Jeremy Vine - people are morally obliged to downsize and free up property

[JoanThursday1972]

Currently have this on the radio. Suggestion is that people are not entitled to remain in and live in the house that they have bought and paid for. That they should downsize and free this up for more deserving occupants, ie families.

This is surely a personal choice and not an obligation? Anyone is entitled to live in a house they have bought, regardless of size.

There's great schools near me too.

As I said below, the idea that if an over 65 sells up their nice big house with good garden in a nice area it will automatically free up housing for some young family is bunkum- there isa very big chance it will go to a couple in their 50s and 60s who have inherited or sold a business or just sold their buy to let- whatever, as another poster said the fundamental problem is that housing of a decent size in good areas is expensive because there is less of it and there are in my opinion fewer and fewer really nice areas that offer much to make it worth the cost- 'middle class /middle earners' often gravitate to the same places too , understandably - and hence you end up with everyone after the same houses. Another issue is villages- at one time many of these would have been very aspirational, unfortunately when you no longer have a pub or a shop or a primary school and it's just a bunch of houses with no heart then quite naturally they aren't so aspirational for many- I realise not all villages are like this- but far too many are. There are some nice retirement flats out there- the platinum skies ones on the south coast are a good example and can be bought on part buy/ part rent too- giving you the security but freeing up cash as well- but I fully accept that not all older people like the idea of flats and balconies- asa society the UK doesn't really have the apartment mindset beyond a certain age.

Take that superior, blinkered and judgemental mindset and look at the history of the great British Empire. I am a descendant of slavery and the Windrush generation, tell me again about starvation, greed, taking only what you need and doing what is morally right. Tell me about getting access to housing, jobs and decent healthcare even when you can afford it, let when you can't because of the colour of your skin. I would really love to hear more as I am sure would others who have been affected in this way. Tell me why I should give up the home which I have scrimped, saved and made sacrifices (no family handouts) for and planned my retirement (lack of suitable alternatives) to someone you deem more deserving? Please do explain to me why the current problem has been caused by my greed/privilege and is not a problem caused by the government? I'll wait...

It's not unreasonable to want to live on the ground floor. There was a poster on here whose aunt was trapped in her house for several days waiting for an ambulance because they could not get her downstairs with the pain that she was in. It didn't sound very dignified.

I'm a working class woman. My dad left me nothing of great monetary value. I do know that I was very much loved by him. I am fortunate to live in a 4 bed house by the coast. I'm unfortunate as both my adult children have either chronic health conditions (lots of them) or learning disabilities. I hope that I can leave this house to them and they can live here for as long as they need. By doing so, despite having 2 bedrooms unoccupied, they would not be a burden on the state and could offer mutual support to each other. If either need a carer then there is room for one, and if one can't manage stairs then the ground floor is accessible. It's easy to see things in a simplistic manner when you don't know what is going on in others lives. The rubbish situation in respect of housing is partially due to lack of social housing, RTB, unregulated private renting and people thinking that housing isn't primarily about having a roof over the head, but rather an investment.

Stair lifts are the answer.

Or moving the bed downstairs if a stair lift is not an option.

Having slightly struggled to sell my Mum's flat, and regularly railed at the management company over increased costs and speed of repairs, I do get the hate for retirement complexes. I still don't entirely see what the alternative is for a lot of people though.

A previous poster mentions with disgust that the complexes they mention are near supermarkets, but surely that's the point? They are built with access to shops, doctors etc.

When my Mum was looking to downsize, the alternatives were that kind of complex, or a small house in a modern estate, not near enough to amenities and offering the likelihood of barely seeing another soul from day to day as to many they are starter homes of those who work full time.

The peace of mind of knowing that she was regularly 'checked on', seeing people for socialisation and there was someone on hand to alert me to get there in an emergency was worth every penny to us, I have to say. It took 10 years off her when she moved in.

Perhaps its different for those who are very fit and healthy (although Mum was very independent to her mid-80s, despite health issues) and still in couples. For some though, they have their place.

As the youngest of four children, with no children myself to worry about leaving an inheritance to, I certainly wouldn't discount one in the future - and if my neices and nephew find it an inconvenience, they can always refuse any inheritance I haven't already managed to spend!

A stairlift is really only a solution for a straightforward mobility problem. My grandfather had bad arthritis and it enabled him to stay in his home. My friend’s dad however who also has a stairlift has reached a stage with his dementia and Parkinson’s where it’s not a solution any more - he forgets it’s there or he has toilet accidents because he leaves it too late and it takes an age to get to the top of the staircase. My friend and her sister have spent the past two years desperately trying to get him to consider moving into more appropriate housing because he simply can’t manage any more, but he won’t consider it.

In comparison, my Norwegian friend speaks very matter of factly about her parents’ “death cleaning” - the Scandi-Nordic process of clearing out your shit so your kids don’t have to deal with it when you’re dead, and making pragmatic plans for the living and care arrangements you imagine you’ll need as you age, including downsizing and considering a retirement apartment. They don’t see paying for suitable housing and support or care as a waste of money any more than they think paying for food or utilities as a waste of money: if you need care to continue having a good life then it’s worth every penny.

It’s been stark and really quite sad to see two friends having a completely different experience of elderly parents largely because of differing cultural attitudes towards older age living: one at her wits end and constantly stressed over a disabled elderly father who refuses to move out of a house he should have left years ago, because he doesn’t want to “lose his independence” (even though he doesn’t actually have any, because he really can’t manage alone) and thinks paying for care is a waste of money; and one who is going through a very cultural rite of passage with her parents, before they actually desperately need to be doing it, so that everything is stress-free, collegiate and there’s a clear plan ahead.

Im a single person in a 3 bed house. (own not rent)

One bedroom is mine, one is guest, the box room is my wfh office.

over my dead body would I downsize - and dont see why i should.

I still don't entirely see what the alternative is for a lot of people though.

To remain in their own home.

With or without care coming in.

If he has dementia and he's not safe at home, then capacity assessment should be completed /a best interest decision can and possibly should be made on his behalf. These things are in place. The UK isn't totally shit at managing this stuff, regardless of what some like to believe.

She didn't need care in any way, the house just became too much - particularly the large garden. We tried getting gardeners in, but they were so unreliable as to be completely useless, too much competition for it round here so no-one wanted to just be mowing lawns and doing general maintenance.

She kept on top of the house beautifully (we won't mention the falls from standing on random things to clean things she should have just got us to do ...).

She didn't need any manner of personal care until the end of her life, was completely independent - it was having a stroke that finally made her make the decision to move, but thankfully she recovered well.

Well she presumably had the capacity to make that decision. And she lived her life how and where she wanted, in her own home. And moved on her own terms. And that's ultimately a good thing.

But where’s the dignity in having a capacity assessment made on your behalf and then having your decisions and wishes taken out of your hands? In your adult children feeling as though they’ve betrayed you by having this done? That’s where the UK falls down in comparison to many other countries: we don’t have the culture for pragmatic discussion and planning for older age, and so everything happens too late and with too little control for the older individual in question.

@Sarvanga38 I get your post totally- I actually think my FIL would love it socially- and be very popular with the ladies too!!

His issue I think is more that he's read all this stuff about being unable to sell them easily and usually for a massive loss! And he's concerned that the service charge element which is often huge would fall on us. I think it would be better if everyone that can afford to buy these places lobbed a £25k 'services' premium into the pot when they bought and all services were paid for 'as and when needed' and if the person dies or goes into residential care that's the end of service charges etc! It's the ongoing liabilities that is putting many off too . Especially when on fixed incomes.

I start with the premise that people make their own decisions. And more often than not they do, right up to the end of their lives. Some people aren't able to. But even knowing that this is a possibility in the future is also a decision in its own right.

Obviously the majority of people do actually remain at home, with adaptations, beds moved downstairs, tech in place, even for some with dementia it's entirely possible to live a safe life at home.

And when the alternative is being ripped off for your life savings in private retirement properties, or selling up for residential care, then clearly people will choose to stay at home, hang on the the value of their homes, and pass it on to their own kids, where they can. Selling up and releasing capital to pay for care isn't an option people will take if they don't need to.

I’m in an area where weirdly there are loads of bungalows - some extended, some not (area of N Manchester). I wonder if putting restrictive covenants on to new properties like these so that people can’t make alterations and keep them in the pool for downsizing would be allowed, a bit like the local worker restrictions in places like the Lakes?

It’s those same people in houses much larger than they need who complain about new houses being built. They can’t have it both ways.

It's an interesting point.

I was having a discussion with a relative who was moaning about all the stuff that they were going to have to deal with if/when I died.

I gently pointed out that what they get in the will is their reward for this, and if they don't want to sort out the stuff then they can just walk away from it all - the penalty being of course that they won't get anything !

I don't see why anyone should live their lives to make it easier for the people who inherit when they die. The reward for the inheritor in dealing with the stuff is the legacy. And normally, the more stuff to deal with, the bigger the legacy, so it works in proportion.

And if they don't want the legacy, they are free to walk away at any time. No one forces you to administer a will.

GasPanic yes.

This

Nobody’s suggesting that young people should stop having children, just that they should have fewer. Maybe stop at two.

I would like downsize but find it a bit daunting as too much needs fixing which I can't afford and can't see that getting better.

This is exactly what happens where we live.

I totally agree.