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.

To be honest, councils don't help themselves much.

I have just moved out of a HA property into private rental. Because of my circumstances I had very little notice of the moving date so couldn't hand in my 4 week notice until the weekend I moved.

In my notice letter I said I would happily do the painting/rip up carpets etc and hand the keys back in a fortnight instead of the 4 weeks as I know my area has a huge backlog of people to house. I myself had to spend 3 months in a hostel before a property came up.

They replied saying they'd appreciate the keys back early but would still charge me the full 4 week rent. Considering I work full time and have no leave booked for this I see no motivation to give up all my spare evenings to stress myself out redecorating in a hurry if they aren't going to meet me halfway so I said we'd stick with the 4 weeks.

But I find things like this frustrating - they're desperate for houses but there's no give and take and they make things beyond difficult!

I needed a larger house with adaptations. So I have this one. It's a massive five bed with a wetroom but yeah, I am slightly under occupying. My kids are now 18,15 (boys) and 9 (girl) so will not be around forever. When that happens......Would I give my house up to move to a flat? not on your nelly! I love my house. I will be buying it as soon as I am able as I love everything about it from the 4x8m living room to my gorgeous top floor roof garden that is off my 6x4m bedroom. When i did an exchange I had to replace everything from doors ( previous tenant took them with her (!) ) to light switches, plaster walls, fumigate the bedrooms and fit carpet in 5 bedrooms, two flights of stairs and fit blinds for TWENTY TWO windows. It has cost me around £8k over 18 months. The council will not pay for repairs on an exchange so I would be mad, MAD to give my house up after everything I have invested in it. Plus it will cost me around 44k to buy it.

Disagree!! My parents had their 3 bedroom council house since 1970. They always paid the full rent. We all grew up there and left. My Dad suddenly passed away in 2016. Why should my Mum move? She pays full rent?!!

I have been out of sh for about 22 year's, but even back then you just got an empty house, no furnishings. No problem, the security of tenancy was worth more than any carpets. However that's a cost to take into account when moving.
I have a friend in a top floor high rise, too big for just her, but if she downsizes, she says, she is then on a one year tenancy and the small possibility she won't be moved to a permanent tenancy after the year is up. At her age she can't take the admitted tiny risk of being homeless.
And who would?

I find it crazy that seeing how bad housing is here and yet they are still allowing RTB when there isn't enough housing? And where I live there are very few new council properties aside from a few in the new build estate. If councils sell a property surely they should build another to replace it

Cake agree. I know of flats where perfectly good carpet is automatically ripped out after a tenant leaves. Fridges and cookers dumped if left behind.
Meanwhile routine maintenance is left for years not done.
OohMavis thank you for your understanding.

@slothmama

My council actively reinvests money from RTB into new housing. We have had 80 odd new social housing homes built in our town in the last few years and the council actively purchase properties from the open market. I know as my Dad was looking to buy a flat near me and changed his mind. The council bought it, and now my sister lives there!

ickybex I feel your pain. Our rent is enormous and it's hard trying to save whilst paying out such a whack.

I've lived in my HA place for 12 years now, I work and pay my rent, and yes...over those 12 years I have spent thousands. The garden alone (a jungle when I moved in) cost me £1500. The £1000 they offer you to move out is peanuts in comparison. Additionally, the "people in need" who live either side of me (same HA) have been on benefits that entire time. Neither of the two households has done a days work in 12 years, and I know them well enough to know that it's laziness and no other reasons. So why should I move out because I did the right thing and got a job!? So that someone else lazy can move in? Believe me I am not anti benefits and I know some people need/deserve them. I myself have claimed as a single parent in the past. But to me there is no excuse to sit around on benefits when your children are grown and you're physically capable of working.

I do actually sometimes feel guilt but if I ever do move out it will be via an exchange so I know who's moving in, in my place. I can't afford to go private as I'm single (and would only get a room in a shared house for what I pay now), and too old to get a mortgage so I don't see I'd have any other options anyway.

I'm against short term lets.
I'm asking those who are in a position to do so to consider it.
I totally agree that the housing situation in this country is terrible
and needs changing.

You would be better off clamouring for new sh to be built.
In all forms, from studio to 6 bed. Either on New estates or alongside existing estates.
The few people who are in a position to downsize have fewer still places to go to.
It's really not helping when the council raze whole streets (of terraces near me) to then build 28 semis.
In a area nearby, 5 streets were razed, in total 200+ houses as not fit for purpose ( too steep stairs, too expensive to heat) and built 54.
I kid you not.
So where did the other 150 families go?

My council and at least one of the four housing associations are actively buying and building properties.

People forget the housing shortage is not a national crisis, it's mostly in the south/big cities. Here in the darkest depths of the NE, we have plenty of social housing to go around. If you're fussy or have very particular needs, you might have to wait a few months. If, like me, you'll move anywhere as long as it doesn't involve monthly inspections and threats of eviction when your hoovering isn't up to scratch which is what my ex-LL new property management company inflict on their tenants, you'll probably be offered a house within a month or less.

When I tried to get on CH waiting list I was told it'd be a 20-25 year wait, because although I'm disabled I don't have any children with me. There is so very little housing. It took me over a year and tremendous amounts of stress to find my current flat, I'm in a private 2 bed because it was literally the only one I could look around, let alone rent. On benefits = no agency will even consider letting you view. The housing situation is so bad some families choosing to downsize wouldn't even be a drip in the ocean.

My ILs live in a 3 bed council house that they moved into when my DH (now 40) was a baby. The youngest son moved out 10 years ago. My MIL sleeps in 1 bedroom and my FIL (MIL has back issues which mean she doesn't sleep easily and this solution means FIL is less disturbed in the night as he has to work the next day) in the other and the third is used to house a collection of grandkids when they do holiday and half-term care. They've spent money on this house (putting in carpet, decorating, etc..) over the last 38 years and are a real part of the village community. They could swap it for a tenament flat in a nearby town (no 1 bed council housing in their village) but then who'd look after the grand-kids in the holiday (they stay over night for weeks on end in the holidays as too far to be bussed in and out daily)? My SIL would likely need to quit her job as I know they can't afford holiday childcare. My ILs would be out of pocket, would have to move away from friends and family and their local community, my BIL/SIL would need to claim more tax credits if my SIL wasn't working....

It sounds easy to say an elderly couple only need a 1 bed flat but in my ILs case it just isn't that simple.

I speak as a former housing officer, I met lots of older people who were very happy to move to smaller properties. I think this was because a huge number of sheltered properties for retired people were actually bungalows. The tenant often had a drive, bathroom with shower New central heating system etc. The housing association had upgraded the properties so they were popular, and I think that is what persuaded people who were underoccupying to move. They also paid removal expenses if the property they were leaving was considered to be particularly in demand
I think it is ok to say , why should I move? But I take the view that if you were happy to be offered that home then you should accept that when you no longer need that type/size property then you should move. I know that won't make me popular but that is the way social housing works; on need.

My local council run a credit check on ALL adult occupants on the application form for social housing before they will even put you on the waiting list, to make sure the rent is affordable.

How does that play into your "social housing is only for the very needy" narrative. People on the role around here have got very little chance of securing a new council tenancy these days, they prefer tenants with jobs.

Oh yeah, no you don't get any help with removals costs.
The only exception being if you have been decanted against your will because of a demolition/clearance/redevelopment/modernisation programme or have to move for serious repairs. Then you get Disturbance Allowance in an amount set by the council for temp or permanent moves to help with relocation costs which includes money for removals, reinstallation of things like phones etc, floor coverings and curtains etc where your old stuff won't fit your new home. If the move is permanent you also get a statutory Home Loss Payment which is set by government and was about 5,800 last I looked.
There are some councils who will pay you something for loss of bedrooms but it's up to the council concerned and usually isn't much moneywise when compared to inconvenience involved.

We own an ex council house and I guess we are under occupying as its a 3 bed and we are childfree.

I use the 2nd bedroom to work in as I work mainly from home and the 3rd bedroom is used as a guest bedroom / reading room / hobby room. All the rooms are used daily.

I can see both sides as I thought before it was a bit wasteful to have older single people in large family homes for example or even couples but when its your home its your home and it would be very cruel to move people againt their will.

If your area is mostly one-bed flats, are they accessible for those with physical disabilities? I mean, there already isn't really the space for live-in carers, but would these flats involve stairs, have appropriate toileting and bathing facilities, have room for wheelchairs and other equipment? If we're discussing homes for the most vulnerable, most of the current housing stock does not match up with the needs of many within that group.

My spouse and I left a housing association flat because we could no longer really manage it with our disabilities. We did go back on the council's housing list but none of the houses we saw were in any way suitable or that we could maintain (some had lovely massive gardens which I imagine would be great for families with no physical issues, not so much for us). We're now in a much less safe position renting in the private sector and there are still accessibility issues here but it's leaps better than anything else.

I live in a council property. We have paid out over £10k to make it habitable, to make it our home.

We will live here probably until we die, we may travel in that time and return, but we are planning on buying next year and extending it.

If I was not buying it, I very much doubt I would move out when the children were older. Because it’s so much work to throw away

The problem with retirement flats which seem to be on the increase is that to live in many of them you would need a car.
To be practical for the elderly they need to be within easy walking distance to the shops and amenities.Somw older people still don't use/can't afford internet,free shipping deliveries are too much for one person and going to the shops means mobility is maintained and for some the only social contact they have.

'I'm asking those who are in a position to do so to consider it.'

You can ask away, but I can't think of anyone who would voluntarily leave a secure tenancy (provided the neighbours and area are all right and they are happy) for a way of life which means they may need to move every 6 months, with all the hassle and expense.

It's just not a feasible thing to ask.

There is always a schism on MN regarding whether SH is for the poorest/most vulnerable or for anyone who wants secure accommodation. I think the answer makes a big difference to whether or not over occupiers downsize.

My gran has a 3 bed council house which she has lived in for 50 years. I'm aware that it's not her house, but she's lived there for such a long time that it's her "home". Council tenancies often last for a long time so people do treat their house as their home and improve it. She's spent a fortune because the council only does the bare minimum - she's paid for light fittings, blinds, wall tiles, electric shower, carpets and flooring, paved the front garden, replaced the stair bannister, installed built-in wardrobes, decorated throughout, laid a patio, tended a garden which is now mature and looks beautiful, erected a greenhouse, etc.

You're suggesting that my gran should altruistically leave her home and go through a big upheaval to start from scratch in a new area away from her friends and neighbours, leave all of her hard work and pay for all new carpets and blinds etc. Sorry but nobody is going to do that for the benefit of strangers!

It's also worth noting that the council puts the property back into its original condition when a tenant moves out, because they don't want a new tenant to sue them for anything left by a previous tenant that that may be dangerous or wasn't done properly. When my gran's neighbour died they ripped out all his brand new blinds, carpets, built in wardrobes and other improvements and chucked them in a skip. They even removed the electric shower because they hadn't installed it. What a waste!

I always think the people who post these type of threads have a jealousy issue with someone in their own life who has a council house and/or are angry that they have to pay private rent and can't get a council property. I would bet that the same people wouldn't be as quick to give up a their home in a council property as they expect others to be. It's that crabs in a bucket mentality.

I'm asking those who are in a position to do so to consider it

No. Hth

I always think the people who post these type of threads have a jealousy issue with someone in their own life who has a council house and/or are angry that they have to pay private rent

Pretty much the same here isn't it?!

Here are three ways of allocating housing:-

a) OP method: people who have more than they need altruistically surrendering the excess
b) left-wing method: bureaucracy allocating according to complex rules
c) right-wing method: property goes to whoever will pay the most

I would like the method to be "c".

Of course some people need help to afford housing, we have a way to do that, it's called housing benefit. Housing benefit should be high enough to enable you to successfully bid (in system "c) to get you the housing the benefits system says you are entitled to.

If people were paying a full market rent for the housing they get, but only getting housing benefit according to their housing entitlement, the problem OP wants to address would not exist.

Another problem with the implicit subsidy is that it causes benefits to be misallocated. People have entitlement because of past circumstances, rather than current circumstances.