Property for old age pensioners - this really needs sorting out

[Egggyweggghead]

My mum is 83, and fortunately still quite active and independent. My dad died a few years back, so she sold her house and moved near me
She lives in a 1 bedroom private flat with garden in a small town, that she pays £800 per month for (which is cheap)
Her landlord, due to an illness is selling up, so she needs to find somewhere else to live.

It has been quite an eye opener over the last few weeks over how few options there are regarding housing for this age group

Because of where we live is really expensive She has just enough money to purchase a 1 bed flat or terraced house with no or unkempt garden in a not very nice area of town or in a bigger town 10 miles away,

There are no rentals- anything that comes onto the market gets snapped up quickly and she needs something on the ground floor.

There are hundreds of retirement houses around us that have been up for sale for months/ years, yet they are building more and more 'luxury' retirement villages
The maintenance and service charges on the places up for sale are £2-5000 + per year
All are being reduced in price, so the prices are as low as £70,000 and still dont sell -whilst a small bungalow would be £350,000 which she can't afford

Also the retirement homes take 3-4 months to purchase, like a normal house and she needs to find somewhere quickly

I have hunted for retirement homes to rent, but they are either stupidly expensive at over £2000 per month or are for social tenants only, which my mum doesn't qualify for.

It seems to me that we are desperate for housing in this country, and loads of oaps are living in houses that are too big for them and they want to downsize and move to a more manageable property

But the only option available is to move to a retirement home that they have to purchase which will lose them money and will be unsaleable in the end

I wish someone would look at the 1000s of retirement properties that are sitting empty around the country and change the leasehold and allow them to be rented out at a sensible price.

On rightmove there are 335 retirement properties for sale within a 5 mile radius

Mm, I thought that one entrance now has to have wheelchair friendly access by law in newbuilds? I could be wrong. I agree, it makes sense to have everything as wheelchair friendly as possible. Makes life easier for parents too.

My Twitter is full of people moaning about this, though. Because "stoops are pretty" (sigh).

I cannot disagree more - we desperately need more housing in this country. If a bungalow is demolished and replaced with a block of flats, the bottom flat can still function like a bungalow for those who want one-storey living on the ground floor.

A local disused church has been turned into flats, very tastefully, with many original features maintained and lift access. A friend bought one, it’s lovely, but it cost more than her three bedroomed, two bathroomed house in the same area. She also has enough income to afford the service charges. That option, whilst ideal for an older person who doesn’t want ‘older people’s housing’ would be out of so many people’s range. There really needs to be a wide range of suitable housing.

I was chatting to someone who works at Birchgrove, and it sounded lovely (walkable locations, on site support, flats designed for wheelchair users / accessibility, all bills included). So I looked it up, but I can’t see the prices anywhere online. So I assume it’s really expensive.which is a shame,as the concept is lovely and its within the M25, so lots of people who might want to use it.

www.birchgrove.life/about-us/

As ever, the devil is in the detail. The regs allow for a step of no more than 150mm in height, presumably because of the occasionally conflicting requirement to protect buildings from damp/flooding. Kerb climbers on powered chairs can only tackle steps up to 100mm. As it is, while it may be possible for some manual chair users to handle a step of 150mm, a large number of them would be unable to do so independently.

In addition, the regulation in point 1.3 states only that access routes to dwellings should be step-free where possible and that the approach should be safe and convenient for “older and disabled people and some wheelchair users.”

See also the part that applies to provision of a downstairs bathroom, but which doesn’t specify dimensions that would allow a wheelchair user to access it. A lot of the stuff about corridor and door widths and turning circles is also designed solely with manual chair use in mind: for someone using a powered chair, a lot of the new build floor plans would be impossible to navigate.

So it is very easy and quite common for new builds to not be accessible to a lot of wheelchair users.

The problem is

(a) people don't want to live in flats because of the noise and because of the service charges (though both of those could be sorted out with much stricter building regs and enforcement) and

(b) bungalows aren't demolished to build new housing. people just turn them into houses. If people want a house they should buy a house.

We've been looking at small flats for our son (currently renting and paying an extortionate rent so he's wanting to buy). We were shocked at the sheer number of flats in over 55/over 60 complexes. There are some small complexes with several flats for sale, some having been for sale for over a year.

It's crazy that we have a housing shortage, yet we have empty flats that aren't being lived in because of these age limitations.

Fair enough, people already living in them won't want "younger" people moving in. But why are we still allowing more and more of these complexes being built, when we have so many empty and clearly unwanted?

Planning should start refusing applications for these age-restricted blocks and encourage them to be built for everyone instead rather than aimed at a certain age demographic.

The developers want to build over 55 blocks so they can screw the residents out of stupidly high service charges etc, but they shouldn't be allowed to do that. The sites should be earmarked for residential flats of ALL ages instead, which is clearly where there's a shortage!

@taxguru Another option when these flats are left empty especially but not only if they have resident wardens, is to open up eligibility to younger disabled people. There's a major shortage of suitable and affordable homes for disabled people.

The high and ever increasing service charges are often the main reason these flats don't sell though, so that's something that needs addressing. Many elderly (and younger disabled) people can't afford those service charges, which are often high but for little to no service.

@taxguru - many of the blocks though ( and I'm not talking the ones that have on site wardens and cafes and bars etc) have service charges not dissimilar to what service charges are in ' all ages' blocks of flats. My own personal view is you should be able to buy an insurance in over 55 flats at purchase point for maybe £1800 that effectively pays out to the leaseholder on the elderly person moving out or passing on and gets rid of any liability going forwards- many of these flats would sell far quicker then anyway if that was the case- I also think for benefits purposes you should be able to factor service charges in of up to £400 a month- many pensioners who don't qualify for benefits if any kind ( just) don't buy such places due to the £300 or so a month service charge- when in reality they would suit some far more .

But why are we still allowing more and more of these complexes being built, when we have so many empty and clearly unwanted?

It isn't that they aren't wanted, it is that they are so expensive to live in, and, when you do die (or need a nursing home) the people inheriting have to pay out huge amounts every month until they sell.
The two nearest me are wonderful places to live (I know several people in both), but the money being paid out every month puts them out of reach of most people.

Mind, when looking with my ds for him to buy a flat, some blocks have phenomenal charges just for 'ordinary' flats. When he did the maths, he'd rather pay a much bigger mortgage on a small house that the mortgage on a flat plus £200pm in various charges. It makes no sense.

I think the insurance idea is great. I like the idea of a retirement flat when I get older and frailer and accept the service charges are on the high side but don’t like the idea of my children having to pay these charges when I die.

Quite. Usually, on here, with considerable venom.

My sister, a cousin and myself inherited a McCarthyStone appartment in Lancaster after the death of my aunt in 2021. Purchased around 2018 for 180,000, it is now on the market for 75,000. The price, if we wanted to sell now would, if we are lucky, be 14,000-half the service fees we owe. We have twice written to McCarthyStone requesting a reduction in fees to a level reflecting the present level of service, but to no avail-just the usual bland replies.
The problem is the service fees, to be paid at 100% post-mortem theoretically, until the estate is empty. When she bought the property, this drawback was never mentioned and, combined with the bad publicity via newspapers and TV, it means buyers are now very wary.
Last year , only four apartments in a complex of 50 were re-sold and 2 of those at 20,000 ! New price 180000 to 200,000. McCarthyStone is owned by an American 'vulture' Hedge Fund-to think they did not consider the possibility of draining an estate dry is just naive. In any other branch, this would be exhortion.
The thread of all the forums and newspaper articlse are the same-the government has to step in, especially as they have put housing at the forefront of economic policy. Getting pensioners to downsize and vacate family properties is a lot cheaper and more environmentally better than new-build.
There is a leasehold bill before Parliament this year. The answer is not difficult- a 2-year limit on service fees post-mortem would free up the market. We have consulted the local MP and would urge anyone else in a similar position to do the same - and soon.

Around here they’re typically 1920s builds on very large plots by today’s standards, so sell at a premium. An ex colleague bought a very run down one for what seemed a massive price, given that it needed £100k’s worth of renovation.

I am sure local planning won’t allow developers free rein with these, otherwise there would be a small block of flats or 4 small houses on the site by now.

Interesting. Might write to my MP. Sounds like a class action lawsuit might be the only language the owners understand. Need a rapacious law firm.

@NewName24 there are flats by the canal where I live, a great way to finish your days. Beautiful garden that has railings on to the tow path, lots of passers by, it would be great. It is more the issue with fees after death or if people need to go in to care. The fees for a 1 bed apt in this complex are 2,600 PA. Looking at @NewName24 post who wrote her DS was going to be charged almost the same for a regular flat it doesn’t seem too bad. Plus you get 24 hour on call included and a communal lounge if you need company.

Oddjob1 - better to refuse the ‘inheritance’ ?

If only there were enough retirement properties owned by housing associations or other not for profit landlords! Reasonable rents, care paid for individually if needed, no responsibility for maintaining a house, security of tenure and.peace of mind for families.

Healthy 60 year old renters are more likely to be offered a tenancy of one of those than a frail 80 year old home owner, even when they can't afford to buy a retirement property.

@Seymour5 I absolutely agree - the idea you can just walk into these if you live in an area of good demand simply isn’t the case- I put my name down 3 years ago when was feeling exceptionally pissed off with DH - I’m 63 but don’t have additional needs- am stilling only coming up around number 58 at best on any 1 bedder- most of which aren’t nice. This is in Bath -

Sadly, PT, that is probably not possible as the continued payment of maintenance charges after death is in the original contract. Of course, there is no requirement for McC to broadcast the message, unlike, for instance, ads for investments, now required to point out the possibility of losing the entire investment. Please write to your MP. Only the government can solve this problem. By the way, Churchill, another provider under the same black cloud, is owned by the same 'vulture' fund. The facilities offered are fine, but the continued maintenance costs mean there next to no buyers.

Have you thought about applying for a place in an Almshouse OP, if there are any in your area?

Mine is 166 per month, in London and residents managed. It's 1930s with a communal garden..a small house in same area would be at least 300k more which is 1200 more in mortgage interest per year alone. Home Counties houses are very expensive as well (plus 400 quid each in commuting fares) so the most economic thing to do is live in a flat.

Clarion Housing (countrywide social landlords) can give advice about housing for older people.

www.myclarionhousing.com/find-a-home/rent-a-home/livesmart-homes-for-older-people

There’s an article about McCarthy & Stone in the Times today. The concept sounds great but the service charges are sky high and trying to sell will cost a fortune in loss of value and paying service charges until sold.