in what society thinks is acceptable. Todays grandparents have been brought up thinking it is their right to keep their homes until they die. But previous generations saw the family home as just that: for the family. But this was back when the next generation looked after their older relatives at home.

What has happened is that between 1950s-1980s people werer able to buy houses relative to their income. So these generations have accrued sizeable property. Then they escalated prices between themselves from the 1990s onwards and the next generations paid the price. Coupled with the change in society that we do not tend to look after our aged eg. they move out of their bigger homes into our smaller ones or vice versa, which would have been the way before. So they stay in their properties and the up and coming generations have smaller and smaller properties available to them.

I think we should as a society rethink what we do when we get old. Should we stay in our larger houses or swap with younger generations in our family who need the larger house? Should we maybe start looking after our elderly at home - all moving in together into the larger house? I don't know the answer, but the more I think about it the more I think we are all being a little selfish and not thinking about the bigger society picture.

"I should add, that surely my unemployed and under-occupying neighbours have a huge incentive to now have another kid, so they wouldn't have to pay bedroom tax? Another reason it can't possibly work"

Not really. To be frank, the absolute vast majority of under-occupiers are people whose families have grown up and moved out and are no longer of an age where they could have another baby if they wanted to.

Very few people are placed in properties which they are under-occupying from the start (twould never ever happen here in the SE), so while there may be the odd one or two who might have another child to avoid the bedroom tax, it wouldn't really happen on enough of a scale for it to be a consideration.

I think we should as a society rethink what we do when we get old. Should we stay in our larger houses or swap with younger generations in our family who need the larger house? Should we maybe start looking after our elderly at home - all moving in together into the larger house?

maybe what we should do is start building some more houses and stop foreign investors from buying places and leaving them empty. The former is where we are woefully deficient. I found it odd that the SE is facing this housing crisis and NOT ONE of the political parties this election had any solution.