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.

What's the difference between buying a house on an estate and renting it? Some people don't want to buy their council home. My mums next door neighbours rent their home and have done all their lives - they could have afforded to buy it - surely it's about choice as well. I'm not sure bettering yourself necessarily equates to buying a home.

and a lot of the contributing factor is right to buy reducing council stocking and removing competition

SH tenants are taxpayers too.

I think people are looking the wrong way. Let older people whose children have left home stay in their own homes.

There are so many reasons for this it seems crazy to have to list them, but dignity is one, keeping support networks is another, and maybe having those adult children come back for their own needs or to help our elderly parents, the list goes on.

For those above saying those homes could be given to families. I agree, there is not enough social housing. I actually live in a private rented ex council house, paying double social rent.

So my proposal would be to take any ex council housing rented for profit back into the social housing stock, along with any second homes.

To where?

If you own an asset then you can legitimately decide what to do with it. If you pay to borrow one then quite clearly you do not have the same rights.

How?

They aren’t subsidised. In private housing you’re paying someone else’s mortgage.

You could apply the same to those claiming to have had academic excellence installed into them in a council Estate.
The McCartney’s sent their children to a sink school. That has produced precisely one fashion designer in its entire existence
It’s about social mobility isn’t it? And it’s proven by the office of national statistics. It’s at the lowest point it’s ever been currently.

They are subsidised. See my first post on the thread. It’s financially illiterate to suggest otherwise and so silly that this refusal by some posters to accept this basic fact undermines any attempts at worthwhile discussion on the subject.

It's also still the case in some areas.

I'm in Yorkshire and when I moved from private to social a year ago, the rent was the same.

What I mean is that social housing rents are , more or less, the actual cost of the housing. Rather than an overinflated cost.

It equates to the liability on the taxpayer being indefinite versus having a natural end Date, which is why thatcher sold them all off

Unless you’re mortgage free, you don’t own your asset. Your lender does. Maybe they should decide.

In an ideal world she would be able to move to a smaller house/flat in the same village but without that no people shouldn’t have to disrupt their lives in that way

They do 😂

HA properties are rented out at a much lower rent, than if that person was private renting. That's the whole point of HA properties, providing housing for those who can't afford to pay market value. A proportion of HA tenants will be having some or all of their rent paid for by Housing Benefit.

If you don't pay your rent then you can be evicted, regardless if your private rent or if it's HA (although my guess is the threshold for HA eviction would be higher). In the same way, if you default on your mortgage enough times, you can eventually have your home repossessed by the mortgage lender.

Private landlord can decide to sell, and the tenant has to find alternative accommodation. HA means you have a secure tennancy and don't have to move, regardless of the size of the property.

We have a housing crisis. There are fewer private landlords, and rents are extremely high. There aren't as many family HA properties available with 3+ bedrooms. If a family were given a 3 bedroomed property to raise their family, by a HA and the children all grow up leaving the parents alone in the property. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist that that secure tenancy is now passed over to a 1 bedroomed home, so the 3 bedroomed can be given to a family. I'm not suggesting the parents should lose their secure tenancy but it should be passed to a smaller property.

In essence a HA property or a private rental property, isn't your own home. You don't own that property, and therefore sadly, you can't expect to have exactly the same security/stability as someone who does. Although the Renters Rights Bill may change some of that.

comes down to
Either: your own morals (what other people think is irrelevant, it is your home, not theirs, be your own person)
Or: the HA/council's rules on under occupation and financial incentives for downsizing

OK. Assume I’m a bear of little brain who knows that the council housing account and the council’s general account must legally be completely separate and there is no cross pollination. Please explain to this financially illiterate idiot how council housing is subsidised. In simple terms, please.

They compel people to take in lodgers? Huge if true.

They can put you in a financial pressure with a change of interest rates that would force you to if you are to take the advice of Mumsnet whenever one falls on hard times. The first default position is to allow some weirdo stranger to live in your house alongside your small children to cover the bills.
That’s if youve of course already taken in ironing to no avail 😂

Nope I think you should be offered the chance to go to a smaller property. It’s social/council housing and not privately owned. I’m sure there is something in the contract about it. Or there was a long time ago! My mum was in a three bed after we all left home and she was offered the chance to downsize. Which she did. It’s fairer and helps families with children who are homeless or squashed in a too small place. Makes sense to me!

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

there is no profit motive driving the rental price
"subsidy" in the sense that the rent is below commercial levels hence the use of acceptance criteria to control who can get the housing

Council housing is subsidised. I have a friend (two dc) who lives in a 2 bedroom council house. She pays 400£ p month and gets 200£ in housing benefits so her rent is 200£ per month. It's new built and perfect for her and her 2 kids. She could never have afforded to live there if it had been private owned.
Her neighbour has a 3 bedroom appartment because she moved in with 3 dc. They have all moved out so she's living there alone (in her fifties) and regularly hosts foreign students for 1-2 weeks which is quite a lucrative business. I think it's wrong because taxpayers are founding this and you have got families living in studio appartements waiting to be housed. I think the council should oblige her to switch appartment with one of those families whose children are living in miserable conditions.