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.

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.

It is not a subsidy because council's more or less break even. Unlike private landlords who are obviously in it to make a profit. And also, unlike private landlord, many of whom have bought recently at current market rates, councils have owned many of their properties for 100 years or more. There costs have been subsidised by inflation the same way as homeowners have. The subsidy to housing is housing benefits paid to both council and private landlords.

Now if there was a nicely maintained smaller property in a good area, then I'd definitely consider it.

And therein lies the problem. We don't have enough suitable social housing for older people. It's not fair to expect retired people to move into a block of flats full of families with kids.

This above.
plus was it in her agreement which she signed in the 1990s that she would be booted out and have to move as soon as the youngest leaves home?

If he's gone to uni he could be back in the holidays and for good in 2 or 3 years. It can be really difficult for young people with student debt and starter salaries to save up for their own accomodation when they are just out of college.

This is why councils ought to be actively facilitating swaps.

Sounds like something from the mini series 'Years and Years' tbh.

That's not what subsidisation is.

Social housing should be a temporary (medium term) solution for people to get them back on their feet and self sufficient. Somehow we've ended up with a mantra that social housing means a home for life.

It's not a mantra; it is a fact. Your opinion that it shouldn't be so does not change that fact!

Just to be devils advocate...
The obverse argument would be, that people shouldn't have kids until they have secured suitable accommodation. Why is your aunt responsible for other peoples life choices?

A point often forgotten, or ignored by people when discussing people buying their council homes, is that by the time they have paid full rent for several decades, they have already paid more than they would have, had the property been mortgaged to begin with, except they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage for whatever reason at the time.
However, having already paid the full price once for their council house via rent, they then have to get a mortgage in later years to buy it again, so in effect are buying the same house twice.

Something I have noticed over the years, is that when you start hoiking old people about from house to house, they don't seem to last very long after, sadly.

I never understand the people who argue that council tenants have a right to have their home "for life". Why? Surely the whole point of buying a house is so that you can decide how long you stay there. If you live in someone else's house (ie you rent) then they can decide how long you stay there. Not you.

Private landlords make their rental decisions on the basis of their own personal needs.
Council landlords should make their rental decisions on the basis of the needs of the wider community, because that's who they serve - the community, not the individual.

If a council has 10 families living in overcrowded B&Bs , and 10 family homes each being occupied by a single billionaire, the council has a moral responsibility to think of the greater good, and house the 10 families.

If you want a home for life, you have to buy it. That's the way it is. In the same way I can't borrow library books and keep them for ever, or hire a car and expect them to let me keep it for years

I tend to agree with OP. However, it is true that there needs to be more social housing to facilitate the rotation.

I think if you have a heavily subsidised rent then the compromise is that you don't have an indefinite right to that resource when you end up with far more space than you need. Choice is always my argument for the private rental market, of which I was a tenant for several years. I would not have wanted to be told where I was living. Incidentally, I was paying the same rent as OP's aunt for an tiny little terraced in a fairly run down (though convenient) inner city area.

It's not "fair" for families to be stuck in flats and b&bs. Why exactly couldn't an older person move into a block of flats (assuming the flats were accessible for any physical needs)?

I'm with you OP and I think the sentiment should apply to those of us who own our own homes too. I know so many elderly family and friends bouncing around large family homes, and then end up living in a couple of rooms downstairs as they can't manage the stairs or afford to heat and maintain the place. Doesn't make me popular either.

I agree also that there should be incentives to encourage people to downsize and suitable properties for people to move into. I certainly would favour the building of more bungalows and banning planning permission for them to be transformed into houses.

This is just one of the things I would do if elected President for Life!

@PetitPorpoise CH is not subsidised 🤦

@DPotter Downsizing can cost more than staying. If people downsize they often want a bungalow, it is more expensive often than a house. I would live a nice 2 bedroom bungalow, I can't afford one.

I know it happened because my mother has photos of the family living with them and explained it to me. The only reason I know is because I was looking through old family photos, couldnt recognise them and said "who are they?"

Only suffer the bedroom tax if you're in receipt of benefits

That is not subsided.

Council housing isn't being paid for by taxpayers. Working people live in CH, pay rent, and anyway they are taxpayers, too. CH isn't "welfare".

The bitterness and resentment on this thread towards people who live in CH, and especially towards older women who have the temerity to live longer than their husbands, is amazing.

I have a mortgage I can barely afford, in a top-floot flat. It's a great flat, but it is very far from being ideal. I'd love a lifetime tenancy in a big house with a garden. But I'm not going to demand older women are forced out of their homes just because I don't have what they have. We should be demanding better for everybody, not fighting over scraps.

I think we're in the real world actually. And my nan literally does live 30 seconds away from both me and my mum. So why exactly would we change that set up?

You pay rent subsidised by tax payers. It is not our responsibility to subsidise a house for you forever. A family with children will need your house and that is what housing benefit was designed for (needs, not wants)

I feel this will be in another 10 years, my neighbours children have left and they have their home to themselves. My main concern is that my current 4 bedroom home is cheaper than a two bedroom property in my area. I think id probably end up moving into sheltered accommodation for over 60's if I don't settle down. I often think I might be lucky enough to exchange with a young couple who have a family but I know I'll be picky because I've worked hard to make this house a home and I just won't have the money to do a new property up so it would have to be well looked after and ready to move into.... something I can assure you was not the case when I got this house!

Not sure the council would put in a new bathroom or kitchen or change the boiler, replace the roof, front door or windows on a house they don't own. They also wouldn't hand out money for tenants to buy paints and wallpaper which they certainly did as recently as 2005.

So not really sure your argument stands up to scrutiny!

And while we're all waiting for the government to respond to these demands and build more social housing, where do you propose low income families live?

Me and my husband will not downsize when our three kids move out. Couple of reasons. We will not have to pay bedroom tax as we pay all of our rent and don’t rely on housing benefit. Secondly, I will want an extra room for any potential grandchildren that may want to stay over. Thirdly, I love my garden and there’s no way I would move back to a flat. They’re not suitable for older people and they’re hell on Earth with all the noise etc. council Bungalows are like hens teeth and I would be unsure about moving now from my area. I waited a decade my house on the list and had some troubling circumstances, I will not be giving my house up no.

That isn't the problem of the people already living in the social housing. It starts and ends with the government. If you all feel so strongly do something about it. Make a noise, write to MPs. Whinging about it on here is doing nout now is it

Do you really think I'm going to tell my nan to move to a 1 bed flat on the top floor half an hour away from us? No