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.

The current tenant needs it to live in. They aren’t spending half the year in their tropical retreat.
Do you think private landlords should not leave properties lying empty then because other people need them? They are already vacant.

I've read it. I still have no idea how you come to these ridiculous conclusions.

You want to put vulnerable, physically weaker by dint of being elderly, possibly with health and mobility issues tenants in to high rise accommodation with anti social behaviour issues and you honestly think that is the same as putting a physically fit and healthy younger person in to the same accommodation? You need your head read.

Private landlords generally don't leave properties empty though

And the person may need someone to live but that doesn't mean it has to be that specific property

No-I am not saying young people should have to live in undesirable housing, everyone should feel safe in their home but the thread is talking about older people downsizing and I don’t think they should have to move into undesirable housing. Ideally there should be good social housing for those who need it, right to buy etc should never have happened, but that’s just my opinion. In the 1960s many people working in reasonable jobs lived in council housing, it’s sad that it is now seen as being only for the very disadvantaged and the private rental sector has grown.

Now deceased MIL was the same, four bed council house for years and years as bought up kids there. Didn’t get charged spare room tax due to age and absolutely refused to move to a more manageable flat/bungalow. She had foreign students in the empty rooms for years for extra cash also. It’s out of order and all tenants of social properties should be reevaluated every few years and moved if required. It should be in their contract to expect this. It is NOT their house!

3.0 Living in Your Property

3.1 You must use and occupy your Property as your only or principal home

Directly from a council tenancy agreement. YOUR property

I cant understand why one person would want to live in even a 3 bed house le t alone 4 bed on on own. When my dad went into care i sold our 3 bed family home and bought a one bed flat Ok i was fed up with commuting and wanted to move to city i worked in but i saw no point in buying anywhere bigger.living alone and now retired its cheaper and easier to manage than 3 bed house.i felt i was rattling round in too much space.I might on reflection liked an extra bedroom but its fine.

Why are these flats automatically unsuitable for old people? Why do all old people automatically need 2 bed bungalows or small houses? Why do they automatically need these things more than the people already living in said blocks with social issues?

Please point me to the comment where I have said ALL.

Perhaps these blocks have social issues because they are being filled with disadvantaged young people with nowhere better to go?

How was she in a 4 bed house with only one son originally?

So putting vulnerable old people there instead is going to help that is it? Some sort of weird social experiment you want to happen?

According to this link - www.actiononemptyhomes.org/facts-and-figures - the government’s own figures say there are a quarter of a million homes lying empty actually. And landlords only usually let when they get the price they want, which is hugely inflated.
It does have to be that specific property as they signed an agreement that they could live there for life. Many people are happy to move to smaller properties but guess what there isn’t enough of them either.

It's almost like this thread is here to just wind people up?! Weird how the op hasn't come back for a heck of a while

I think in this day and age. There should be a system of Swapping. A family needing a bigger house should be able to swap with someone now needing a smaller house. With so many council houses been sold with the right to buy there is now not enough social housing. It is not fair for a single person or couple to be rattling about in a 4 bed house. Councils should not be paying silly money for families to stay in B&Bs this is a huge cost to the tax payer.

You're being an axxhxxle
You maybe right about your aunt but as others have said it's more than bricks n mortar. When your aunt moved there she probably thought she was secure for life and had no idea that governments would sell off their (our) housing stocks at bargain basement prices without building replacements thus causing a housing crisis where; one full time wage can't buy a house through a 20 year mortgage (sometimes not even two min wages can); there are no where near the amount of houses needed; and rents have skyrocketed.

The government could fix it they choose not to, it's not the fault of those lucky enough to be in there homes for a lengthy time.
It also wouldn't be enough to solve the problem......now converting disused sites or building social housing on land hoggers would be more effective......but at the end of the day the government caused the problem and could fix it giving a boost to the economy as well..... But in an energy crisis they won't even say to builders new homes must have some sort of renewable energy so can't see them lifting a finger.

Sorry but it's a form of pointy finger oooh it's their fault that bugs me (not just housing)
It's scapegoating.

Of course the real problem is that social housing and in particular council housing has been deleted over the last 40 years. They said it was not fit for purpose and yet today 40 years later people would sell their souls to the devil to get a decent council house. Also as for moving out, where to? A relative of mine was pushed out of her 2 bed council house into a micro flat in a block full of anti social people and criminals. That tends to be the option. My mother in law owns a flat in a big stone building at the arse end of Scotland but needs to move to something more sensible for her age, re steps and things. The flat is worth almost nothing in todays terms and the options she has are practically zero. And that is the story across the board in the Regressive state of the UK.

DH his DD and his ex were given a 4 bedroom in 1980. There wasn't the pressure on houses then. His ex still lives there on her own.

We had a 3 bedroom house. We downsized to a 2 bed bungalow. DH has medical equipment so has a room to himself.

The problem is lack of social housing building. It needs a mass build.

Sounds like you’d a great relationship with her.
As far as I know taking in foreign students is not a breach of a tenancy, for cash or otherwise.
Don’t think there is an exemption for bedroom tax due to age but I could be wrong.
She doesn’t have to move, she has the right to live there all her life. How about a mortgage provider three quarters of the way through your term changed your occupancy rights because for some reason it wasn’t fair on others. Would you be ok with that? A tenant in occupation of a property and in accordance with the terms of their tenancy has the same rights to occupy the property as a mortgagee with possession does of theirs. You don’t actually own your house either until the mortgage is paid off, the bank lets you live there whilst you pay off the loan they gave you to purchase it.

It's not a social experiment though. It's well known that diverse communities prevent social issues.

I agree 100% This is the governments doing and people seem to get their opinions from the lies they read in the Daily mail

Technically I don’t own my council house but I sure will be here until I die. So it’s my home, for the rest of my life. Most people borrow for years until their mortgages are paid off. The large majority of us “borrow” for years.

Or council/government policies around rental of houses not addressing this issue? I think there is a clause in Housing association rules which requires a downsize and enforcement in this situation. I’m surprised if there isn’t the same for council property tbh.

They sign an agreement saying they can have that specific property for life? I find that difficult to believe and if it is true then that rule should be changed. Why should anyone have the right to a specific property for life?

I'm a landlord so can speak with some experience that landlords let properties at the market rate or below. No tenant will move into a place with an inflated price out of line with the others in the area