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.

Sure, but if we all acknowledge that a capitalist society is not morally just then we can’t interpret the effects of it through a moralising lens. So if the housing crisis is the effect of a morally corrupt policy then we can’t utilise fairness as an approach to discuss it.

It was my grandparents tenancy. I don't live in a council house and never have. My point is that the purpose of council housing was housing for people in need and in the past councils put multiple families in the same house in order to accomodate them.

Well, yes they did; in large multi-tenanted houses. After the war, large houses that had once been the domain of the rich were taken over by councils and split into floors. The council house I grew up in was shared by 5 families, but it was a 5 storey house with each floor was rented out separately. The house as a whole was not rented out to any one family. So no-one was was forced to take in another family in a spare room that was part of their tenancy.

Did you ever go to your grandparents' house? Was it a bog standard 3 bed house with just one spare room where another family was forced onto them? Or could your grandparents have illegally sublet?

There is pressure on older people, homeowners or SH, to free up homes for younger people, but why should they?

The problem here is lack of affordable housing (for renting or for sale).

That is what the government should be helping to solve. Setting up one group against another solves nothing. 🙄

Council housing was for ordinary people to provide decent and secure housing. It was never just for those in need. There were council estates where only respectable working people get a house.

There are insufficient council homes
...
So let's shuffle around who can be in them?

Because we shouldn’t have to bulldoze greenfield land and pay greedy home building companies billions when we could more fairly redistribute current housing stock?

Weird this is the first comment. Didn’t realise this was even a thing in the U.K. until yesterday when I saw a family with kids sleeping in a car in an industrial estate.

And what do you propose we do in the decades it will take to replenish housing stock?

It was a small 3 bed council house on a housing estate. They would NOT have sub let illegally.

Times have changed. There aren't enough council houses for "ordinary" people, so only people who meet certain criteria are entitled to them. That's how it is now.

I think it's bizarre that it's the only government subsidy that continues, regardless of your continuing need. Child benefit, universal credit, free prescriptions, reduced council tax etc - all these things change of your circumstances change. If you start a business and become a multimillionaire, your benefits are stopped. But you can still stay in your council house paying below-market-value rent. It's insane.

Social Housing is a home for life for those unable to purchase their own. Why are you all being goady? Mumsnet snobbery at its worst.

was a home for life. These days not so much, if you're even able to get one in the first place.

What does ‘goady’ even mean? Just seems to be a terminatory word for when you don’t have a leg to stand on in a controversial discussion.

It's not a home for life is it? If you become a millionaire you continue to live in your home that's rented to you at below market rates? Thats insane.

You pay less rent - you are subsidised! The state could charge but it isn't so it is subsidising you. You want that rent subsidy then you should move when you don't need it. We wouldn't give you unemployment benefit when you don't need it or child benefit when you don't need it.

Morally its theft from taxpayers, just like claiming child benefit when you don't need it.

One of the problems is the lack of government control over new housing, which is devolved to council level. So a developer can promise x affordable housing to get council building permission but then backtrack with the connivance of the council planning officers. The other problem is that provision for the elderly moving out of council homes or their own homes is minimal in many areas - what they need is ground floor accommodation or properly maintained lifts for access, proximity to town and services. This sort of provision doesn't give developers enough interest. It needs to be mandatory.

Meant to say state could charge more

I do agree in theory OP, but it's hard from a moral point of view.

I think the obvious solution is to build large amounts of decent social housing to allow space for these over crowded families and people on waiting lists, but realistically that simply isn't happening.

Perhaps if every council house now was given on the understanding that there would be a review say, every 5 years, regarding the necessity of the tenants compared to the size of the house. This might set people up with the reasonable expectation that if they had 4 children who'd all grown up in a 5 bedroom house, but had now moved out meaning there was just one or two people living in the house, they would expect that at the next 5 year review, they'd be offered a smaller property.

Unfortunately this wasn't done in the days when your auntie got given her house, so to some it would seem unfair to turn around and tell her that although it wasn't mentioned at the time of receiving the house she now has to leave.

I do agree though that if there's 1 person living in a council house with many bedrooms, they should be provided a smaller council house to allow a family into the house who would be able to take advantage of all of the rooms.

But how would that work in practice? Private rentals are owned by people. Surely they have the right to sell or move into their own houses if they want to? So how do you provide “security” for private rentals that’s comparable to the current situation with social housing?

I agree with you OP. It’s a council house, and while it is a persons home they don’t own it so shouldn’t have the right to stay in it when circumstances change. Family homes should be given to families in need. Single people or couples should be moved to flats. This way the distribution of housing meets the needs of those that require social support.

Why should the government build more homes and families live in tiny flats because single people want to stay in a lovely large family home with cheap rent!!

It was a small 3 bed council house on a housing estate. They would NOT have sub let illegally.

How do you know? Do you have any more details of what actually happened? If your mom was an only child they would have had one spare bedroom, but also the possibility of having more children themselves. Seems odd that a whole new family was allocated the one spare bedroom within another family's tenancy.

I completely agree with you (and the OP) that under occupying council homes to the extent the OP's relative is morally questionable.

I've just had to leave the house I've lived in since 1985.

It's not a council house and the situation is a bit complicated so I won't get into it.

Even though I've oy moved a few miles, my entire life has changed. It has been a massive disruption and shock to me, even though I'm only mid 30s. I can't imagine what it would be like for an older person who has raised a family to be forced to move.

They may not own the house but it's 100% their home and imo noone should be forced into moving.

£480pm

DH's Mum has been trying to downsize since DFIL passed away. 3 bedroom house. She's been waiting over 5 years. There just aren't properties available thanks to "right to buy" and zero central nvestment in proper community housing.

Because they are not state owned resources (although for the good of holiday areas, I agree with a limit on holiday homes/building more homes only locals can buy).

A council house is a state owned resource which should be used to maximum benefit for all taxpayers. Does it make sense to have a older lady rattling round a large house? Is that using the resource in the best possible way? What about when bills go up even further? I imagine large areas of the house will be cold/damp and the council tenant will be using the few rooms she goes in. Therefore, a total waste of a resource. Meanwhile a family desperate for a council house are in a property too small for them.