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.

People have lots of problems with that
And now it’s going to go from mum and dad landlords that at least had a modicum of social conscience and flexibility to corporate landlords who will have none

where’a the 1 bed coming from??

Cap the rent on a downsized property to the same as being paid in the current one for five years and taper up very gradually after that, with subsidies where necessary on a means test basis. Maybe??

Personal opinion… I think if they are paying full rent like a private rented accommodation it’s theirs until they give notice. Most that are paying full rent are hardworking people that earn minimum wage but just about get by.

If it is funded by the council then they should be given notice to move to smaller accommodation. As would be expected if the individual needed to move due to older age/mobility/disability. Why should the council fund a single person to live in a 3 bedroom property when there are genuine people that need that help.

What was acceptable 20 years ago (staying in the same home your whole life) isn't something we can now afford, unless we want lower income families either trapped in 1-bed or 2-bed homes with multiple children whilst older people enjoy their spacious homes, or forced to private rent with no longer term security.

It's shit that people will need to leave their homes, but as a country we have to prioritise children growing up in stable homes that aren't overcrowded rather than older people not having to move house.

I'd rather my tax went to local councils to provide affordable homes than to pay a private landlords mortgage.

Council housing doesn't have to be paid for by the taxpayer though. Build more of it so normal working people can also access it.

Build more of it - where does the money come from for that?

Nope, people should be allowed to stay if they wish too. The council need to build more homes, the fault is theirs alone.

I know someone who was in a 4 bed council house & were paid £500 per bedroom they surrendered & she ended up in a lovely 2 bed bungalow (it took time for it to happen). I have to admit it did annoy me a little as this person raised lot's of children but never worked & I think it's that, that annoys people. Ideally the person should stay but we have a housing crisis so I don't think it's viable to give people a life long tenancy nowadays.

HA and council tenancies are for life. Imagine how it would be if people knew they were being moved on every few years. It’s designed so that families put down roots and form communities otherwise ghettos would be created where no one gave a shit because it was transitory. More affordable/council housing needs to be built; turfing long-standing tenants out of their homes isn’t the answer and the people who usually suggest it have nothing to do with social housing anyway. Oh and by the way, not all tenants are on benefits; most of the housing bill is paid to private landlords.

My thoughts are that familys are given 2,3,4, bedroom social housing according to how many children they have. Thats what decides the property size. So I think once children have left the person should have to down size. But I do think it should be done is a sensitive way and I think there should be choices on where that person is housed . Reason for that is I think as people get older they become vulnerable and I don't think they should be isolated or far away from their support.

I do think the family homes do need to be freeded up for familys in hostels and temporary accommodation. Theses places can be pretty awful its not just a temporary situation its often long term temporary. The places are often not of standard condition. We are talking mould, rats, mice , cock roaches. The carpets are filthy. Furniture in poor condition. Its awful.

So yeah I think people should down size but I think it should be done in a sensitive and supportive way.

With what money? They're all broke.
How would new housing (buying the land, building the houses) be funded?

I live in Islington and the great thing here is there’s still something like 40% social housing. I imagine that’s because, even when the RTB discounts were higher, people still couldn’t afford to buy. Also there are lots of HA properties which don’t have RTB. It’s a great model of how things could have been if RTB hadn’t been introduced.

Fortunately not in Scotland now, but it’s the sale of council properties over the past 40ish years which has massively fuelled the housing problems of today

You do know most people who live in SH work. As much as MN likes to think all SH tenants are benefit scroungers. With FREE HOUSES!

The issue isn’t the person occupying the home that has been theirs for decades.

the issue is the incompetence of government planning and building enough homes. And building enough homes of a good size. Why have we too many one or two bedroom properties that we are trying to squeeze bigger families into and not enough 3 bedroom ones? Why do planners think a single person will always remain single and childless?

In a country where home owners aren’t forced to downsize I don’t think anyone else should be either. Mental health and feeling safe in your communities is important.

Should be allowed to stay there, but the idea of the authority then adapting that property as they age is crazy and I don't think that should happen. Housing for the elderly is purpose-built to reflect those needs.

Personally I think it's selfish.
You have families spending years in hotel rooms and other non suitable temporary accommodation.

The price of downsizing in rents shouldn't go up but same time shouldn't keep a 3 bed property when it's not needed. It's social housing the rent is subsidised to a large extent and not local market rate.

They don’t though do they?

Certainly not the ones that we need to give up the large houses, there’s a lot of noise about the young people claiming benefits due to mental health yada yada.
In the 70s, they had the back backs which were a epidemic amongst certain demographics.
There was absolutely no expectation for women to work with children under 16 years old for their benefits
And realistically, if the last baby came along at mid 30s, there wasn’t much they could do in the 9 years until retirement at 60.

Probably because there are no one bedroom properties for people to move into
This is the issue in many cases
Its all very well saying people should move but where to?

This!

I think that social housing should meet your needs and if you are uneroccupying you should move, to free up the larger home for a family who needs it as much as your family did when they moved in.

Of course, that means having suitable alternative accommodation for the person to move into

And that's the problem. There aren't enough bungalows, accessible flats etc.

So until / unless there is appropriate alternative social housing for someone in social housing to move into, they shouldn't have to leave.

There is a bedroom tax but you'd only be affected by that if you were claiming benefits to pay the rent.

Housing for families is at crisis point.
It might be their home, but it isn’t their house.
We can’t magic up three bedroom homes for everyone.
Life isn’t a fairy tale, I realise those sitting alone in a three bed will have memories in that property but come on….how in the world is it fair to put two adults and three kids in a one bed flat whilst a single/couple occupy a three/four bed.

Yeah but thats all changed in live in social housing in would say the vast majority of my neighbours work.