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.

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

You are welcome to pay market rent to live wherever you like

He’s got some additional needs , it’s not quite so simple , the council Really need to act.

So you are saying people in council houses should buy their houses or move out.

Er, People buying council houses is what has largely caused the housing crisis in the first place. If your aunty had bought her council house it would never be available to rent to social housing tenants again.

(and it’s all very well to say downsize, but smaller council properties are often hard to find.)

If you're planning on spending thousands of pounds on a property that you don't own - maybe you should think about spending it on a property you will own?

Obviously I'm massively simplifying the issue, but it's the unbearable smugness that comes from council tenants while private tenants are up shit creek without a paddle and genuinely aren't able to do anything about it.

But why do you have a right to this? It's something to help you when you need it, it should then be passed onto another family, it shouldn't be your house for life

I agree. Social housing should provided on current needs basis. It’s disgraceful to over occupy a rented property when children are in temporary accommodation (eg London).

I think it all comes down to expectation setting. If people rented a council property but knew it was reviewed on a 5 year basis, depending on their situation at the time, then they would be less likely to do large home improvements, etc.

As it is now, people expect to stay forever and so are understandably upset at the thought this may not be possible if the ways of working were to be changed.

100%. Also need to do away with right to buy. Social housing should be based on need. It's rarely true that there is nowhere to downsize to, and a single person doesn't need a whole house.
Obviously in an ideal there would be enough affordable housing for everyone, but that ship sailed decades ago.

Well you didn’t put that in your post, there are many Facebook pages dedicated to swapping and the vast vast majority of people on them are trying to swap their smaller properties for bigger ones (rarely does anyone post that they are downsizing and if they do they get loads of messages whereas anyone looking for a bigger property barely gets a response) . In my area he would be given top banding (A) and paid for each room he gives up plus help with removal costs

No it's not fair.

But if it were a private rent then the landlord could just sell the property, or kick her out. She's been incredibly lucky

^^ This with bells on.

The council housing stock is so badly managed.

Sub-letting and sub-sub-letting in flats in the bigger cities has been an issue for years.

In my cousin’s single close of council 3 bed semis in a small village location there was a couple whose kids had flown the nest still occupying their home. Last year they split up and the woman moved out …….. a few doors down to another 3 bed council! So, there’s the two of them, each occupying a family home (except for when he stays over at hers - then his is empty). Needless to say neither are encumbered by the necessity to go to work, although to be fair they have enough to do tending to their horses (which is not a business).

And no, I haven’t read their health records, but they can certainly clean out stables without raising a sweat.

Because swapping a secure watertight tenancy to spend the rest of your life subject to the whims of private landlords is a really clever move. Not.

There's absolutely bloody loads of small council flats. At least there are anywhere I have lived. We've ended up with retired couples in family homes and families in small flats. Logic would suggest perhaps they should be made to swap...

if a family has been in a home for 30 years they have paid rent for 30 years and have no security/ financial reward to show for this

The rent they have paid is not the market rent in most cases. Often it is not even close. That rent is only possible because the state makes available a valuable asset & sacrifices making any return on that asset. The provision of an asset at undervalue is essentially a state subsidy on the rent.

Everyone in these situations needs to be assessed individually. What applies to one doesn’t necessarily to the other.

some people’s children may have moved out but they have their grandkids stay 4 nights a week or a carer stay to look after disabled spouse while they work a night shift etc etc etc

though in your aunts case it sounds like she should have been moved to a smaller home years ago when it was just her and one son and pointless bringing it up now

See where we live we have a good 5+ 1-2 beds go on a week. Then probably one 3 bed a month.

In the private sector no-one would question a single person or couple in a large house....

I don't think I've ever met a single person who is privately renting a 4 bed house. I'm sure they're out there but it's not the norm!

You can choose if you homeswap, can't you?

This is why the extra bedroom tax was created, to encourage people to move.

I'd personally put something in the tenancy agreement to say once dependants have moved on, tenants must start looking at swaps.

Because swapping a secure watertight tenancy to spend the rest of your life subject to the whims of private landlords is a really clever move. Not.

If you don't want to pay the market value to live in the nicely maintained property in a good area then you shouldnt get to choose to hog a huge subsidised council house instead.

Honestly the entitlement of some people is disgusting when there are kids spending Christmas in b&bs.

Council houses and flats weren't supposed to be a thing offered as a temporary solution to individual housing crisis, they were there to create long-term housing for ordinary people.

The solution is to end the right to buy (which is where I disagree with the OP), and build more. Social housing shouldn't be a scarce resource that people fight over.

I think the entire rental sector needs to be overhauled. There should be fair market rent rates across the board. Landlords shouldn't be using tenants to pay their mortgage. If you want to rent out your home, then you need to own enough of it/have a small enough mortgage that you can charge whatever that fair rent amount is. Rent increases should be restricted.

Selling off council stock was a terrible mistake. Should never have been allowed.

And yes, I agree, social housing tenants should be rehoused as and when their space requirements change. I don't think social housing is morally obliged to provide bedrooms for visiting grandchildren

Also bear in mind that if you have any kind of debt on your property, the council (or at least my council) won't allow you to swap. A friend's mother got caught with this: kids moved out, she got behind with the rent, was desperate to swap to a smaller place, council wouldn't let her until she cleared the debt. She had mental health problems, couldn't work, was then stuck there while people were really needing bigger flats such as hers.

Whether council tenants should have the right to remain in these circumstances probably does need to be debated.

But if I had a lovely house which I had looked after and decorated for decades, with pleasant neighbours and a garden I had nurtured, and forest land nearby, and space for my adult children or grandchildren if they ever needed it? I would not move. You would pry that house from my cold dead hands.

I agree
My in laws live in a 3 bed council house even though their 3 children have all moved out.
They could also afford market rent now.

I think housing should absolutely be available for those who need it but does seem a flawed system.

The reality is it's easy to say that you would give up a council house with reasonable not scummy greedy private landlord lower rent for people more needy when you yourself don't live in one.

The rage against people who choose RTB is stupid too. If you were offered a house at a 40% discount for the area absolutely no one who could get a mortgage would say no. The government are to blame for replenshing sold stock.

@Thesonglastslonger Council homes are there to supply secure housing to people. Not "get on your feet and get lost housing and we'll probably see you in a few years again". The rents are only a pittance compared to inflated private rent from greedy landlords. BTL mortgages are to blame not councils who have stuck their pledge to provide affordable secure housing. It IS her family home. CH are giben as a literalshell. Just walls and floors. Basic kitchen and bathroom. No white goods. No carpets. Nothing. All maintence below major repairs are the tenant's responsibilty. People put in so much time and effort into acutally making them a home.

So although I agree with the OP that CH/HA tenants should downsize I understand how difficult that may be.

Councils also prefer working tenants just like any other landlord. Our local council run CH at a profit. It's ringfenced for investment in CHing but it's a profit.