To suggest the government incentivising downsizing

[PoinsettiaPosturing]

There seems to be a couple of issues discussed very frequently here that could be potentially helped (not solved) by the government incentivising downsizing for home owners.

There's a significant issue of property availability to buy and rent, and a huge number of older people who are single/couples in 3/4/5 bed houses. This means that younger generations are stuck in their starter homes and priced out of long term homes.
MIL & FIL have a 4 bed detached and constantly complain about the cost to heat and maintain it, but hate that it'll cost them loads in stamp duty, moving fees & solicitors costs to downsize.

Perhaps Rishi could incentivise downsizing, so if you reduce the number of bedrooms when you move it over 60, then you're relieved of stamp duty, and perhaps receive a £2,000 (debatable) grant towards moving costs and expenses.

There are also constant complaints that older people stay in their homes long after they 'should' based on significant care needs, decreasing mobility and long term repair issues.

The incentive could encourage people moving to smaller houses, flats, retirement communities or even combining households with family members.

This would hopefully:

1. Free up larger properties for families/younger people wanting to upsize
2. Hopefully mean older people have less heating and energy expenses
3. Encourage older people to move into properties more suitable to reduced mobility & care needs longer term
4. Mean older properties are restored/better maintained

I appreciate there are loads of people who want to stay in their family home until the end, and this wouldn't change that view point, but maybe a social movement towards older people reducing the size of their homes would create a bit of social contagion where it's more openly discussed?

Also, house builders could be encouraged to build more bungalows/smaller homes specifically for this scheme which perhaps are built with stair lifts in mind etc.

YABU - this will never work, ridiculous suggestion

YANBU - this has legs, you should go into politics

Round here, there are three huge retirement villages being built, or awaiting planning permission. But they're not houses or flats to downsize to and live normally like anyone else. They're the McCarthy and Stone type, which charge huge service fees for things that, in my mid 60s I simply don't want or need. And then of course the property would be a nightmare for my kids to sell when I'm gone.

I stl think that a government programme that encouraged house swaps between young and old, and removed some of the stress involved in chains etc, would encourage people like me to face the idea of moving.

I think a property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax, based on the actual value of the property rather than 1991 values which are very out of date.
That would incentive people who can't easily afford the maintenance and bills to downsize.

@saraclara's idea about removing subsidies for those choosing to live in very large properties is also worth considering. I think it's fair that it you choose to live in a much larger property, you pay more or are less subsidised by tax payers who are mostly living in much smaller or rented properties.

There are obviously potential problems whatever system you choose but it is absolutely clear that current housing policy and that of the last 40 years has failed dismally so most new ideas would be an improvement.

I’d be happy to downsize. However, no one is building the type of home I’d be happy in. 2beds, 2baths, energy efficient, a bit of garden, and a parking space so I could get car. I don’t want to live in the middle of nowhere. Huge developments are houses bigger than mine, and further away. Brownfield sites snapped up by developers for family homes. I’ve got s Victorian semi, 3 beds and 2baths, would love something smaller. Can’t afford it, or not availability. What to do?

I’d love the OP’s suggestion, I have a large 4 bedroom house and want to move in 5-7 years time when I’m around 60.

They're the McCarthy and Stone type, which charge huge service fees for things that, in my mid 60s I simply don't want or need. And then of course the property would be a nightmare for my kids to sell when I'm gone
Surely everyone now realises that these are nothing but a liability and they will be left standing empty?
Or perhaps the government will commandeer them and use them as care homes?

Your premise is fundamentally wrong. There is no shortage of larger homes to buy or rent. There is a shortage of smaller starter homes. Asking people to,downsize into them exacerbates the issue. Those in starter homes still can’t afford to buy a four bed.

Exactly, as numerous folks are saying , the shortage is in smaller homes. Not bigger ones. The ops got it arse about tit

I could never move to a flat or semi detached even though as empty nesters our large home is really too big. And I want a garden and our own parking plus decent size rooms.
Properties like that are very rare, so, no, we'll probably continue rattling around here for as long as we can.

Yep. Basically the best thing that we pensioners can do is to stay in our four her houses and leave the smaller properties to those who need them, because their budget won't stretch to anything larger.

I love your definition of freebies! House security? How? Rubbish collection ? That’s Council tax! House security - ok you supplement it, but there is a basic security provided by a police force and a criminal justice system. Rubbish collection is council tax, but still a tax, and even council tax is supplemented by central government. There’s a whole range of benefits we have by pooling resources (through tax). But because everyone benefits, and has done for living memory, it’s easy to forget and feel you don’t get any benefit.

I live in the NW and there are plenty of building sites here, a number with unsold properties. We tried to downsize in the summer but the reality was our house was too much and not up to A1 standards many expect. We went for the lowest agent valuation. The issue was we would have actually put nothing or little away from doing so. Property prices were sky high at the time and remaining was a better prospect. We have put in new central heating, new d/garage roof, new oil tank etc but I guess something will still be wrong.

I hope to try again maybe next year at a lower price when everyone is being more realistic. I have to say though that we had no family viewers, it was older couples which we were completely baffled by as the house and gardens are big. We are in our early sixties and they were all older than us. I think people becoming more reasonable price wise will improve the market but this is fuelled by estate agents.

The other issue is being realistic when downsizing. My Dad’s 85 and what he can take care of now compared with 10 years ago is completely different. He’s a keen gardener, but he can only potter about now and needs other people to do the actual gardening. So a bungalow with a garden is no good for him, he needs a retirement flat.

@saraclara Exactly- as per my posts below . What they aren't building is small 2 storey blocks with personal outdoor space, parking, and decent sized rooms in convenient areas. They are building the equivalent of nursing homes with your own flat and as my FIL told me (and he's 83) he finds them depressing- he simply doesn't want communal lounges, cafes,. I appreciate some will enjoy more of a 'hotel/nursing home ' type vibe- many slightly younger 'retirees/downsizers' really don't want that

council tax, based on the actual value of the property rather than 1991 values which are very out of date.. Council tax may have been originally based on selling price in 1991, but that doesn’t mean the boundaries have been frozen - otherwise every new house sold for more than £120,000 or more would be banded at F or higher.

The real problem isn’t that the bandings were done in 1991. It’s that the long tail of houses in the top band weren’t divided into further bands, and that although the highest priced houses are more than 10 times the price of an average house, council tax for the most expensive is much less than 10 times the average.

In 1991, the top band covered the handful of properties valued at over £350k or thereabouts, which is now what most houses cost.

yes that’s the point I’m making. It’s based on the house price (actual or calculated) at 1991 prices. A house selling at £350,000 today will be in band C or D.

Not really what the thread is about but agree that council tax banding is ridiculous and that if it was more accurate there would be more incentive for people In bigger houses who don’t need the space to downsize.

My 3 bed semi detached is in the same band as my mums 5 bedroom farm house. There’s also lots of areas where demand has driven up prices and generally well off people live there, but the council tax banding is still similar to deprived areas nearby.

One of the things i dont understand (sorry i should probably start another thread on this) is why so many places can only be sold to over 60's and therefore are much cheaper than ones to be sold to any age group.

since its youngsters that are struggling so much, why are there so many being sold this way? I know its something to do with restrictions on the deeds, but it does seem unfair and unnecessary.

The maintenance charges on those places are significant though- not sure what they're like for other flats. I think it's partly because they have those emergency pull cords in every room, etc. My Dad's been somewhat horrified by the charges as he's been looking, but it's part of the service, I suppose.

You don’t get more services because you have a bigger house. Families won’t afford ridiculously high council tax. It’s a non starter.

Low rise flats are effectively the same as houses on a site. So for many it wouldn’t be much of a downsizing.

DH gets involved with planning enquiries. It’s rare for residents in an attractive village to want starter homes on a prime site. Residents always want big houses to maintain the right type of person! However much bigger sites have a wider range of properties. Yes. The shortage is for starter homes and homes for families. So largely thsts what is built. Except not enough. A few larger homes in a village usually frees up smaller homes and may well form a chain down to a flat. An expensive village site will always go for premium housing. It’s what people want and expect. You ought to see the huff and puff when greater density of smaller houses is proposed! Residents hate it!!

One of the things i dont understand (sorry i should probably start another thread on this) is why so many places can only be sold to over 60's and therefore are much cheaper than ones to be sold to any age group

They're not cheaper, at least when new. And the service charges are extremely high, due to all the facilities provided (and which go mostly unused in my experience).

They're only very cheap when the owner dies, and their offspring can't sell the damn things, but have to continue paying the service charge. So they offload them as cheaply as they can (and often still can't get rid of them).

They've been multiple threads on this subject. This is why I'll never move to one. I don't want to lumber my kids with the problem.

The real problem isn’t that the bandings were done in 1991. It’s that the long tail of houses in the top band weren’t divided into further bands, and that although the highest priced houses are more than 10 times the price of an average house, council tax for the most expensive is much less than 10 times the average
presume those that made the rules lived in very large houses and wanted to pay as little council tax as they could get away with?

With regards to cheaper places for over 60's- it may be you have spied some listings by 'homewise' -- this is actually a private companies scheme for over60s whereby you pay a reduced price on the property but in return you lose a lot of what you have paid out if you sell or die - you basically give away huge amounts to homewise who buy at full market value . It's used a lot by people who want to retire to a nice place that on paper is much better than what they can afford and don't care about leaving much of an inheritance.

@Thestagshead thanks for that

Ideas for change have to start somewhere - I posted based on my experience with relatives but this thread has been really interesting for the different challenges it's thrown up.

The main takeaway I have from this thread is that we should be lobbying the government to encourage the building of more starter homes, bungalows and small blocks of flats with outdoor space and minimal/no stairs.

I'm glad that so many have identified McCarthy & Stone as a con, I hate the bloody things!

Thank you to everyone who's provided views and input, it's fascinating to see how the issues affect those who'd like to downsize but can't find suitable property, I didn't envisage that being the main barrier at all!

Those retirement flats DO suit some people. They are not all disasters. Maybe housing associations should build bungalows? If they are a social need. That’s the role of a HA. Starter homes are typically 550 sq ft. My house is 5000 sq ft. So no thanks. Happy for others to buy one and there are loads available! You will certainly know your neighbours very well.