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.

Better than a Tory troll

Which isn’t an answer to the question. How would it enhance YOUR life?

I'm pretty sure some are - particularly if they are on benefits

If it's only for homeless people then why do life/secure tenancies exist?

Unlikely you, I work hard and pay taxes, I have made huge sacrifices and own my own place.

Your medal is no doubt in the post

🎖

That’s my point, they shouldn’t exist, 12 months to get a job and move on.

Are you talking about owner-occupied properties, social housing or both?

Your posts are getting personal. No need

and those who can't work?

Many people in council properties DO WORK.

I hope you channel that pent up envy into working harder and following my example. It will help you sleep at night.

When Cameron first came in, one of the first things he did was send out letters to single people in family council houses telling them they needed to move out. It was very stressful.

I was working with social housing tenants, many of whom were under-occupying, when Cameron was elected, and I don't recall any of my tenants getting such a letter!

Dear oh dear. Landlords are paid by tenants. Some tenants claim benefits.

Your logic would mean my employer is “subsidising” my holiday or my supermarket shop. They are not: they pay me at market rates and I pay for the things I buy. It is no longer their money.

Or would you claim that that I am subsidising my children’s school teachers’ electricity bills because I pay tax and some of that is spent on his/ her salaries?

Newsflash: money circulates through various transactions in the economy. Just because it once passed through your bank account doesn’t make it “yours” and mean you are “subsidising” everyone who receives it later as a result of further transactions.

This is completely different to social schemes set up to lend assets to people at a discounted rate below market value (e.g. social housing) i.e. a genuine subsidy of living costs. Surely it’s obvious that such subsidies should be allocated based on need because we cannot do this for everyone who might want or benefit from it.

Are you saying landlords shouldn’t rent to people who claim benefits? That would result in a lot more homelessness. Like any other business you buy things from obviously they need to at least break even otherwise their services/ products will no longer be available.

I accept that people who cannot work should have help with housing.

DFTT

I earn far more than you I can assure you.
And still vote labour

That's not the case. You are just trolling now and you must know it

What’s your housing situation? You’re coming across as very harsh, maybe you could explain why you feel like this?

It doesn’t matter whether she knows it or not. It’s whether Mumsnet knows it and whether they’re prepared to do anything about it.
They used to clamp down on this stuff

My mum works full time and owns her own business. Yet she is in council housing.

And a part time job is a proper job. What is a "proper job"? Is a GP working part time not in a "proper job"? What is your job then? So we can pick that apart and judge you like you have done to several posters on this thread.

Yep, I am not going to engage with them anymore.
Probably a bored kid who has not been allowed their easter egg yet.

Then the expensive areas would end up like affluent ghettoes.

And the low-paid workers that we rely on for all sorts of services would have long (and expensive) commutes, making it even harder to retain staff like care workers etc.