To ask if you are under-occupying social housing that you consider downsizing?

[IckyBex]

If you are in a property with space you no longer need for whatever reason please consider asking to transfer to a smaller property. There are so many families waiting for three or four bedroom housing and hardly any available.
Staying in your four bedroom house after all of your children have left home is depriving another family of the opportunity that you were given.

I have read this thread with interest as I was lucky enough to move into a council house after I got pregnant and although I was working my partner was made redundant and private landlord announced no children (apparently it was in the tenancy agreement). Moved into a bigger property a few years later and have now bought it, with a discount. Had we not bought the house I wouldn't have given it up. The area is not very desirable and is described as 'deprived' but I grew up here as a council tenant so we are happy here. We are never going to be high earners so would have struggled with private rental.

Re selling back to the council, they don't want them, older houses cost to much to maintain and most councils just don't have the money, I suspect that is why RTB still exists. When I was a council tenant they tried to sell the whole stock to a HA twice but needed tenants agreement and didn't get it. A friend recently moved into a house that I'm certain was once council but now it is HA so they have been selling them off anyway.

Also, it's easy for people in private rents/homeowners to comment on these kind of threads stating people should just move out because of course they would do it immediately on circs changing!

gamer you missed the end bit of my statement and completely changed it. Of course my principle is not to encourage crime ridden estates I would like to see more mixed housing estates where families (who are working) are able to have social housing that is a safe environment for children to be brought up in. We don't have that in my city, from this thread I understand that is not the case throughout the UK.

When I agree. It is your home because you live there of course but unless you buy it then it not your home to bagsy until you die, it's your home until someone else more in need, well, need it.

The "But I can't afford to buy " plea is rubbish because in general no one can afford to buy. They generally need to save for years for a deposit then need to borrow lots of money to buy.

I suspect someone living in cheaper social housing where their kids have flown the nest are in a better position financially to save and buy then someone who is in a 2 bed private rental with small kids.

If you don't want to move to free up the homes for families in need because it's "your home" then you should be prepared to pay the same rental costs as those in private rentals. I wonder how many people would "suddenly " want to move if that happened 🤔

Disabled people obviously exempt from all of this.

If you don't want to move to free up the homes for families in need because it's "your home" then you should be prepared to pay the same rental costs as those in private rentals.

Why would you want even more people getting ripped off by the ridiculous prices private landlords set? Surely you'd be after making private rent prices more affordable instead. It's just another crabs in the bucket example. Instead of trying to make it better for everyone, let's make it worse for everyone so it's all the same yaaaay!

Yayyyyyy for the race to the bottom.

My elderly parents live in social housing in a 3 bedroom house on what was originally built as a housing estate in the 50's They would dearly love to move to a smaller house/ground floor flat /bungalow.

Because of medical issues they are in separate bedrooms so need a two bedroom property but there are none in the local area.

The only available social housing nearby is in an inner city area with very high crime rates mainly due to high social deprivation. My mum is 85, registered disabled and has mobility issues, she has lived in this town for nearly all of her life and would be quite afraid to move to another place.

Most of property that was originally social housing is now privately owned but no new properties were built to replace them. I didn't actually realise how much until a new company took over from the council several years ago and revamped properties with new roofs, doors and windows, it was shocking to see that less than 20% of what was originally built now remains social housing. There is currently something ridiculous like a 9 year waiting list to move to this estate.

There is quite a lot of brownfield sites around here and I just wish there was the investment available to build either bungalows or low level apartments for the elderly in social housing to free up the larger properties for younger families with children.

But it sounds like it's not a case of everyone who needs one has one is it. As many people have said they know people who don't need one.

I think it should regularly be assessed too. If the situation is so different depending on which part of the country you live in then maybe they should have a different system in places with high demand compared to places with low demand in the NW.

No income is stable, no, but I don't think that means people should keep their SH if they don't need or if it's too big for them just in case their income changes. I thought SH wasn't to prop people up on a just in case. Of course not including those who don't or never will have an stable income for genuine reasons.

I think serious changes need to be made to private rentals so that people aren't so much better off in SH if they don't need it. I totally get that people wouldn't move to a private rental if they were so much worse off to do so. This shouldn't be the case.

Smash social housing wasn't built for people who's kids have flown the nest and can live comfortably in their 3 bed houses. It was built for people in genuine need for cheaper housing; those with young families or disabilities.

If Mum and dad are both out earning a full time wage or capable of doing so with no dependents they shouldn't be hogging social housing! So yes, they should be paying the same as private rentals. They'd soon give up "their home" if they were.

Moving away from communities isn't unique to SH residents, many people can't afford to buy in the towns and villages they grew up in, so they have to buy elsewhere where prices are more affordable. This can't be used as an excuse not to encourage downsizing from SH homes. It's a luxury not a necessity.

Race to the bottom indeed. Don’t see outcry about millionaires rattling around in their mansions or owning several homes. But some reasonably poor off sod who’s had the cheek to live it up in a council house all their life (and probably paid enough rent to have bought it several times over) should clear off because they’re greedy. Beggars belief.

Also, if my dh or I lost our jobs and couldn't pay our mortgage we would have to leave our home, move away from our community, friends and family and potentially live in an undesirable area. Move away from
The area we ve lived in all our lives. That's life.

Why would it be ok for us to have to do that but not ok for people in SH or people who don't work to do that?

many people can't afford to buy in the towns and villages they grew up in, so they have to buy elsewhere where prices are more affordable.

That's a choice though and isn't forced on people. They don't have to buy at all. People in social housing should be allowed choice too and shouldn't be forced out of their homes.

So yes, they should be paying the same as private rentals. They'd soon give up "their home" if they were.

So, like I just said, why not get private rentals prices lowered instead so that everyone can pay reasonable amounts? Why do you want social housing rents increased to ship people out? If all rents are affordable no one will be in need anymore presumably so it makes the whole GET THEM OUT argument moot.

I already pay as much as I would in private rented. What's your solution to get me to give up my SH once I've qualified and am earning more?

I didn't move to Sh because I wanted a free/cheap house. I moved because I wanted the security of knowing my LL would never try to sell my house from under me and I could live here as long as I wanted to.

If I am ever in a position to buy I will buy this house. I will do that over buying privately because the majority of houses in this area have been bought by buy to let LL and are only available for rent. I do not want to rent privately. I want security. I don't want to move away from the area I grew up in or settle for buying a substandard house.

Why would it be ok for us to have to do that but not ok for people in SH or people who don't work to do that?

Because you chose to buy a property and chose to take that risk.

We live in a one bedroom HA bungalow, it's fully detached, decorated to a high standard with its own front and back garden but nobody wants it and even if they did, the HA won't let us swap because we have no children, even though we want to start the adoption process soon.

Just interested in what your opinion is on people who own a property and then lie to get on to the council register and ultimately end up with a house and then rent out the house anyway tney own? This is what a friend of mine is doing and to add insult to injury she claims her partner lives in the house that they own when in fact he lives with her in the council property.

Of course it's not a choice. Adult children move out and can't afford to live near mum and dad.

Unless you are saying they should get well paid jobs, but then that applied to SH tenants too.

There is more to a home than the number of bedrooms. If people have to move away from friends and neighbours and familiar networks they can quickly become less independent and that creates other problems.

I totally understand what you are saying Lifebegins but I honestly think that putting an 85 year old disabled woman in a high rise block of flats in a strange area in what even the police describe as an unsafe area would kill her (that is the only option available at the moment).

I know that is the logical option to free up family size properties, but obviously as they are my parents so I realise I am biased.

Adult children move out and can't afford to live near mum and dad.

Again, they don't have to buy. I was responding to your comment about buying elsewhere. They can rent.

So I should be penalised for buying a property and not adding to the pressure of people wanting SH? Mmmm that makes sense, not.

By your argument those who can afford to buy shouldn't so they can get SH and make the situation worse or should also have no stability by private renting. What a load of rubbish. You're basically saying people in SH should have choices and privileges, staying in their community, living near families, living in a nice area, that homeowners shouldn't. Because they choose to buy a home where they can afford.

User- but people who are home owners or privately rent have to do that all the time based on what they can afford. Why's that ok? But not ok for people in SH?

People in SH pay rent, you understand that, right?

They too can only live in houses they can afford. I'd like a SH or private let in the nice little village on the outskirts of town, but I can't afford to pay the rent so I can't have one.

1981m, by buying a house, you took on the risks of doing so. Someone in social housing doesn't have those risks. It's jealousy, pure and simple. So if you have those risks you want EVERYBODY to have those risks.

I was reading some old threads about housing on here last night and comparing them to ones that appear on here now...........just curious to compare the attitudes towards social housing tenants pre and post Grenfell.

Post Grenfell its actually worse.