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.

My point wasn’t about paying market rent - and many , though not all, council rents are approaching market rents - it was about swapping the peace of mind of a secure tenancy for the uncertainty of privately rented property. If the government want to do something to help the housing crisis then looking at the way landlord/ tenant legislation works is something they could do. Other countries manage to have huge amounts of privately rented accommodation without the anxiety of having to move every couple of years with the disruption to family and working life and expense that moving entails.

Completely agree

Took the words out of my mouth.

I watched a tiktok earlier where a young woman was saying that rentals are fine so long as you're not looking to get a huge income. Of course, she then had loads of people saying 'so I work hard and I don't DESERVE any extra money?' and she had to explain that:

• You have already bought the property, which is always going to increase in value. So you're generating a 'passive income' that way
• asking your tenants to pay more in rent to fund renovations, which will in turn increase the value of your property again - is underhand and not fair
• asking your tenants to pay above and beyond the mortgage to ensure you're making a good profit is underhand and unfair, because as mentioned before, they're paying down the owed amount at the same time as the property is increasing in value!

I guess part of the problem is that council properties in a lot of areas are few and far between so that the 'ordinary family' isn't getting them, it's only those in absolutely dire circumstances. And house prices are going up and up and up, not in line with salaries so people are priced out of buying but also priced out of having a council house. So they end up with no stability and private renting.

The whole thing is a disgrace.

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

And I agree with this. And I also think like in military house, council housing should not be allowed to be renovated in any way by the tenants. Save that money and buy somewhere else.

You are perfectly correct on your thinking. In Jersey if you are allocated a state owned accomodation it is given on basis you can only rent it until your circumstances change. My sister lives in Jersey and one of her friends had a 3 bedroom state property. Her son left for uni at Southampton and she, her DH and DD had to move to a 2 bedroom house. Three years later when her DD went to uni in Exeter her parents had to move to a 1 bedroom flat. They were sad as had paid out making it nicely decorated. It also meant her DD who is a teacher in Jersey and they are in short supply had to privately rent a room in a house as no room at her parents for her. There are so many families with 3 children squashed into 2 bedroom flats, it is just not fair for councils to allow a single person to remain in a 4 bedroom house. They should find her a 1 bedroom accommodation. She should be given a choice to take it or to move out and rent privately.

This is a classic example of the government failing yet turning people against each other so we blame each other for the misfortune of some. It's not the fault of your aunt, she is doing her best under the circumstances, and I don't believe we should be uprooting people from their council homes as a "solution" when the government should be providing proper long term accommodation solutions.

If in reality council homes were offered as temporary contracts and then withdrawn depending on occupancy there we ours be a huge problem with people be honest about who was living where, besides having the correct amount of 1,2,3,4 bedroom homes available in the right locations for people to chop and change to throughout their lives just isn't practical.

I've lived in a HA co operative in the past with a baby and husband in one bedroom whilst an elderly lady lived next door in a three bedroom flat. It felt unfair and stressful, but people can't "just move" at the drop of the hat and the housing stock to sustain that isn't there.

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.

My thoughts exactly. This seems to be taking the group of less-privileged people - those who live in council/social housing - and driving a wedge between the more privileged in that group who can get a mortgage and buy the house and the less privileged who can't. This is a way of making sure that only the most underprivileged, who will never be able to have any equity to leave to their children, are criticised and hounded out of their homes, but not the others who are in a slightly better position, who will then get a lovely discount, all the equity and freedom from criticism.

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?

So people who are realistically never going to be able to own their own home shouldn't be allowed to try to make their homes nicer or more personal to what suits them for their entire lives? How is that different in principle from saying that people who can't provide themselves with a big enough house should think about how many children they have and not plan on more than one or two?

How do we decide which people are allowed to make choices in their lives and which people are to be condemned for their choices?

Yes she should. But she should be able to move within the same area though to something suitable, so there should be good alternatives available.

It is very complicated. What about people with large salaries who now earn vastly over the average salary and still live in a council house?

In an ideal world there would be enough affordable housing for everyone. However, there isn't so I think the whole system needs reviewing.

I certainly think it's worth a discussion. It's one of those issues that might be more complex than you think.

On my street there is a council house that has been empty for a couple of years. An old lady died there. I really don't understand that. It clearly empty and bolted from the outside.

I think that all social housing tenants should have their tenancy reassessed every 5 years or so. Not necessarily as blunt as not renewing their tenancy/forcing them to downsize, but encouraging it. Circumstances change and we've got a lot of people living in social housing that could now afford to sustain themselves without that subsidised rent, and at the same time we've got homeless families living out of hotels and b&b's because social housing is over subscribed.

I know loads of people in social housing who are able to live a luxury lifestyle purely by virtue of their subsidised rent freeing up cash for luxury purchases like cosmetic surgery, brand new cars and multiple foreign holidays each year. Meanwhile people in the private rented sector are struggling with ever increasing rents in a very competitive market and housing benefit allowances don't even cover their rent.

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.

What I think could be done relatively easily is review social tenant's rents on an individual basis - if they can now afford to pay more rent then it should be increased, potentially up as high as open market/private rental rates. Then many of them would choose to downsize when they no longer need so much space.

As things currently are why would anyone want to downsize from their 3 or 4 bed house that costs £90 a week to a 1 or 2 bed that's only £5 - £10 a week cheaper?

I've a three bed just for me.
If the HA do all the work I'd consider downsizing, but obviously I want the same quality or better, plus all moving costs and redecoration costs paid.

I agree.
However, if I had lived in a home for 30 years, put time, money and effort in to it, made it look how I wanted, had local friends, helpful friendly neighbours, local hobbies and interests (which are important if living alone in older age) and generally had a good life, there is no way I'd agree to uproot myself and pay the same amount of money to live in a dingy one bed flat, in a bad area, that I'd have to spend my own money on to do up, somewhere I knew no one, had no support network and had to travel to do any of my usual activities, which would be harder the older I get. It's not your aunts problem to solve.
If the council had a good stock of well maintained over 55's homes in each area, including bungalows, then people would likely be more willing to downsize. They could do this by allowing developers to build more new homes in decent areas and insisting on this type of affordable housing being included.

Who says I am able to? Maybe I am disabled? And that's not quite accurate anyway is it? Who says that there are suitable smaller properties available on the open rental market? There's hardly any in the very large area we live in

Circumstances change and we've got a lot of people living in social housing that could now afford to sustain themselves without that subsidised rent,

While I agree with this in principle, I disagree with setting up support that disincentivises people to work or progress. Creating cliff edges in support means people are more likely to maintain their circus rather than improve them.

Maintain their circs, not their circus! 😂

Agreed in principle but financial incentives should be offered to those occupying homes that are too big for their needs. Surely the bills must be much higher!!
I cant imagine why a single parent with one child would be allocated a 3 bed council property . Whoever did that was clearly not doing their job properly

The housing stock is there though. As you said yourself, you were in a one bed and your neighbor in a 3. I can't think of any good reason why she shouldn't have been made to swap.

I think most housing trusts now review contracts after 5 years to determine how many bedrooms are needed , if you no longer need 4 bedrooms you will be expected to downsize.The demand for 4 bedrooms is huge so this is correct.

I completely agree with you. Then you get people on here saying elderly people living in big homes, that they own and have paid for, should downsize. Their home, they can do what they like to it. However, if you are renting from the council then absolutely you should be moved on when your circumstances change.

I'm currently trying to relocate by swapping my social housing accommodation and have found that this topic comes up quite frequently on swapping sites. I don’t actually agree at all though as essentially it makes the sitting tenant a scapegoat for other people's choices and failures. Your auntie isn't to blame for a lack of quality family housing, for other people becoming homeless, for improperly legislated rental markets or indeed for people who continue to have children despite only living in a 2 bedroom property.

Logically yes, it would be nice if everyone could give up their excess possessions for the good of society... But doesn't that apply to lots of other people as well? Lots of very rich (and sometimes titled) people are sitting on prime land their ancestors/older family members bought when it was cheap.

It's equally not the fault of younger people today that affordable housing stock isn't available. Having a family and a home shouldn't be a luxury.

Yes. When you are in social housing and have several empty bedrooms then you should be offered the choice to move.

The council/HA should meet all moving costs and provide some sort of compensation, like a month rent free or something plus ensure the place you are moving to is appropriate, decorated, carpeted, doesn't move you out of area or away from your friends and family and so on. If they can't do that, they shouldn't ask you to consider moving.

I live in a housing association property. If we became under occupied I would move if it didn't cost me anything and I was moved to a property in the same area and in the same condition, including the disabled adaptations that I have had put in my home.

What I would not accept would be starting again with no carpets, footing the moving bill myself, having to get it decorated and so on.

Over the years, she's probably become attached to property and see's it as her home.

I don't know if there's a rent scale for council properties, but you'd like to think people are paying for the space they occupy. I don't know what's in the Council's terms and conditions, but perhaps they need to add that regular assessment will take place to ensure the property is fully occupied to ensure there's homes available for more, also, pointing out that the larger property you have, the higher the rent and costs of upkeeping and bills.

My nan sold her house in the early 00s and got a 2 bed council bungalow. She's in her mid 80s now and has my DC stopping one at a time each week. She pays full rent. I don't think she should be forced to move now because the government have fucked up social housing. It used to be for all.