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.

What happens at Christmas? Yes that is a worry

There are a lot of very good reasons why people shouldn't be forced to move. But when so many are in housing poverty I really don't agree that wanting a spare room for visitors or because you mind gc is a reasonable one. If anything it just distracts from the genuine reasons people can't/won't downsize.

So petrolpump what's your solution for the kitchen?
Will people with over a certain number of bedrooms have them compulsorily purchased?

I have lived in my HA home for 10 years.

it took me about 5 years to afford a bedroom carpet.

I am now in an ok position and not under occupied.. but in 10 years I have done a lot and do consider it my home I moved in with a Life time tenancy it is my home.. I have been evicted from properties before so owners could sell the house. I wIould not give up my home , it is my home and I will never own a home.

My RTB is a maximum of 5% .. I am sure you could negotiate that off a similar property so not the great bonus it used to be.

Sensing I own my own house yes . I need six bedrooms because I have seven dc, Three who are disabled.

But why is a good idea two build two bedroom bungalows for disabled people. They would only be suitable for disabled people with one or two dc.

MyDC historically bungalows were mainly built with older/disabled people in mind rather than wider population needs - families for example. For a while one bedroom bungalows were probably preferred option (with couple in mind) but increasingly it was recognised that two bedrooms were better (allow extra storage space/carer space/grandchildren space - delete as appropriate). The challenge is that floorspace-wise bungalows take up more land and land can be the most expensive component of house building so from a purely commercial point of view a bungalow takes up more resource but brings in "less" return - whether through sale price or rent. Off site/modular bungalow production may well be a game changer here for more useful/adaptable houses.

Until the totally unfair bedroom tax, the local authority where I worked, would assess couples to see if they needed 2 bedrooms on medical grounds. There are a significant number of couples who need 2 bedrooms as one or both have such poor health that sleep suffers. We considered their issues carefully and used our commonsense, but sadly the government didn't feel that we could be trusted to do that. Clearly we were all idiots.

It's a difficult one. On the one hand a house is a home and moving can become difficult because of ties with area, friends, neighbours and routine especially for the elderly.

On the other hand when my grandma died, my grandad sold up because the large, period property was becoming costly to care for and maintain. He was about 83.

However there is a world of difference between chosing to sell, and chosing exactly where you move to and chosing your best pieces to take and money and comfort being no object and having to do so.

As I've typed it has dawned on me that if you own a property selling and moving on provides the satisfaction of realising an asset and possibly helping children or having a more comfortable, easier life that you are master of and it can be empowering. Moving from a LA property is quite the reverse and on that basis should never be forced upon a person.

A couple of people have mentioned being able to pass on secure lifelong tenancies to children - is that true? How can that be in any way fair, and how has that been missed compared to the all the trauma caused by bedrooms?

In some cases yes, the 'child' or widow/widower must have been living with the tenant.

My sorry, the property I rent and regard as my home, is one of a few built for people with mobility needs. When one neighbour died his widow had a year to move out because she had no need of a bungalow.

My other neighbour was able to stay on because he has mobility problems himself.

When my mum died my dad asked if I wanted to move in with him, I said no but had I moved and given up my property then when he dies I would be bale to inherit the tenancy, I'm in my 50s, dad is in his 80s. My brother would not inherit the tenancy because he lives elsewhere.

my children cant inherit my house sashh both myself and dh are on the tenancy agreement if i die before him he becomes the sole tenant and vice versa there is only one right of succession so if we both died the the house goes back to the housing association.

Only SO can inherit tenancies here

My tennency agreement says I can pass my tennency on once.
However I have NEVER had a joint tennency just my dhs live with me.

I did this purely so that one of my dcs had the option of having this house when I die.
I've had to live in some he'll holes and jump through flaming hoops to get my house now so if I can help my dc out with somewhere to live I will.

Unfortunately where housing is concerned it's every man for himself so you have to put yourself and your family first and if that means under occupying then so be it.

My work colleague is willing to downsize but the council won’t find her a 1 bed, she has to find her own swap, arrange and pay for removals etc. Personally I won’t be downsizing when DS leaves home just to save £10 a week on rent, have to rehome some of my pets and live in a horrible area. Buying my house would cost the equivalent of 12 years rent, I suspect that’s where all the 4 beds have gone.

my next door neighbour is living on her own in a two bed we were chatting a few days ago she said she wants to move to a one bed bungalow but there are non but tbh her youngest daughter is backwards and forwards and her middle daughter and partners and two kids were living there for over a year as they were homeless they have only just moved out .

My ex MIL was lucky enough to raise her kids in a three bed detached council house in a lovely setting. Now they've all gone, but the council is just offering her one bed flats in grotty blocks. Understandably she'd rather pay the rent increase!

Dapplegrey, if we're talking about the huge houses of the extremely rich - why exclude royals by the way? - and imagining them opening up their doors to ordinary people, it isn't too difficult to imagine converting some of those extra rooms into extra kitchens instead. And bathrooms.

There simply is not enough room and resources in this country any more to support the whims and extra lifestyle demands of the very rich.

Wrongon - how big does the house have to be before it should be shared with others?
Flats in beautiful houses tend to have a high rent as they are considered desirable. Would therefore the local authority decide on the rent?
Would the owners of the houses have any say in who rented the flats or would the local authority decide?

Some of your (Dapple's) objections are spurious: yes have the local authority choose the rent, as they did with old-style social housing, and flats would be allocated on the basis of need, if we're trying to stop the problems associated with the poorest being held out of decent housing and left with the dregs or homeless. Housing problems generally are not so simple and glib. Ultimately though we have a choice in Britain: allow the current growth in inequality to continue until we have the stark pre-War contrasts of squalor and stately homes back, or... not. While we're being distracted arguing amongst ourselves over trifles, power to choose not has been pretty much stripped away.

WrongOnTheInternet
I like you.

I think people who are in SH and now have a change of circumstance so they could comfortably afford a private rent should also consider moving.

The problem is there aren't enough houses. As well as building more they do need to free up existing SH which is too big for 1/2 people occupancy. It needs to work both ways rather than just building more and more.

Many people not in SH can't afford to stay near friends and family and the local school they want either. So why should people in SH in houses bigger than they need get to stay.

Many people not in SH can't afford to stay near friends and family and the local school they want either. So why should people in SH in houses bigger than they need get to stay.

It's all very IF WE CANT HAVE IT, NO ONE CAN though isn't it?

Not really smashedmug as that house would then be occupied by a larger family who can fill it so someone else is getting it. Surely it makes sense that if someone's in need they get what they need not want at the time. Then when they no longer need a house that big they pass it down the chain to someone else who need it. I thought that's how SH was meant to work.

In the same way as someone who rents/owns a house may downsize once they no longer need such a big house.

I don't think it can be justified allowing people to pass their house onto their children either. Can't believe this happens.

I won't give up my home till I have to. It's a 3 bed terrace, very small and right now my children live here but once they move, years from now, I will stay as long as possible because my children were born in this house (honebirths) and I love it. I've spent years doing up each room. I have memories here. I love my neighbours, it's a nice area. Its my home.

1981 we can explain to you again why moving someone out of sh is not a good idea to put them into private rent. I’m more than happy to educate you on the proviso you will actually listen and take on board what is said.