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.

Missing the point 🙄 I meant the people in bigger homes would have had more kids in a smaller home in order to be given a bigger home from the council as you don’t just get given a big house for yourself. So have no rights in slating people having kids in small homes.

Regardless, it's still cheap housing that is no longer available.

Pensioners are exempt I think

If you're not in receipt of any benefits than it won't have any impact

I'm in a 3 bed council property but only need a 2 bed now my dd has moved out. I have been waiting on a suitable 2 bed (due to my DS's disabilities) becoming available for almost 4 years I have been told that we have finally been allocated a 2 bed new build bungalow that they hope to have built between 2027 and 2028.
The problem isn't people being unwilling to downsize but that there just aren't enough appropriate for them to move to.

People paying mortgages have to make a decision on what size property/family they can afford. It's discussed on here all the time.

How about this scenario....
Couple start renting 3 bed house from council in 1954.....bring up family there
1972 last child leaves home
1974 mother dies father stays in property
1977 oldest son and family of 2 young kids move into property doing a council swap with father ( father ends up small 2bed house)
1977-2013 oldest son and family live in house
2013 oldest son died leaving wife and 20yr old son still living in the property.
At this point 2 adults in property
2022 son moves out leaving mother in property

So here is the problem. Mother is on local authority tenants panel and has seen current council policy saying that council property worth over £500k is to be sold when it come back into council vacant possession and a large percentage of the realises money goes back to central government and not to replacing the sold housing stock

Mother decides to stay living in the house as it's been her home for 46 years and family home for 69 years.... is she wrong? Is she blocking someone from the property?

If you no longer have children at home then you don’t need a 3 bed council house. Wouldn’t you be upset if you were crammed into a 2 bed flat with 4 children whilst a single woman lives in a spacious house, provided by the council? It’s not your house; it’s the council’s. You don’t own it. It should be for young families who are desperate, not a woman who can’t be bothered to find a private rental.

Of course there are people that don’t want to downsize.

Let’s no forget Labour MPs and RMT officials still living in council houses ‘because they can’. Absolutely disgusting.

I agree with you. And as others have said who are in a similar situation need to think on - it's not 'your 'house if you haven't bought it. If you have made improvements then that was 100% your choice. We rent very nice houses privately. I don't have the right to say to the landlord- actually we want to stay and nor do we get subsidised rent. I never forget that Bob Crowe the ex rail union boss on maybe£100k a year had a council house. Personally I think council tenancies should be on a 5 year lease and personal situation reviewed each time, however this relies on their being a supply of suitable properties to move to if situations change and maybe councils should look at an internal swap list, so that someone rattling around in a 4 bedder gets offered a swap with the family of 5 and their 2 bedder. ! The fact it's not in such a nice area or hasn't had a new kitchen should be by the by- Those of us renting privately for years and never being prioritised for council or HA don't have the luxury of cheap rents . I've known family's with 3 earners and £100k coming in who haven't bought and yet pay minuscule rents on pretty decent sized homes this is all fine and dandy if all of us have these options out there- but that's not the case these days.

But that's a separate issue isn't it. Houses are too expensive, and I don't think owners should have to make those choices either.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be responsible, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect to able to house a child or 2.

I realise this is your home but isn't it mad to spend so much on improvements to a house that isn't yours? Don't you have to remove things when you leave too?

Amazing she got such a huge house with only one child! I lived in an ex council estate and my neighbour had been a council tenant since the 70s. She brought up five kids in a three bed 800sq ft house!
Anyway they should offer her a swap, but it would have to be in a similar location which might be tricky.

This is a pretty annoying question considering that many people are stuck in larger properties they can't afford due to the bedroom tax, and housing shortages mean they can't downsize even if they want to. And contrary to a similar thread earlier, councils ALREADY DO incentivise downsizing.

But if someone wants to keep their secure home, to which they are entitled, don't begrudge them that. We are in a housing crisis - we need more affordable homes, and maybe some measures against all the high value properties that sit empty! Do you know we actually have enough housing in England, but so much sits empty as could solve homelessness?

And to the poster who says ITS NOT EVEN YOUR HOME UNLESS YOU INTEND TO BUY - bollocks!!!! You don't OWN it but it is your HOME. Or are generations, indeed other societies where renting is the norm, all actually homeless???

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.

And if an elderly council tenant did that, and found themselves issued a S21 notice a few years down the line, the council would have a statutory duty to house them, in another council property.

I think giving people an incentive to downsize is a good idea. Back in the 80s, the London borough I worked in was offering £1,000 for every bedroom gained if you agreed to move, so someone moving from a 4-bed to a one-bed would pick up £3k. Which was fair bit of money back then!

Sorry when I said there was no 1 bed flats in London, I meant available 1 bed flats.

I work in community mental health and have done for 20 years. I've worked in Westminster and Hackney, and live in Haringey, and it's the same everywhere. I seem to spend large chunks of my time liaising with housing providers trying to get 1 bed flats for vulnerable homeless people or to downsize to for those hit by bedroom tax. The amount of people living in shocking hostels and b&bs while theyre waiting on appropriate housing is evidence of ths shortage of 1 bed flats. Any anecdotal stories of ''my granny's hairdressers cousin lives next door to an empty 1 bed flat is merely that. Anecdotal.

This ^

I Care for a lady who is in a 3 bedroom house. Due to the fact that once it was Her, Her mother, her Sister and a brother there. Her Mother handed the tenancy down (as is allowed, just once) to Her hence she remains there.
She cannot use the upstairs due to problems with walking (luckily its one of the houses with down stairs toilet and shower).
I don't see why she should leave. Its her Home and her memories are all there.

Absolutely

That the local Council have not chosen to evict or re home your Aunt indicates that they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to her tenancy agreement, because they have made it too watertight in her favour for the current situation. That’s lazy administration.
I see this even now in anything the local Council organise: from bin collections agreements to permits for maintenance.
Example: slightly different issue, but same problem of paperwork not supporting future aims…
Our local Council spent £17 million on upgrading the town centre by replacing the surface of the market square with new cobblestones. Within 2 weeks, a Utility supplier was permitted to dig it up to provide new services to a new building, and allowed to “make good” the trench they dug with tarmac, rather than replacing the cobblestones! Clearly, the permit issued to the Utility Company only required them to “make good” damage arising from their actions, rather than requiring the workers to replace what was there already.
This is relevant as it shows the way they operate generally.
So the issue here is that many local Councils are too lazy/uninformed/incompetent to protect their assets and investments, whether it’s housing, or the upkeep of their historical assets.
The only way to get it to change is to get the local Council to actually add some forward-planning into their tenancy agreements and works schedules Etc. to ensure that they can A. get their property back into the best use as soon as conditions are met or not, and B. to protect their investments…
So yeah, it’s unfair, OP, but it’s not your Aunt’s fault - blame should be directed at the Council…

I don’t understand why those of us in HA shouldn’t spend money to improve our homes when it is a secure tenancy? It’s not
like we’ll be asked to leave at any time, for example I’m in HA the kitchen is 20 years old and cupboards are falling off and being repaired instead of replaced but then falling off again. I am told I will only get a new kitchen when my property comes on the list for improvement. Would I be wrong to contemplate perhaps looking at getting a second hand kitchen or even a new kitchen considering I could get a number of years use out of it? Even when I do downsize due to age etc I’ll have got the use out of it.

surely no different to spending 100s on carpets that needed tI be removed on leaving etc

Ps I work in a senior position in housing for a local authority and am an expert on this issue.

But reasonable discussion doesn't usually feature in threads such as these which are overwhelmingly based on prejudice, misinformation and misplaced blame.

Just let me as you this: what is the cause of the housing crisis?

Completely agree with you

So people that rent privately for however long - that's not their 'home' either?

I'd keep quiet at work if I were you. You're not coming over well.