Keeping a 3 bedroom council house when your children have grown up

[Iwishitwerewarmer]

Just pondering - what are everyone’s opinions on a single parent raising their children in a council house/housing association house and staying there once their children have moved out? Should they downsize into a one bed flat/smaller property or is it their right to remain in their home/neighbourhood?

Added extra - they have looked after the property well, have landscaped the garden, installed a new kitchen and generally added value to the property.

I think they should be able to stay, especially if they're looking after the home and good tenants/neighbours.

They should be able to stay- it is their home. Years ago many paid rent on them, both people worked and many also bought them when they could.
Ideally I suppose some might want to downsize or have a flat for security, or sheltered if they need it freeing up the house for people on benefits - because those are the only people that will get them, it’s all points based now.

I’d rather target non occupation, where people have a home elsewhere and use the uk home as a benefits base.

They should downsize. There's a huge list of families who have no where to go other than a friends sofa and on the sofa they'll stay because single people are living in a multiple bedroom property because 'screw them, got mine'.

A big issue is lack of smaller council properties.

I have a 3 bedroom council house and have no plans to move. I was told it is mine for as long as I want it.

Social rent is subsidised rent perhaps the whole tenancy situation should be shaken up not lifetime tenants but tenancies according to need.

You wouldn't be able to buy at 20k and sell for £1m though. You get a fixed reduction depending on how long you've been in the property. The maximum reduction is £38k and that is for the south east. In London the maximum reduction is £16,000

The rules haven't always been like that though.

Councils should certainly be making concerted efforts to help people in larger social properties downsize to something smaller. It benefits the tenants wuth cheaper council tax, energy bills etc, and frees up a larger house for families

I think the truth is these days it's rare that working teachers, nurses and police officers live in council housing. Social housing is now pretty much last resort for the desperate, often with lots of problems. It doesn't have to be like this though, it's a political choice. We could build more CH and priorities working people.

How do we provide social housing for everyone? In your example, what is to stop every single person wanting one?

There's limited social housing stock, so, my view point is the right housing should be available to those who need it. A family on a low income get the 3 bed until they wither a) earn more money or b) the kids move out. Then they either buy/pay private rent if they an afford it, or downsize if not. This does rely on the correct type of housing being available, but also people relenquishing their social houses when they no longer need the support.

It’s not subsidised. Private rents are the ones that are subsidised. There are literally private landlords having their mortgages paid by the taxpayer.

Agreed. I have a nearly 19yr old in my mortgaged house. Where exactly would she go if she left? Even renting a room is through the roof here let alone finding the funds and credit for it for a flat. Its beneficial for us all she stays with me. I can't imagine that would be any different for a family in SH.

I thought councils had a plan in place for this already?
They are supposed to rehouse anyone living in a house which is too big for their needs. This was introduced years ago.

It is NOT their home. They pay rent at a very low cost, subsidised, and which never reflects the true market rent for houses of the same size.

It belongs to the local authority and is paid for by tax payers, many of whom are also buying their own homes.

It’s an ethical dilemma.

There needs to be more decent places to downsize to but I do think it’s selfish to stay!

If you bought the place decades ago, the house now belongs to you and you can sell for whatever you can get and none of the money goes back to the council.

I believe it is subsided as in cheaper rent, but is it actually costing the tax payer anything for older houses (I get it costs the tax payer when a new one is built)? For example I pay £550 a month rent. The house has been owned by the council for many decades, there wouldn’t be a mortgage on it. Does that house really cost the council more than £550? Yes they have staff costs for the housing team, and maintenance costs etc, but I don’t reckon it would cost them more than 550 a month just for my one house

@Glitchymn1 Wonder how many MNers own second homes that sit empty 90% of the year of Air BnB, but rage at SH.
The ignorance and sheer stupidity being posted here is astounding.

Rents for council homes/ housing association are far below the true market value for private rentals and always have been.

From all I’ve ever heard the sale of council houses/flats has not been properly legislated for, or overseen. Weren’t tenants allowed to buy after being resident for only 2 years? And so there were (maybe still are) a good many carefully planned fiddles going on.

Not to mention the case I saw on TV where a young landlord was showing a prospective tenant a flat, telling him that he lived in another just across the landing. One was legally owned by him, the other was a property he was renting from the council! And the ‘landlord’ was a police officer!

You’d think there would be a system in place to check for such frauds/abuses.

Just to add, shortly after Right to Buy was enacted, a friend of mine bought the house where she’d lived for over 40 years, after inheriting the tenancy after her 2nd parent died. And good luck to her, as far as I’m concerned, in such cases.

Quoting to re-post this as so many posting rage bait on here simply don’t understand how social housing works - not subsidised by taxpayers AT ALL.

Good point.

Probably not as many as you try to make out.
They will be paying 2 x council tax on them and where does that go? err....to subside the accommodation provided by the council!

Yes they are. Because they cover the actual cost of providing and maintaining the property.

So you are now agreeing? They are cheaper.

depen on whether they pay full rent or not. If they are working and paying the full rent on the property then absolutely fine, however if housing benefit/universal credit is subsidising their rent then they should downsize to something they can afford or the minimum sized they need for their circumstances if not able to work. Everyone deserves a decent place to live but if you aren’t able to pay for it yourself you should not be in a property larger than you require, after all there are families who are overcrowded who need that larger property

No it doesn’t. Legally the housing account is ringfenced and entirely separate from the general account. There is no crossover.