To think you should downsize your council house if it’s just you?

[OuchOuchOuchh]

Oh my goodness I have created war at work and everyone is gunning for me.

My auntie has a huge 4 bedroom council house she has lived there since the 90s with her one son. That has now moved out.

All i said was I think it’s unfair that she’s living in such a big family home perfect for a family to bring their kids up in. Large garden backs on to the woods plenty of visits from deers and fox’s it’s beautiful! Anyway all I said is that if you haven’t purchased the property in a certain amount of time you should have to downsize if it’s just you living there.

Theres families overcrowded and can’t get anywhere then you have my auntie paying £100 a week in rent for a massive house for just herself.

please tell me if I am being an asshole! I appreciate it’s her family home but it just doesn’t seem fair to me.

But what’s fair? In a capitalist structure those that make money and facilitate the financial world ar me highly paid to reflect the value of what the do in that framework. There’s an element of risk, of spending time and money (limited resources) to get to that level.

A carer, would almost universally be looking after people who do not add value to the capitalist society. So will be paid less.

Now I’m not saying these things are morally right, it’s just how value is attributed to peoples roles within a capitalist framework. Whilst we live in a capitalist framework (and even where people want a redistribution of wealth this is still buying( literally) into the idea money is the thing to go after) this won’t change. There will always be the haves and have nots

I disagree.

It sounds fine in principle but actually secure tenancy is what we have and it benefits all parties. It means tenants can put down flooring, carpets, paint walls, maintain their garden etc. It means they can plan their families, work and retirement over the long term.
I means people can become part of the community rather than an rotating door of social housing tenants on an estate, adding to rotating door of private rented sector ones we already have. That doesn’t benefit home owners on these estates either.
Also it’s great to say downsize but what happens to all the new singles and couples needing smaller places? At the moment people have the choice to move around through tenancy swaps if they need a cheaper/ bigger/ closer property.

Half the reason people are sleeping in cars is because the private rented sector is so horrendous.

Would other people being in the position of being forced to move really make you feel better about your situation?

I can see why your angry, but its being directed to the wrong people.

But if you have a lifetime tenancy to remain in the property you have the legal right to do so, regardless of who owns it, so long as you abide by the terms of the tenancy. Not sure what you think the relevance of that is other than your belief that people who own their own home are better than.

Why is your "suffering" more valid than for example a family crammed into a temporary bedsit because their landlord sold up? The reality is, it's not your house.
Like I said before, we can't all have what we want all the time.
My expensive little ex council house is an hour away from where we were renting. Because we couldn't afford to stay there. It's so horrendous for you to move, but anyone else, fine and dandy.

Just tired maybe posting that, but 15 kids is the opposite of 1 person in a 4 bedroomed house.

Agreed. There are elderly people in private rented houses who have a lifetime tenancy as well. They used to be common.

It would probably kill my nan. She lives 30 seconds from both me and my mum. I don't drive and neither does she. She has a supermarket on her doorstep and her lovely neighbours.

I think someone has just said what I was going to say-council houses are government owned, tax-payer funded assets and private homes are owned by the home owner. We can choose what we want to do with them, the other should be used to get the best value for all tax payers.

The best value for me is knowing young families who cant afford private rents have a home to live in (not a bed sit or rundown hotel) and older people are not rattling around in large council houses. Agree part of the solution for that is to build more council properties of all sizes to be able to maximise their use to suit the people living there.

When is a legal right of occupation not a legal right of occupation?
When you are a council tenant!
Oh lol how we laughed…

Quite. It’s because people who become used to life being cheap or free, forget it’s essentially because somebody else is paying for it and just become self centred and with no grip on how life is for working, self-funding people. They think we bounce out of bed for work at 6am delighted because we have the ‘stability’ of a mortgage that we can no longer afford, and delighted that the pay off for 50 years of graft will be that we can choose the care home we die in. Yippeeeee.

Legally council housing has to pay for itself.

But whether they are private rented tenant or a council house tenant if you have a lifetime tenancy, legally you can stay for your lifetime.

Or are you suggesting legal contracts should be ripped up?

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I've never said or implied that homeowners are "better".
But we can't pretend that paying a mortgage is the same as paying council rent. It's just not.
There should be no such thing as lifetime tenancies. And the fact that there are very few news ones proves that they were a stupid idea.

You know what’s fair? Equality before the law. So if you have agreed a lifetime tenancy with anyone and continue to abide by the terms of it, you are entitled to rely on it. That’s what this comes down to and it is genuinely shocking so many of you say so what

No one’s suffering is more valid. Why are you setting up a hunger games scenario here? Not one tenant needs to justify why they haven’t surrendered their home. They are entitled to be there. Someone else not having somewhere adequate to live is not their fault.

Meanwhile in the real world, many people cant choose to live 30 seconds from their daughter and granddaughter. They have to live where they can afford to live and family members travel to look after relatives (I work with full time workers who care for family members aswell as doing their full time jobs and dont live next door). Your reasons are not valid in the real world.

I knew two people who live in council houses who have holiday homes. Why is the state subsidising their cheap house costs and enabling them to buy flats by the seaside?

Meanwhile in the real world, many people cant choose to live 30 seconds from their daughter and granddaughter. They have to live where they can afford to live and family members travel to look after relatives (I work with full time workers who care for family members aswell as doing their full time jobs and dont live next door). Your reasons are not valid in the real world.
It isn't a rush to the bottom you know .

Are the people in the story council tenants? They are privately renting. Did you assume because they have a large family they must be council tenants?

Legal right, innit 🤷🏼‍♀️ apparently.

I agree, homes are for families. But I know of a young-ish single person who took the council to court & won the right to stay in their home.

@Cuppasoupmonster that is the most ignorant post I’ve seen in a long time.

Council and housing association tenants are not in social housing because they don’t work. It’s because they can’t get a mortgage to buy. Your only choice is to rent.

There is some dissonance isn’t there? There are a finite amount of council/housing ass homes.

There are more people who want them then homes available.

Some system of selection has to be considered in order to fairly match the homes to the people who want them.

Is that system fair? How does it accommodate changing circumstances?

We need transparency over selection and a system that adequately accommodates change.

I always thought council/social/ha was reduced rent to give you a chance to save so you could buy and free the home up for the next family - thus keeping movement of people not property. The rents go to building more and improving existing ones/maintenance and you have a system that functions for the needs of the people who use it.

Legally it is up to the landlord whether to offer a lifetime tenancy. You could offer one if you wanted. Contract law allows all types of contracts whether you think those contracts are stupid or not.