To think councils should move people to smaller properties when kids move out?

[Faithin]

There's a huge lack of 3 bedroom social housing where I live (and everywhere I think?)
a lot of the people living in the 3 bed places are usually just 1 or 2 adults as the kids have grown up and moved out. Meanwhile there's lots of young families overcrowded in 1 and 2 bed flats with no garden etc
aibu to think those that actually need the space should be in the houses and those who don't should be made to downsize?
as the waiting list is so long, what tends to happen is peoples children are in their teens by the time they are moved into a 3 bed property, the grow up and leave within a couple of years and the parents stay, so the vast majority are under-occupied.

I’m missing something too. Surely if the council hadn’t stepped in she’d have had to sell it and seek housing from the council or buy a smaller property depending on equity and her ex’s claim anyway? She swopped the benefit of home ownership for not having to move her family whilst she needed the house.

I’m not saying she should be forced but she’s only there because of using council resources. Her position isn’t any different to anyone else in social housing.

If you go back and read the very origins of the provision of social housing the reason that council estates consisted of a mix of sizes was so that people could move between them according to need. so a young married couple might start in a one bedroom house then if they have children move to a 2, 3 or 4 and then when the children themselves moved out the couple would then downsize the other way. But, and this is the key point, they would be staying in broadly the same area with each move so no need to uproot in terms of family, friends and support networks. I also like the origins of the peabody trust properties in London. you moved in if your salary was below national average wage - so usually if you were a student, leaving home for the first time, first job that sort of thing. if you then earned over national average way ( i think it was 10%) then you were given a year to move out and go either into private rented or buy your own. that way there was constant churn and the cheaper properties that they were were occupied by those less able to afford them. people might not want to move to downsize but these are likely the same ones who upsized when multiple children came along.

Thank you for this. I have had the same argument with my local council. My son is in the military and comes home every leave. His home is my address his camp is his work address but they still say I have to pay the bedroom tax it's maddening

Maybe if people in relationships got to know each other properly instead of having babies together almost straight away they wouldnt end up splitting up and end up needing two homes instead of one.

That may mean close in a city. Have you seen how big some more rural council areas are? As people get older, they need to maintain social networks.

You are aware many boroughs are sending tenants hundreds of miles away already?

@Treehuggingmutherfunkin As others have said this is wide off the mark. It sounds almost like you have never lived in the UK, or known anyone who has?

Anyone paying their rent themselves (without means tested benefits) pays the designated amount for the social housing property they occupy. The ‘bedroom tax’ is such a misnomer, it essentially means that anyone under state retirement age will only get housing benefit/an amount in Universal Credit that equates to the size of property they are entitled to. So a single person in a three bedroomed house will have to make up the difference, or downsize to a one bedroomed home.

Those unfortunate enough not to get social housing, ie private renters, have always had their housing benefits based on appropriately sized property, and even then it can be capped with the tenant making up the shortfall.

Perhaps your son could make up the difference?

A council house has always been for life.

My dad has a 3 bed council property in London. He lives there alone now. He looked seriously at downsizing and moving to my area (2hrs out of London). The property he was considered for was a tiny one bed bungalow without a proper garden (He has a dog) and double the rent of his three bed house with a garden and good public transport (he had cancer and couldn't drive for a while). Until there is real incentive to move then people won't be leaving a long term home where they raised families and have friends and memories.

I also rent a council property- 3 bed - and I have four children. I'd consider downsizing as in my older age i may find the garden difficult to maintain and I'd be happy for a young family to take the additional space. But only if the home I got offered was a good swap. I'd want a 2 bed bungalow with a small garden, for example. Rent no higher than my current rent. Otherwise why would I swap to be worse off than staying put?

This is the thing - people are blaming each other instead of looking at what needs to be done to encourage change.
No one is going to swap a home they've worked on and improved, for a grotty flat miles from their community, that's not even cheaper. Their argument will be why should they sacrifice their standard of living because other people have kids - not their circus etc.

OTOH, if you build bungalows with easily manageable gardens, in the same communities (with reduced rents) and renovate the flats so they have decent kitchens and bathrooms and aren't in a state because they've been knocked to shit by the previous tenants, you will incentivise people to move. My own parents did a house swap with a neighbour because she had a smaller house but with a better garden and needed more bedrooms, whereas my parents needed fewer rooms but valued the garden more. Carrot, not stick!

We are an ageing population, if the right kind of retirement housing was available and affordable, I’m sure more of us would move. One of my better off friends has just bought a lovely, two bedroomed flat, enough room for a visitor, or a grandchild to stay. However, it cost more than the large, two bathroomed house she sold. Most of us can’t afford that.

Also, more families live at a distance these days, we don’t all have children or grandchildren nearby. It’s a big load off their minds if their parents can access suitable, secure housing in the later stages of life. That has the added bonus of freeing up more family sized homes for younger families.

Do children deserve gardens more than adults?

It would be better if they had 'right to buy' at massive discounts. Often it was the tenants relatives who supplied the loan. Then began acquiring more properties for renting out often back to the council.

Waiting for a council house is nothing new. My parents joined the waiting list in 1959 when they got married ( before starting a family). They never actually got a house or flat before they died in the 1990s. They didn't resent that others who had a council house.

Good council tenants make the house or flat their own home. They look after it and invest in it. Those lucky enough to have garden spend a lot making them look nice.
Good tenants make communities.

Typo
NOT introduced the 'right to buy'

I’m in a 3 bed house with two young adults. When they move out I’d be happy to downsize but all of the recent home are affordable rent, not social so I’d be paying far more for a smaller property as I’m in social rent. I can’t afford to absorb that cost on my current income.
if the rent was like for like I’d be more than tbh

I doubt that there are that many smaller houses available to move to. OH grew up in council housing, a good size three bedroom with a decent sized garden. It wasn't just a house it was their home. It was a nice neighbourhood with good neighbours. I doubt the idea of his parents moving to a strange smaller place where they knew no one would have gone down well. Lots of room for when we visited and the girls loved the big garden.