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?

@Macncheeseballs

you can't move if you've got 3 cars?!

course i could!!

but we have got adequate parking here.....i would want the same if i moved. and i have a dog (as currently have 2 gardens). would i be expected to regime him to move to a flat

just saying if i move i would not want to be worse off. after all, its a lifetime tenancy and choice based

but i do have the option to buy the property at a reduced cost i'm told...so theres that

You don't pay bedroom tax, its a reduction in housing benefit/UC so you pay more of your income towards your rent to cover the shortfall but its rent you pay not tax

@BitOfAFaff

My Nan had a 3 bed council that the council wanted back for years. She said no at first then said if they could find her a 1 bed bungalow in the area she wanted she would move. As if by magic one appeared and they also covered her moving costs.

That's the way it should be, my Dad is in a 3 bed housing association property, 10 years ago when my mum was alive, they were offered 1k for every room they gave up, the HA would find them suitable accommodation and find the family to move into their house, Mum didn't want to move, a couple of years later when she died Dad wanted to take them up on the offer, but they didn't do it any more, told him to go on the home swapper site, he doesn't have a computer so couldn't do it, My nephew went on it for him but all the properties people wanted to move from were totally unsuitable for an elderly man, so he is staying put, if his HA hadn't stopped the scheme a family would be living in his house now

Council housing being subsidised has been mentioned again so once more - council housing is not subsidised. Council housing stock pays for itself via the rents collected. Many tenants are working and paying full rent. The rents that are set are normal rents and in many cases are not much lower than private rents. Private rents are higher as they include a profit margin, council housing does not include this profit margin, this is not the fault of the tenants. Anyone can apply for council housing and while priority is based on need, they are not means tested. Many council houses are in very nice areas and are occupied by people from all walks of life, most councils want to encourage people to pit down roots and build a community by staying in their homes for the long term which is why over two thirds of new tenancies in the last recording year (2018/2019) were lifetime tenancies.

Don’t get me started...I have a 3 bed house and want to downsize to a 2 bed flat and the HA I’m with (formerly Council) have said I have to go back on the list and bid for 2 bed flats and loose my secure tenancy (been a tennant for 30 years) into the bargain...I’m in process of trying exchanging but the HA can still veto that...madness

I undrstand your frustration too. Unfortunately it is a symptom of the fact that social housing is treated as the occupiers permanent home. In my opinion there should be a reassessment period of perhaps every 5 years so that the social housing stock already in short supply can be better used and fully accommodated and maximised to house the greated number of people possible. It seems daft that large familes are cramped into small houses and larger houses are occupied by one or two persons who's children have flown the nest.
The primary problem of housing is the right to buy scheme where the offer of under market value sales took alot of housing stock out of circulation and gave it away for a fraction of its value or the rebuild costs of a similar home if land in the area was available to even to replenish stock.
The idea that a social house for life is also absurd, no one should be able to block a home particularly if their needs, ability to buy privately, or accommodation requirements alter ( kids move out) Even private home owners do not have this luxury and have to adapt as familes evolve.
Social housing should be viewed as a stop gap to other forms of ownership/ accommodation, in the private sector. The excessively low rental rates do not promote movement out of socail housing for those who eventually have the means.
In general it is a poorly managed asset that does not use the accommodation to maximum benefit for the users, the council or the taxpayer who subsidise it therefore money is wasted putting many in temporary accommodation such as B&B etc when in actual fact there are numerous homes with vacant bedrooms.

@Happycat1212, if that really is allowed - i.e. that he’s allowed to make money out of renting out council accommodation that he doesn’t need for himself, there is something very wrong somewhere, IMO.

No wonder waiting lists are so long.

the taxpayer who subsidise it

Council houses are not subsidised. They pay for themselves via rents collects and even if they were subsidised, given that a large percentage of council tenants work they are also taxpayers.

There is also not a shortage everywhere, in many areas supply does not outstrip demand and rents are more affordable than in other parts of the nation. As I mentioned earlier, we only waited a few months for housing and were not even in a priority banding.

It's not their house. It's somewhere the government have allocated them to live for the time they need it to prevent them being homeless. They should be enforced to give it up when they no longer fully occupy it and moved into a one bed flat.

@saleorbouy

I undrstand your frustration too. Unfortunately it is a symptom of the fact that social housing is treated as the occupiers permanent home. In my opinion there should be a reassessment period of perhaps every 5 years so that the social housing stock already in short supply can be better used and fully accommodated and maximised to house the greated number of people possible. It seems daft that large familes are cramped into small houses and larger houses are occupied by one or two persons who's children have flown the nest. The primary problem of housing is the right to buy scheme where the offer of under market value sales took alot of housing stock out of circulation and gave it away for a fraction of its value or the rebuild costs of a similar home if land in the area was available to even to replenish stock. The idea that a social house for life is also absurd, no one should be able to block a home particularly if their needs, ability to buy privately, or accommodation requirements alter ( kids move out) Even private home owners do not have this luxury and have to adapt as familes evolve. Social housing should be viewed as a stop gap to other forms of ownership/ accommodation, in the private sector. The excessively low rental rates do not promote movement out of socail housing for those who eventually have the means. In general it is a poorly managed asset that does not use the accommodation to maximum benefit for the users, the council or the taxpayer who subsidise it therefore money is wasted putting many in temporary accommodation such as B&B etc when in actual fact there are numerous homes with vacant bedrooms.

Agree.

Even private home owners do not have this luxury and have to adapt as familes evolve

Private home owners downsize to release equity for a more comfortable retirement. That is totally different. Also plenty don’t.

My retirement will be less comfortable if I move, not more. If I need extra income I’ll be able to rent out a room. Perfectly ok with my HA. You’re just not allowed to sublet the whole house. If I move to a 1 bed I won’t have a spare room for rent.

When a homeowner downsizes they have that additional money to make the next place the way they want it. I wouldn’t have that. So after spending a lot on my current place I would then have to spend that on another place, or just put up with it as it is.

The HA will get my house back when I die. It’s not like I’m going to live for a 1000 years. When I die I’m sure they will be plenty still on the housing list happy to get it. These houses aren’t being “blocked” indefinitely. It’s a cycle. Homes get released, homes get taken. There may be some 1 beds around but certainly not enough to house the entire older SH population. That’s where your plan falls down. You can’t force people into accommodation that doesn’t exist.

Maybe council housing where people are working and can afford to pay should be making a profit - which can be put into building / acquiring more council homes. There would still be a huge benefit to having a council house due to security of tenure which is absent (entirely) in the private sector.

The whole thing clearly needs a total overhaul.

It's awful there are people on this thread that WANT to downsize and are being blocked from doing so by the system, while little kids languish living in one room with their entire family.

The only conclusion I can come to is that society is broken.

Private home owners downsize to release equity for a more comfortable retirement. That is totally different. Also plenty don’t

This is ridiculous. Lots of private home owners downsize because, for example, they can't afford their mortgage following illness, death or loss of a job and aren't any better off at all. In fact, plenty of private home owners get into massive debt trying to service a huge mortgage and end up in financial difficulty.

MOST people who privately own are renting from the bank, not owning outright. Plenty are on interest only mortgages so have no equity to speak of. Plus 'retirement' homes like bungalows are massively expensive and can be as much money as a bigger house because they're in demand for people with mobility issues.

Lots of people who downsize do not do so to make their life more comfortable but because they're forced to and have no other options.

Bedroom tax only applies if they’re claiming housing benefit. Perfectly plausible they are even when working, but normally it doesn’t matter if you’re working and claiming HB you’re still exempt from bedroom tax provided you’re paying towards your rent.

In my opinion there should be a reassessment period of perhaps every 5 years so that the social housing stock already in short supply can be better used and fully accommodated and maximised to house the greated number of people possible. It seems daft that large familes are cramped into small houses and larger houses are occupied by one or two persons who's children have flown the nest.

Agreed, great post @saleorbouy

It's insane that the only part of the housing market where people nowadays have a 'home for life' is the council sector.

For most other people, there is no guarantee at all they'll have a 'home for life'. Definitely not in the private rental sector where you can be given notice at any time for no reason (and often are, in my experience) - having to uproot kids and change schools.

Same for home ownership - except for those who've paid off their mortgages - there is absolutely no guarantee and those who can't afford their mortgages have to move. The bank doesn't listen to them saying 'but it's my HOME, I should be able to stay FOREVER'.

My parents paid full rent on their three bed council house for fifty six years. Us children came back on and off for several years, leaving uni, saving for deposits and relationship breakdowns. Now my Dad has recently died (covid) my mum still pays full rent. Why should she give up her home of almost sixty years when she probably only has a few years left anyway and needs family to stay with her from time to time due to poor health.

Thank god social housing is secure!

Mumsnet want families reviewed every 5 years and forcibly moved on to homes with only enough bedrooms for every occupant.

Can you imagine! 😆

Where do these smaller homes come from?
Who will pay for moving costs?
What if tenants don’t like the area/home
Will they be reimbursed for decorating/improvements?
How will schooling work?
What about friends/family? Will they be forced to move away?
What about disability adaptations?
What about family pets if moving to no garden?

Yeah. Not so simple is it?

And there’s loads more to consider

What if public transport for work changes?
Who will pay for new furniture/home requirements?
What about people’s FEELINGS?
Where’s the council/housing association staff to process all this? And where’s the money to pay them?

there is absolutely no guarantee and those who can't afford their mortgages have to move. The bank doesn't listen to them saying 'but it's my HOME, I should be able to stay FOREVER'

Do you mean eviction for non-payment? Because that happens to council tenants too, if I stop paying my rent then eviction proceedings willbbe started. Its not a free house, it still has to be paid for, and no rent = no tenancy = get out.

@MontysRoseGarden

Thank god social housing is secure!

Mumsnet want families reviewed every 5 years and forcibly moved on to homes with only enough bedrooms for every occupant.

Can you imagine! 😆

Where do these smaller homes come from?
Who will pay for moving costs?
What if tenants don’t like the area/home
Will they be reimbursed for decorating/improvements?
How will schooling work?
What about friends/family? Will they be forced to move away?
What about disability adaptations?
What about family pets if moving to no garden?

Yeah. Not so simple is it?

Also anyone who's been housed in one of these knows they usually come with not even so much as a peg to hang a hat on. You end up spending A LOT of money on flooring, window covers, white goods, often decorating because all too often the place is covered in grafitti, etc. Who's going to invest when they know they'll be moved on. Many on MN are clueless about the reality of moving into one of these places and pushing each other out of the way to race to the bottom.

YABU, it’s been their home for 20 years and I don’t think it’s right to insist that council tenancy has to be unstable. If anything tenants need to have more rights, whether council or private.

The problem with so much of housing policy is that is applied across an area such as England or Wales but housing markets differ across this area.

The bedroom tax was introduced as a solution to overcrowding in overheated markets in the SE. What it did not take into account was that in other markets there was not a supply of properties to move into. (I had many an interesting conversation with Housing Ministers on this point). The rules regarding children sharing were applied retrospectively - which doesn't happen often - so at the stroke of a pen thousands of households who were legitimately housed were deemed to be under occupying.

With regard to tenancy reviews and other such initiatives (pay to stay springs to mind) - these were introduced but again, with little consideration by government as to how these should be implemented. Pay to Stay was a policy dreamt up in response to Bob Crow(e?) - the government's own impact assessment showed relatively few people would fall under its remit and the cost of implementation was ridiculous and at one point involved a substantial IT proposal and we all know how well the government are at procuring and implementing IT solutions.

Re social housing building and lower figures under Labour - this is true but doesn't take into account that the 1997 Labour administrations focused on the Decent Homes Standard to drive up the quality of stock which had suffered from little reinvestment. I believe Labour politicians now say they should have re-balanced the programme to include more new build...

@IloveJKRowling, that's the point.

There isn't enough social housing stock for those without children and only require one room. You can't just punt someone out of a 3 bed house on to the street or just chuck them into a place in the nearest local authority with availability.

Where do you suggest all these people go? Should they all just quit their jobs and find another elsewhere everytime you decide they don't deserve the home that they've put a lot of money, love and effort into?

If you are selling your house then (most of the time) you get to choose the area and adjust, you have notice and the means to do this from a sale.

It's insane that the only part of the housing market where people nowadays have a 'home for life' is the council sector.

Then perhaps it's the rest of the housing sector that needs the overhaul, particularly the private rental sector and buy to let properties? Its not a race to the bottom, just because the private rental sector is an utter shit show is no reason to also turn social housing into a shit show.

Put a cap on private rentals so they're not allowed to charge more than 10% of the maximum social housing rent for a property of that size, introduce a strict code of practice for repairs and maintenance including timescales and enforce it with financial penalties for failing to comply, end no fault evictions, discourage overcrowding at the start of the tenancy by introducing minimum/maximum occupancy criteria (a tenant might shift into one of these categories during the tenancy due to birth/relationship ending/children leaving home, etc but they should not begin the tenancy this way), and keep a public register and review system of approved landlords and of dodgy landlords so that prospective tenants can see what they're getting into, make landlords keep records of previous complaints made against them and to include these in tenancy packs for the same rsason (similar to what Ofsted require from schools and childcare settings).