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.

Affordable and subsidised don’t mean anywhere near the same thing though do they? It’s not nit picking to point that out.

Well actually all council houses are subsidised because the council could be making more from them.

We see it all the time on Mumsnet:

'my sister is living in my second flat, paying some rent but way below market rate, I could do with more money, WIBU to tell her to pay market rent or move out'

Posters all come along saying 'it's not your job to subsidise your sisters lifestyle, you shouldn't be losing money' etc etc

Or

'My adult DC is living at home still, they pay me some rent but nowhere near as much as market rate round here, they've got nice things because they don't have to pay full rent'

Posters: charge your DC market rate, right now you're subsidising their lifestyle, they need a taste of the real world etc etc.

Losing money by helping someone else is subsidising them. Even if councils are making a profit if they could make more profit they are subsidising people by not making more money, and every single council in this country could do with more money right now.

Subsidising isn't just giving someone money for X.

When my dad tried to downsize his council house after my mum he got sod all help from his Labour council, all they did was to tell him to go on the Home swap site that was an 82 year old man who didn't have a computer, so I tried for him, what a nightmare it had to be a 3 way swap, him downsizing to a 1 bed, that person upsizing to a 2 bed and the 2 bed tenants upsizing to a 3 bed we gave up in the end, yet it would have been far simpler for the council to have done it, but the stupid thing is dad died in March last year and his house is STILL empty

@undernotover No, that’s not what subsidising means. Social housing is run on a not for profit basis. Everything in society does not have to be run on a model of maximising profit anyway, but the absence of that ethos does not equate to subsidised housing.
The examples you have given are in no way equivalent to social housing tenants. Neither of the examples show anyone with a tenancy agreement for starters and in one you say ‘you shouldn’t be losing money’. Social housing pays for itself. They both deal with family relationships as well so you really comparing apples and pears.
A more fitting example of subsidised housing would be, for example, MPs being subsidised by being provided with housing allowances by the tax payers. They are actually being supported by the tax payers to house themselves more cheaply than they would otherwise by receiving money. But on your post above sorry you haven’t much to back you up there.

There are wider issues with potential social housing downsizing. Many empty nesters want to downsize to 1 or 2 bed properties but often these smaller places
come at a much higher rent or with a fixed term tenancy as opposed to assured or secure tenancies. In this economic shitshow, no one in their right mind would purposely increase their living costs and/or reduce their housing stability.
If you want to have a pop at anyone, try the government for introducing the 2011 Localism Act which gave powers to social housing providers to dish out these tenancies and invent the lie of 'Affordable Rent'.

Agree and they also should not be for life for single people with no kids.

council houses are for family’s or people for a start in life not the sit in drinking alcohol all day and bumming off benefits like some neighbours I have come across.

I don’t think kids should entitle you to a life tenancy either.

They should simply be allocated in terms of need, with the decision reviewed every 5 years or so as yearly would be an administrative nightmare.

Nobody should have more than 1 empty bedroom, and people over a certain age shouldn’t have stairs.

Comprehension fine thanks. If possible, it should happen, and it should be allowed.

Dont know why they are upset with you I see what you mean. My neighbour, I like her dont get me wrong but she has lived in that house for 40..years? Her kids have left decades ago, her husband passed some years ago shes been on her own in 3 bed house with large garden. Her children have offered to buy the house for her off the council she has turned them down as why take responsibility of mainteinance etc since she pays ...25 pounds per week (I have seen the rent calculations letter by the council) Good for her but seesh, who pays 25 pounds per week for a 3 bed house ( with mainteinance these days lol.) Mortgages and private rent in our area are 700,800,900 a month. I wouldnt want her to move but I know what you mean. Then there are also the "single" mothers living in council houses with the phantom partners who are not officially supposed to be there.

I don't agree with the 5 year thing at all. As I have already explained, it wouldn't work.

But your second point is fair enough. But there aren't the properties available for that to happen

They're not subsided. It's been said over and over again. Someone has even linked to a site explaining how they're not subsided. So stop

I'd be interested to see some actual data on whether or not council houses are entirely self funding. Do you know if this information exists?

No idea. Have a little looksie yourself if you're so interested.

Council housing probably saves billions in housing benefit payments. I can just about pay my full rent for my council property on a low wage but I'd need help to pay a similar size house privately. Council social rents are just about right for the average earner, affordable rents not so much (they do affordability checks for these properties too) and private rents are just ridiculous for anyone on a lower wage to afford.

'My adult DC is living at home still, they pay me some rent but nowhere near as much as market rate round here, they've got nice things because they don't have to pay full rent'

Posters: charge your DC market rate, right now you're subsidising their lifestyle, they need a taste of the real world etc etc.

Except they don’t says that. They say charge your kids for what it costs to keep them at home - in terms of food and extra gas and electricity. So you’re not out of pocket- much the same with council tenacities. And if your kids complain about that show them what they would be paying in the real world.

But it’s not your home so you don’t have a ‘right’ to stay there once the bedrooms are not being used and will be more suitable for families.
At that point, you should be downsized to a property for one person rather than keeping a family home.

I have and can find nothing more than wordy explanations. The raw data would be very interesting but it doesn't seem to be available

Where you live is your home, even if you don’t own it. You are entitled to remain in that home as long as the tenancy allows. Many older social housing tenancies are lifetime. Tenants absolutely have the right to stay in these homes so long as they abide by the terms of the agreement. Indeed the tenancy has been agreed on the basis that they will have that right for the rest of their life.

Submit a FOI sure. Get all the raw data from all the local authorities and housing associations and return to us with your findings.

I'm not that bothered I just think it's interesting that so many people are spouting that social housing isn't subsidised but nobody can substantiate those claims.

@Kabalagala Have a look at the housing revenue account (HRA) for your local authority. Council housing expenditure is ring fenced these days because it was found that councils were using income from rents on non housing expenditure. Council rents are not subsidised. Anyone having all or part of their rent paid by benefits, in whatever type of tenure, is subsidised.

By the same token given the clear antipathy of many people to the idea of social housing, you’d think that it would be sung from the rooftops if the government was subsidising social housing though wouldn’t you? Doesn’t appear to be the case from what you’ve said.
Maybe you could give us a run down of what the wordy explanations you found said

A relative of mine is moving from her big family council property into a small flat after 40+ years. The council didn’t pressure her or anything but have offered her this lovely little flat near the shops . She agrees the house should be for families, she’ll be glad less rooms to clean etc . I think if the council find suitable alternative then that’s fine . If all your family have grown up you don’t need a big 3 bed house it’s not yours it’s council property so yes I agree it should go to a family .

You do have that right though. Or people wouldn't be allowed would they?

@gettingolderandgrumpier less to clean, less to heat, no stairs, near shops. What’s not to like.