1 single person in a 3 bed council house

[Fyptk]

20ish years ago this person exchanged from a 1 bed flat to a 3 bed council house because relatives were moving in with her, so all the bedrooms were needed.

Fastforward a few years and those relatives all moved on and the single person remained in the 3 bed house.

To get out of paying bedroom tax they claim the other bedrooms are used for something to do with their work which they are not. The rooms are unused apart from storing excess clutter.

Meanwhile here in London (where this person lives) families are stuck in hostels and overcrowded rooms whilst the local burroughs housing register has in excess of 10,000 people on it waiting to be housed. The minimum wait for a 3 bed house here is 10 years.

AIBU to think they are selfish?

Honestly this is terrible and a suitable alternative should be made for the person to live in, no way should they be able to stay in a 3 bed. People say it’s not fair to demand they give it up but it’s not fair for others to be living in overcrowded situations because this person won’t move!

I wonder what the word 'home' means? Certainly a clash of rights and I'm not minimising the impact of people on the waiting list or stuck in inadequate accommodation but I'm not sure the solution is to remove security to a class of occupiers. It might be interesting to see if those saying this person should be compulsory rehoused tend to be owner-occupiers, private renters with even less security and/or on a LA/HA waiting list.

Surely judgement should be towards the councils and government who don’t want to provide more social housing even though there is a massive need for it?

YABU- as this is people's homes..memories of family and maybe lost loved ones etc that they have shared their home with .So in respect anyone who has been in these circumstances shouldn't need to give house up ..Just my opinion

Genuine question, not being goody, I’d just like to understand.

Would it be so bad if council and HA properties were let on say 10 year basis and at the end of the 10 years if your needs have changed the council can move you but do have a responsibility to house you for another 10 year period.

Where I live the city mayor lives in a council house. He thinks it makes him approachable and a man of the people, I think it’s a great example of someone taking the piss. One his salary he could and should be moving on and freeing up a home that’s desperately needed by someone who needs the support, but maybe I am being naive?

There's no exemption for work, they will be paying the charge unless they are lying about the occupancy

I don’t understand how in MN land, Buy To Let is completely evil because it deprives people of the opportunity to have their own home

But clogging up a family council house as a single person is fine

When I moved into my 3 bedroom council house it was for my husband and I and two children of opposite sexes. Now that my husband buggered off and one child has flown the nest it’s just me and one child. I sometimes worry I should be moving on to a two bedroom property but couldn’t afford to. Plus this is our home. Whilst I sympathise with families needing bigger homes I have to do what’s right for my family, and right now, that’s staying put in a secure tenancy, not subjecting my child to anymore unnecessary change and not wasting my money in a house move. I pay rent and don’t get housing benefit. Smaller properties aren’t necessarily cheaper.

The people I know in big houses aren’t moving because they don’t want to, nothing to do with shortage of 1 beds (see that thrown around a lot but it’s just not true) you just need to look at swapping/mutual exchange sites to see that 99% of people are trying to upsize not down size. People don’t down size because they don’t want to. Usual reasons are because it’s their “family home” “don’t want to give up garden/ground floor” “don’t want to go in a high rise/tower block” which is what most 1 beds are “don’t want to give up all their rooms (so will downsize from a 3 bed to a 2 bed to have a spare room but don’t want to go from a 3 bed to a one bed)” which councils won’t usually allow you to have a spare room even if downsizing. Nothing to do with an apparent “shortage” of one beds.

I live on a road where the only houses still owned by the housing association are occupied by single people, not all of them elderly, next door lived with his mother until she died, he lives there alone now. He’s got a good job, middle aged

A friend of mine was homeless after a relationship break up, not able to afford the £900 per month rent for a 1 bed. He sofa surfed for 3 years before being offered a flat

The family next door to my mother have got 5 children in a two bed / 1 box room

We paid £350k for our house. The previous owner had used right to buy about 10 years before we bought it from her. She paid £47k for it. She retired to France on the proceeds. I heard she’d recently returned to the uk because of poor health

It’s fucked up

A relative of mine still lives in a 2 bedroom housing association flat from when he was in a relationship. His partner moved out and now he has to pay bedroom tax. He has asked the HA to downsize to a one bedroom flat but there are none available. This is the case in many areas. His only solution was to relet the room to a lodger.

Bedroom tax should only be payable by people who have been offered smaller properties but refused.

memberofthewedding

He could try a mutual exchange. mutual exchange sites are full of people desperate for an extra room.

It's time people stop considering social houses as THEIR home, when it should be just like a rental, not a forever house. They have right of peaceful enjoyment, but nothing more.

Even home owners don't own their home until it's paid in full!

Fair enough people don't move because they can't be arsed, but the "bedroom tax" should be much higher. These properties should be a safety net, and available correctly for the ones who need them, they should not be a lifestyle choice

If you want to have YOUR home, you buy it.

@BagORats

That person isn't responsible for the hardships of others. There might be loads of valid reasons they don't want to move. You just might not know what those reasons are. Ultimately should someone be forced out of their home of 20 years to house someone else if they don't want to move?

Yes.

Hmm I would check all this is correct. I am a council tenant and my tenancy specifically states no sub letting, or no business to be run from home.

Where I live, the one bed properties tend to be in shitty areas such as rundown market towns and areas of high deprivation so it's very common here for people to stay in their larger property even after the children have grown up and moved on. The house I live in was occupied by an elderly couple. They moved in when it was newly built in the 50s, raised their family here, grew old here, and then passed away. We plan to do the same. All of the other houses in the street are at various stages of the same cycle with a mix of newly moved in famlies who are only the second family to occupy the property since it was built or very elderly people who have lived in their houses since they were built. When we signed for our property we were told that our council likes this as they want people to put down roots and build communities which is only possible through long term lets. Our tenancy is a lifetime tenancy and is secure, I can see why people wouldn't want to give that up x

Urg, not sure where the 'x' came from

I think it's tricky one. They will have put money a d time into the place. It's their home and things. Moving and redecorating are costly. Our council will remove carpets etc. Lack of attractive options for downsizing. Really what we need is more social housing. The reason the wait is long is due mainly to a lack of supply.

I'm in social housing with no hope of ever saving or inheriting a deposit unfortunately.

I sit on the fence with this as we waited 9 years for a 3 bed knowing atleast 2 people on our street who had and didn't need (we were happy for kids to share as I did as a child but eldest is Autistic and desperately needed space) which was frustrating BUT they had lived there a long time and made a home full of memories and neither could have afforded moving/redecorating costs which stopped them doing a mutual exchange.

The problem isn't the tenants, it's the lack of incentive. The government should help with costs of redecorating/moving to a new smaller home if the tenant is willing. Right now there is very little help for people in this situation.

However, I also know 2 families who were given a 6 month deadline after losing their children who had disabilities requiring adapted housing. Why is it ok for them to be pushed out under dire circumstances whilst others get to stay indefinitely?!

@sweeneytoddsrazor

Hmm I would check all this is correct. I am a council tenant and my tenancy specifically states no sub letting, or no business to be run from home.

When I was a council tenant I could sublet the whole place for a year or rent out a room. Everywhere has different terms.

My ex isn’t subletting, he lives there and they are lodgers that’s why it’s allowed.

I waited 8 years for a 3 bed council house and after 10 years I am now looking to downsize to a 2 bed due to dd having moved out. Unfortunately my ds will never be able to live alone and due to his disabilities can't be in a flat (council says he'd be a noise nuisance in a flat) so we need a 2 bed house or bungalow, the problem with this is that they have none available nor have they for the last 2 years. I'm on the swap list and there's nothing suitable it's so bad here that I've just been offered a place that they hope to have built by 2027😱. So ds and I am stuck where we are under occupying a 3 bed house due to our council having sold off 90% of the 2 bed properties(thank you Maggie) but never built any more.
The problem is with the local authorities not the individual who is under occupying

I have a 4 bedroom council house.

The vast majority of social housing around here are housing association.

In my area I would be paying more rent on a 1 bed housing association place than I do on my 4 bed, which would be pretty pointless.

I'm years off that yet, but unless I got massively reduced rent why would I pay removal and carpeting costs to leave the lovely home I've poured money and time into decorating inside and doing the garden?

Also, despite the disbelief of a poster upthread, there are very, very few one bed places in this area.

Well it depends on the area doesn’t it! 4 beds are rare in London, one beds aren’t. So it’s not a given.

@freakyfridays

It's time people stop considering social houses as THEIR home, when it should be just like a rental, not a forever house. They have right of peaceful enjoyment, but nothing more.

Even home owners don't own their home until it's paid in full!

Fair enough people don't move because they can't be arsed, but the "bedroom tax" should be much higher. These properties should be a safety net, and available correctly for the ones who need them, they should not be a lifestyle choice

If you want to have YOUR home, you buy it.

I rent and it is my home