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.

If they'd provided a meal, the lodger would have been a "boarder" and only half the income would have counted! A bowl of cereal can make a big difference.

I grew up in a housing scheme in the 80s. Quite often der people would move into a local 1 or 2 bed bungalow when they were older and kids all gone. Now because much of it has been sold off, there isn't anywhere for people in council houses to downsize to, certainly not locally.

It's not just about the house but also the community around you. If you live somewhere for years, bring your kids up there then you know people and they know you. Now imagine facing old age, alone and being told you need to move many miles away to a suitable one bed flat where you don't know anyone and with less likely hood of forging those links at this stage in your life.

I personally don't think it's any better or worse to have a large family house to yourself regardless if you rent or own, it's the same difference morally.

A house is more than just four walls, it's a home and it's being part of acommunity. I do think it is bad that many families are in unsuitable homes or couples limiting family size due to lack of space but it's not a straight forward situation. If you want people to give up their homes you have to be able to offer them an alternative that meets their needs and too often there aren't any.

To be fair I’ve been in my HA house for 3 years and had 1 repair in that time most other stuff we do our selves yet when we need something like a kitchen or rendering done which should come under improvements we are told no only when you come up on a list

I agree with you OP.

It’s true the government hasn’t done enough but I can’t believe people just sit back and say “it’s not my fault that other people don’t have homes, it’s the government’s responsibility”. It’s so selfish and self-centred.

Some of the justifications people come up with for staying are just ridiculous. “I’ve spent lots of money on home improvements” - yes, most people do that if they own and private rent too, it’s part of being an adult.

I think that council house residents should have their circumstances reviewed, say, every 10 years, and if their current circumstances (income, savings, number of occupants etc.) doesn't meet current eligibility requirements, then they should be given notice to move, either to other council or HA housing (i.e. smaller homes), or to the private sector if their income/savings are above a certain threshold and they can afford it.

I understand about elderly people living in their own communities and being reluctant to move, but we need to do something about people who now have incomes/savings far in excess of what they had when they were first given the council house and basically living "on the cheap" when they could afford to buy or rent privately, thus taking up a council house that is more needed by others.

I can't get annoyed at council and housing association tenants when those in charge have done little to nothing about falling housing stock.

There's a deliberate push to have average citizens blaming other citizens for the problems caused by decades of rich and powerful people making decisions to enrich themselves and their paymasters.

The lack of appropriate, affordable, long term housing in this country is the problem.

Yes absolutely she should.

This is your aunt's home. I find it really sad that the contemporary idea seems to be that it's fine for social housing to be sold, and if you can buy it you have a 'real' home. But if you can't afford to do that, it's simply accommodation and you should be shunted around at other people's will.

I think if you take a council house now because you have a family it should be agreed that in the future, should you find yourself alone in that house, the council have the right to offer you something else more suited to your needs. However this does not mean they can shove you in a high rise away from where you live now. and they can't force you out if it causes distress.
For people already living in houses that have empty bedrooms and have lived there for a very long time - leave them alone.

the energy bills crisis may encourage people to downsize

Council rents are nowhere near market rates where I live. Generally private rental is 2-3 times more expensive.

If we follow your logic OP everyone in a home with excess bedrooms should downsize, whether the property is rented or owner-occupied.

I grew up in a housing scheme in the 80s. Quite often der people would move into a local 1 or 2 bed bungalow when they were older and kids all gone. Now because much of it has been sold off, there isn't anywhere for people in council houses to downsize to, certainly not locally.

I agree with GreenTomato67. That was my experience too. You can see that this was the intention in housing estates built in the 1950s and 1960s. Even though they have almost all been sold off, there are little rows of bungalows interspersed among the other houses.

I am assuming your aunt is on some type of protected tenancy if she is only paying £100 pw. That must be an incentive to stay put. Perhaps she would move if she had the option of living in a smaller house at a similar rent.

As a home owner, with a mortgage, if I can’t afford the mortgage/ my DH leaves me, I have no choice but to leave, no matter how long I’ve lived there, and how many kids I brought up in the house.
As a renter in the private sector, I have no rights, if my landlord decides that he wants to sell up.
I really don’t understand the argument that “they’ve lived there all their lives and so should be allowed to stay, as it’s their home”. Literally NOONE else has that guaranteed luxury.

Secondly, if you are lucky enough to get a council house, the chances are that you started off in a small one or two bedroom place. And as your family grew, your housing needs increased and you were rehoused appropriately. I’m assuming that those people were less attached to those small places, and didn’t argue that they didn’t want to leave the one bed flat to gain a larger property because it was their “home”.

With other people desperately in need of housing, that YOU (not the OP, but anyone blocking the system) needed at a particular time, but no longer do, I think that you should downsize, as your “living at home” family shrinks.

This is why the so called “bedroom tax” was brought in, to encourage people to downsize, but it’s not been very effective. One of the biggest problems is that there are not enough smaller properties available either.

I know of a family where 2 elderly ladies lived alone in 3/4 bed houses ,
they were both offered the right to buy ,but didn’t have the money
so the son / in law bought both ..
they then passed and the son /in law sold both at a Hefty profit ,and pocketed the lot .
the rich getting richer

@BillyNotQuiteNoMates By the time you have retired you will have paid off your mortgage and so be living in a cheap house with no rent or mortgage. You certainly will not have to move.
Those in private rented get the worst of all, but why should it be a race to the bottom?

I think people should be made to downsize in these situations.

How does the moral right of the renter of a very large unsuitable council house stack up against the moral right of children being brought up in cramped and inappropriate conditions ?

For the future I think that all of these tenancies should be re-written, reserving the right of the council to rehouse once the household reaches a certain size/lack of age dependency.

Well said, people talk like social housing is meant to be like something that is only to be used in an emergency and then given up as soon as ones financial situation improves a bit. Like you say it was never intended this way but to be life long decent homes for the working classes.

I think many people don't know the conditions out of which social security and social housing and health care arose. There was real fear in the early to mid 20th century of revolution especially in the 1930s and many of the things we take for granted now came our of that. Now those in power are getting complacent and we are seeing all those things crumble as they see how much we will put up with losing or blame each other for.

I don’t understand how this isn’t already policy

No, it's her home, it's not her fault the government aren't supplying new homes.
I do understand what you mean though.

If this policy was brought in it would have very little impact on the availability of council houses.

Most people in this situation would just buy the council house, maybe with help from relatives. So it will never be a council house again.

Of those left there will not be somewhere else for the older person to move for most so they will stay put. So a very small number of people will be forced to move.

I find most people want to downsize if somewhere suitable is available.

@Winterpetal It is for all new renters. It is only some elderly tenants still on older protected tenancies.

I have to agree, OP.
I moved to my first LA property when I was 19, lived there for 10 years.
I used that 10 years of cheap rent to save up for a deposit for my own home.
we finally moved and bought our first home 4 years ago.
Within our contract we had to give 1month notice to end the tenancy, I gave them notice by email and posted the keys back at the end of the month, cue the housing officer calling me because they didn’t see the email and wanted me to pay another months rent, you’d think that they’d be more pleased about being able to house another family in need.
people understandably get attached to their homes, but I don’t understand the argument where you’ve spent so much money on renovations, we only spent the bare minimum to keep it looking decoratively nice, knowing full well it the house was more of an opportunity to save for a deposit for our own home

On the one hand I agree that with a council house shortage, yes, your aunt should move, but that's not entirely her problem, it's the government's right to buy scheme coupled with not replenishing housing stock. She shouldn't have to move out of her home because of 40 years of government failures (Right To Buy was introduced in 1979).

An enourmous, nationwide building scheme to build whatever the shortfall is - 2 million homes? 3 million? - over the next 5 years would be an incredible injection into job creation, industry, manufacturing, and obviously the end result being the housing, which could also be used to lure young families to less popular cities (they've been doing something similar in Japan).

This is a really interesting read: files.bregroup.com/bretrust/100_years_of_council_housing.pdf

I think it's pretty obvious that if downsizing was to be enforced right to buy would also go so it wouldn't be an issue.