Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

366 replies

IckyBex · 04/06/2018 12:28

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.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 07/06/2018 13:12

Hang on hogfather I mentioned DATA breaches before you posted that reply to me

HelenaDove · 07/06/2018 13:15

Tenants who are WAY in credit have been getting these letters.

LuluJakey1 · 07/06/2018 13:20

My mum lived in a large two bedroomed council flat- really spacious bedrooms and huge living room, medium dining kitchen, seperate bathroom and loo, in a nice, quiet area with excellent schools and transport.
When she died the council let it to another single but younger person. My aunt lived in the same block and same style flat, same thing happened when she went into a home. My mum's neighbour was a single middle-aged man.
Actually, I can not think there were any people with children living in the block. They were great flats but perhaps the council kept flats for older or single people.
She moved there from a council house after my dad died. That street is inhabited by the old people who bought the houses from the council when their children were young and have now grown up and are long gone. 12 houses in the street, apart from one all are lived in by single old people (9) or old couples (2) and thete is one family. Every house has 3 bedrooms.
The issue is that council houses were and are sold off cheap and not replaced. There should be no right to buy and councils should replenish their housing stocks. If you rent a house privately you don't expect to buy it cheaply once you've lived there for a few years.
Decent council housing should be provided.

Sistersofmercy101 · 07/06/2018 13:24

After many years in private rental properties, where the landlord sold the house that was supposed to be my families home (this occurred in three consecutive properties )where we endured strangers viewing our home and then the associated moving costs, we caved and applied for social housing. We now have a secure home at a reasonable affordable cost with a social housing 'landlord' who respect our boundaries as fellow human brings and give us plenty of notice when requesting a visit. .. so I can understand reluctance to leave/move etc HOWEVER if I were underoccupying (I have three dcs and a three bed so am not currently ) I would absolutely downsize, simply because this house was there for us when we desperately needed it and we'd want it to be there for others? :)

x2boys · 07/06/2018 13:27

but thats not the fault of the tenants Lulu , of course people will take advantage of buying discounted property and people can wring their hands about it all they want but nobodies going to say actually i would rather pay full price ?

Fullofthought · 07/06/2018 13:37

I have recently moved from private rent to HA housing. Was paying nearly all my wage on rent and struggled for a year till the end of my private 2 year contract after my marriage broke down. I applied on the Monday for the ha house (1st bid) and got offered the house on the Tuesday viewed it on the wed and got keys on the Thursday. They gave me a brand new carpet throughout the house and a substantial amount in decorating vouchers to make the house livable. Less than 20 days later I'd moved in fully after decorating it.

HunterofStars · 07/06/2018 15:08

I live in a HA 1 bedroom house, which was a transfer from a damp basement flat because my HA are selling off their Victorian blocks of flats because the upkeep is getting more expensive to maintain. They did pay my moving costs and for a new carpet in the living room and decorating vouchers too.

In my area, I think homes for life have stopped and instead tenants get a rolling 5 year tenancy instead. Hopefully in 4 years time, I will be in a position not to need a HA property and would like someone else who is in greater need to benefit from it.

I also work and pay council tax and a service charge so I am mighty sick of people assuming that because people are in SH they don't work and get given free houses.

GrandTheftWalrus · 07/06/2018 15:38

They don't rent the flats in my block to people with children but if you are in it and get pregnant then that's fine. There are 5 young children on my floor and the rest are single elderly people.

The elderly people and families with young children should be moved mainly due to the problems in these flats.

Police were out today again

Idliketoteachtheworldtosing1 · 08/06/2018 05:58

I get where you are coming from we had this exact conversation a few months ago.
We have a 4 bed massive detached house, 11 year old and daughter just finishing her 2nd year of uni and will be moving home after she has finished her 3rd year.
We are under occupied by 1 bedroom but are lucky because DP earns a decent wage so we don't rely on any housing benefit.
The problem we have is I am disabled and the house has been adapted for me, I have a lift, hand rails, wet room etc, a fortune has been spent on this house and for us to move we would need another adapted property with 3 bedrooms but they are very scarce.
A while ago I was all for moving as I thought it was unfair that we were under occupying and the rent is quite high, but now DP has just been offered an amazing job with a substantial pay increase literally 10 mins from home (as opposed to 1hr there and back everyday for current job) the stress of moving would really affect my condition and now we will be able to create a very low maintenance garden (Astro turf) which I will be able to enjoy and access with my wheelchair, our garden is huge and currently a jungle.
The area we live in is not the best and In the whole close there are about 4 decent hardworking families (HAs idea of a sustainable community) but once we close out curtains we ignore what goes on outside.
We have made a couple of lovely friends in our 6 years here and our sons school is just down the road.
After weighing up the pros and cons we decided it was better to stay put, definitely more cost effective and better for my MH.
Don't get me wrong though I do feel guilty for staying in the house but it's not simple for us there are so many factors to take into consideration.
There are a lot of new build estates popping up all over in my area to replace the old estates that are being torn down, the rents are high and unless you are on full benefits or earning a really good wage they are unaffordable, so why would someone living In say a 3 bed old build paying approx £400 a month want to move to a new build and pay the HA double that? It's a crazy situation with SH now and people are having to take these properties because that is all that is available knowing full well they can't afford to live there, consequently they fall into arrears and have the problem that they cannot swap because nobody wants to pay the high rents now imposed by HA! The whole SH is a shambles and needs a complete overhaul and a substantial amount of affordable SH.

Storm4star · 08/06/2018 13:23

You have a good point about the rents. My HA place is £700 p/m, low for the area I live in but high in terms of average SH rents. I earn enough to pay it and still be ok financially but I doubt a family with say one person working in a minimum wage job could afford it. Therefore a lot of people in these properties are on benefits.

I have a spare bedroom but I'm going to be using it for a lodger (I'm allowed to do this) so that I'm not paying so much out in rent each month. I'd have to go pretty far from where I am now to get a 3 bed which was significantly cheaper (and I wouldn't be able to have a lodger in that scenario), and I need to be where I am for work. So, on a practical level, I don't see an alternative.

ghostpepper · 08/06/2018 17:06

but thats not the fault of the tenants Lulu , of course people will take advantage of buying discounted property and people can wring their hands about it all they want but nobodies going to say actually i would rather pay full price ?

because of history, we have this reliance on council housing for secure tenancies. In many other countries, private tenancies are just as secure. Funnily enough, you could change the law at the stroke of a pen, if there was political will for it. you wouldn't even need to build a single extra house to get a whole whack of houses with secure tenancies.

HelenaDove · 13/06/2018 22:19

With many Grenfell Tower survivors still displaced a year after the fire that killed 72 people, figures reveal millions being made from selloffs

David Batty

Wed 13 Jun 2018 07.30 BST
Last modified on Wed 13 Jun 2018 10.00 BST

Shares
305
Comments
593
Sutton estate in central London
Owners want to rebuild Sutton estate in central London. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

Housing associations have made at least £82.3m from auctioning homes in five London boroughs since 2013, according to figures seen by the Guardian. Analysis by the Labour MP for Westminster North, Karen Buck, shows that Westminster, Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea sold 153 properties at auction through Savills estate agents – with more than half in Westminster where sales totalled £36.4m. The true figures are likely to be much higher as the data only covers sales made by one agency. The auctions are part of a wider trend of some housing associations selling off social housing in expensive central London to fund new developments, which tenants say are unaffordable or far removed from their families, schools and work.

Buck says: “I’m dealing with a family who are statutorily overcrowded and in the highest medical priority and I haven’t been able to get them moved in over eight years. That’s because housing associations [in general] say they don’t have the stock in the area and yet they’re still selling off homes.

Nationally, sales of housing association social homes to the private sector have more than tripled since 2001, with 3,891 social homes sold in 2016. Overall, more than 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost since 2012.
Social housing is being driven by profit. Tenants must fight back
Sham Lal
Read more

Bucks’ analysis shows that in Kensington and Chelsea housing associations made £5.3m from auctions in 2013 alone. Between 2013 and 2018, Brent sold £20.9m, and Hammersmith and Fulham £13.7m.

Although most auction lots do not state the housing association selling the property, Buck has identified many homes as stock of Genesis and Notting Hill Housing, which merged in April . Notting Hill Genesis manages 65,000 homes. A spokesman says before the merger, the two associations sold 497 homes between them in the past five years, using the proceeds to build more homes in less expensive areas in and outside London. Of these, 49 were auctioned last year, raising £19.7m, but the merged housing association “will limit sales to no more than 20 per year”.
The selloffs are fuelling overcrowding and homelessness, and undermining efforts to tackle the housing crisis, experts say. “They’re buying and leasing homes all over London as temporary accommodation yet housing association homes within these boroughs are being sold off,” says Steve Hilditch, former head of policy for Shelter and a housing adviser to the last Labour government.

Meanwhile, other housing associations are redeveloping their stock. In Kensington and Chelsea, local residents and the council have warned a public inquiry that backing plans to redevelop the Sutton estate, near the King’s Road, would give housing associations across the country carte blanche to not update social housing and replace it with private homes, which risks pushing thousands of tenants into temporary accommodation or homelessness. England’s largest housing association, Clarion Group, wants to demolish the red-brick Edwardian mansion block estate. The plans have fomented debate over the provision of social housing in Kensington and Chelsea, a year after the Grenfell fire in the north of the borough. Although there are around 200 vacant flats on the Sutton estate, many survivors are still living in temporary accommodation. Clarion has said the empty homes were not fit to be let.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Campaigners argue that if Clarion had better maintained the estate they could have provided more suitable permanent accommodation for Grenfell survivors. But Kensington and Chelsea council has also come under fire for failing to house enough people made homeless after the fire.

A spokesman for the council says it has spent £235m on securing 307 properties to help rehouse people affected by the fire. Of the 203 households requiring rehousing, 134 have a new permanent home, while 52 are in temporary and 15 in emergency accommodation.

But a report published this week by the North Kensington law centre, says many homes lay unoccupied for months due to damp, disrepair and access issues. Labour MP for Kensington and Chelsea, Emma Dent Coad, says: “We have heard they [the council] are reselling some of the properties bought in haste last summer,” she adds. “We have 30 [Grenfell] households including at least one person with disabilities, and only three homes with disabled access – and it seems these may not be of the right size.”

The planning inspectorate is due to submit a report on the Sutton estate inquiry to James Brokenshire, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, in late August. The minister is expected to make a decision on Clarion’s appeal by the end of the year.
Advertisement

says if the appeal is successful “it opens the floodgates to privatise social housing”. “This is a test case for social housing across the UK because if Clarion are allowed to do this, every other housing association will do the same. They’re a housing charity fighting to privatise charitable housing.” Kim Taylor-Smith, deputy council leader and lead member for Grenfell and housing, agrees. “It’s my view that Clarion’s intent from day one was to make money from the Sutton estate,” he says. “But William Sutton’s motivation was to provide homes for the poor. I would hope that they remember that.”
Housing associations' record profits are no reason to rejoice
Colin Wiles
Read more

Clarion has also last month submitted a revised regeneration scheme for the Sutton estate to the public inquiry, which the council accepts would not lead to a loss in social housing. But it has not withdrawn the original scheme and both will be assessed by the planning inspectorate. “We remain committed to the regeneration of the Sutton estate and to providing our current and future residents there with good quality homes,” says a spokeswoman. “No further decisions will be made until the outcome of the appeal is known.”

But Clarion told the public inquiry that if its appeal against the planning decision is rejected, it would rent out the empty flats privately, noting that it had already rented out three of them, or would sell off the whole estate. The housing association adds that the empty flats cannot feasibly be renovated and re-let as social housing because they do not meet the government’s minimum standards for public housing.

“They’re claiming they can’t refurbish them as social homes but they have refurbished and let three properties out privately for £1,800 [each] a month,” Henderson says. “Grenfell survivors have told us they would like to live here because they don’t want to live near the tower again.

SimplySteve · 23/06/2018 22:33

My family downsized from 3 to 2bed when DS moved out. Although took quite some time to do so and we're out in the countryside now.

My parents have been in a 3bed since late '70s and won't give it up (they complain about the spare bedroom tax though), and my uncle (alone) has been sole occupant of a 3bed since the 80s.

DW and I require a level access shower supported by reams of medical evidence and personal letters. The company dealing with our LAs housing stock won't allocate us one until we hit 55. Grr.

HateIsNotGood · 23/06/2018 22:51

I really appreciated my Council Flat when I got it (after years of hoop-jumping) and was happy 10 years later to move out of social housing and buy privately. Mostly I'm happy that the SH home I had was freed up for another family that needed it.

Some thought I was stupid for leaving the security and lower rent that I had - but I don't. My Council Flat was hard fought for, willingly received and needed. I'm happy to free it up for the next family that needs it more than me.

I think my approach is a minority one - not many see it the same way - but 1 person in a 3 bed SH house is something I can't agree with.

Sevendown · 24/06/2018 08:33

It’s a myth that council housing was originally for the poor or working classes.

Like the NHS it was supposed to be for everyone.

When I see threads about social housing I think how different the arguments are if you replaced ‘social housing’ with ‘NHS’.

It was intended that council estates housed everyone from factory workers to doctors.

Lynsey Hanley’s Book ‘Estates’ is very good on this subject if anyone’s interested.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread