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.

She does not want to is a very good reason if she has contract law on her side.

Why do you not rent a room out very cheaply to a young person to help them put? Because you do not want to maybe?

Tell me 1 good reason that won't make you sound like a complete twat?

Many blocks of flats don't allow mobility scooters in, for example, or have anywhere outside to park them

My dad had that problem in his flat, which was a purpose built retirement flat. It only had room for 3 scooters, and had about 90 flats!

People say they would downsize if something suitable was available

But ( if the property shows are anything to go on) suitable means at least as big as they already have

Having a couple of kids really shouldn't be a privilege though.
It's ironic that people forget that lots of these old ladies got their council houses in the first place to accommodate the children they couldn't afford to house privately.
I really fail to see any good reason why old people should be only ones entitled to a house that "appeals to them".

It isn't even that. She literally has no need to. It wouldn't even cross her mind she shouldn't be in her home. And rightly so.

I'm afraid I also disagree with council houses being a "home for life".

Council houses are for those who are unable to work or are on low incomes who would struggle to afford to rent in the private market or purchase their own home. It gives them a roof over their head at a reduced rate.

If that person then inherits money, has an increase in earnings, more disposable income etc where they're then in the position to be able to afford privately renting or purchasing a house of their own, I then think they should be expected to do so. The discounted rate of rent provided by council homes should be for those who need it, not those who needed it at one point in their life but have not for the last decade.

Your aunt should have significant savings by only paying £100 per week in rent, especially now she has no dependent children living at home, meaning she should realistically be able to afford renting of some description. Of course, no one would want to hand away a large house for £100 per week, it's a fantastic bargain, but one that should not be taken advantage of by those who don't need it. It should be a council provision given to those in their time of need, with the understanding that once their situation has improved, they can go on to find a property to rent/buy of their own.

Lol. I don't have a spare bedroom. Perhaps someone would be desperate enough to rent my leaky conservatory. There's an idea.

Am I a bit slow? Bit rich. I'm not even dignifying you with an answer. All your points have been answered in this thread. There are even links you can follow to prove yourself wrong.

Good day to you.

How many millionaires do you honestly think are living in council houses? Outside your hypothetical example dreamed up inside your head.

Yes suitable only appears to mean a nice bungalow just round the corner...

Being able to live your life out in comfort with your family and able to have your grandkids to stay shouldn't be a privilege either. Especially when you already have it.

Totally agree with you.

Whilst on paper there could be huge benefits on releasing stock by moving single persons out of 4 or 3 bed council homes, it must be remembered that for the resident, that is their home of perhaps many decades.

You can’t take someone who, through circumstance was given a council house when there may have been a plethora of homes, and turf them out to somewhere else when they are older & their family have left home. Or perhaps their circumstances we such that their council home is the only stable point they have in their life.

Council houses are homes, just as bought houses are.

We would be in a far better housing situation in the UK if we looked at houses as homes, not assets to hoard & profit from. How many private housing assets are not homes but Air B&Bs, or seasonally rented out & left empty through part of the year? What about second homes that push prices up in rural or coastal villages & towns? Or homes bought as assets & left empty; whether through money laundering or taking advantage of house price rises? There are hundreds of flats here in the south east that are vacant but owned assets, staying empty whilst their value goes up. Or conglomerates buying whole blocks & leaving them empty just to turn a profit or obscure earnings?

But no, let’s all get angry at the elderly & lower income families or those whose circumstances mean they are eligible for social housing & make them well aware that because they cannot afford to buy a house, they can therefore never have a forever home.

As the Buzzcocks said, there is no love in this world anymore, eh?

No one else gets to keep their rented property for life so why should people in council houses? The law that allows it should be changed as it's ridiculous.

I sometimes wonder if the various older people living in big homes and refusing to move discussed here really know what life is like for a homeless family in cramped temporary accomodation. Perhaps they should be taken to see this and asked to think good and hard about the choices they are making.

Most social housing isn't council housing anymore though. It's social housing in property privately owned but rented out on a social need basis. Our council pretty much transferred over to this from council housing and has very few on its books now. The council I believe owns own of these companies. Others are run as not for profit but some are run for commercial gain.

As such the terms and conditions have changed over time. Even with council housing, there was a time when a house could stay in a family for generations but they've tightened up on that. My neighbour was telling me that they only allow transfer to a family member once now. He had hoped he could transfer the property to his daughter and granddaughter but this isn't possible anymore. His daughter is on the newer Housing Association scheme and the conditions aren't as favourable.

I like them all and think they should be able to stay in the area as their family has been here for generations. But I also think the best way to enable it is through the best use of property available, to give the maximum number of people possible security. Security doesn't mean staying in the same house for the rest of your natural life - it could be to stay in the same area in suitable housing but either smaller / bigger according to needs. If there isn't suitable alternatives available then it's not an issue either.

This is about as socialist as it gets rather than the opposite.

There is nothing to say that housing security means you have to stay in one house. Many home owners find they need to move when getting older. The key points are local and suitable though. (This is where it might fall apart as the fuck witted jobsworths at the council can't tie their own shoelaces!)

Why would someone willingly move to somewhere they'd hate and not be happy?

You do know reality shows are not real life?
Loads of people want less space to heat and maintain as they get older, but what they usually want is a bungalow. In many parts of the country bungalows are more expensive than houses. My friends two bedroom bungalow (and the second bedroom is tiny) is worth a lot more than my 4 bedroom house. It also has a tiny kitchen. I could not afford it.

They have that right because they signed a tenancy giving them that right. Why should social housing tenants have to lose that right due to the failure of the government and the profiteering of private landlords?

They shouldn't have a choice. I'm not expecting people to volunteer.

Totally agree with you. But it's also the governments fault for selling council houses under the 'right to buy' scheme leaving us with a housing shortage.

A nice bungalow around the corner is what most people want. It is what I want.
You want people to move far away from where they live to a not very nice area or somewhere where they do not know anyone?

The boring answer to all this is that we simply need more social housing. Until then these problems will persist. Back in the day when a third of all households lived in housing association or council properties no one gave a shit about the occasional house being ‘under occupied’.

the ultimate result of right to buy is that the percentage of home owners initially increased but is now back to pretty much the same a it was on the 70s. The biggest difference is that private renting has doubled and social housing has halved. Downsizing is fine in theory but the reality is that in most cases there is nowhere for people to go.