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.

The average property is worth £300k in the UK. Social Housing is estimated to be around 20% cheaper on average so £240k.

The average social housing tenant pays around £6k a year in rent.

If the state sold the house and used the money to either save in a bank or pay off national debt they would save the equivalent of £12k a year every single year.

This is why it's subsidised. Your mum isn't paying market rate whilst the government has to pay market rent for the money it borrows. They are effectively losing money on social housing.

Some people have extra bedrooms because of disability issues. Or because they they have kids they share custody with an ex partner

There is a shortage of family homes for sale near me. Is someone who lives alone in a private dwelling that is too big for them being a leach for not letting a family buy it off them?

I haven't read the whole thread which seems to have veered off topic slightly.
However, answering the original question, I believe this is what the previous opposition party called the 'bedroom tax'. ie; that council house tenants were expected to downsize if the house was oversized for their needs.
Obviously this depends if the council also has 1 bedroom houses available.
My understanding is that council houses are suibsidised, and where there is a demand for family houses it is only right that family houses should be freed up for families.
However, it is not an easy topic, and if you have lived there many years, could be very disheartening.
For others who mention that unlike those with mortgages, renters do not eventually own their houses, remember that repairs are carried out by the council, rather than those who own their houses (whether they still have a mortgage or not), they have to carry out their own repairs.

Your tax doesn’t subsidise anyone’s housing, sweetie.

Oh hang on a minute, it subsidises the landlords of everyone who claims housing benefit. Want to think again?

They aren't using a finite, publicly funded asset. It's completely different. The rest of us aren't being forced to subsidise a private home owner effectively house blocking.

That will be very area dependent my house is worth nothing like £240000
Also is some areas the market rent and social rent does not have a huge disparity.

YES IT DOES!

How many times do we need to go over this. Social housing is subsidised by the tax payer. This is fact. Not opinion.

My last council property was worth 26k. My mums is worth around 130k (she bought hers). By the time I bought my flat I had been paying rent for 22 years

There's wide variations Uk wide on what people pay in rent and what their homes are worth. Also - where do tenants go if the council takes back the property?

Not in anyway whatsoever. There is a massive difference between owning your own home and having one provided by the council/a charity/non profit. Massive difference.

People in council housing who work also pay tax

This is how averages work though... There will be areas where prices and differences in rents are higher and some where it's lower. The point is in nearly all cases the tax payer is effectively subsidising social housing to some extent. Directly or indirectly. In this context, should anyone be allowed to house block using social housing? Legally it might be allowed at the moment but do we support this as a society where families stuck in overcrowded private rentals are being forced to subsidise the people blocking the houses they so desperately need. It's utterly horrific that people think this fine or fair.

Yes and they earn money that they should use to pay for a normal house like everyone else.

It's their home. And these days more than ever adult children might return. Job loss, relationship break up, gap between rentals. They need a home.

It's the dwp who tend to subsidise this unless someone doesn't get the lha rate for their home

So? Everyone pays tax, even my 8 year old son.

The taxpayer point is more that all of us are stuck subsidising the few. Even if you are the one in an overcrowded private rental you still have to pay your tax to cover their subsidy. How is this fair?

It sounds harsh/socialist but I think anyone (private, rented or council) who has vastly more space than they require would be doing young families a favour if they would downsize and give young/growing families the chance to purchase/rent the bigger houses!

Guest rooms / home offices / craft rooms appear to be luxuries that these potential downsizers don't want to give up though. Obviously there's other factors, like moving costs, availability of other suitable housing in the desired location and the general hassle of packing up your things.

Why would anyone in their right mind give,up a secure tenancy and put themselves at the mercy of private landlords?

I couldn't afford to buy a property on my wages. My brother was only able to afford to buy because he moved back in with my mum to save a decent deposit - and he works full time
There are lots of people who can't get on the property ladder - young couples in particular and it's harder still for single people

It's not the few

50 years ago ut was quite normal to live in a council house ,

And how many times must it be said SH tenants are tax payers too.

Private renting is also subsidised by the tax payer through HB to help people pay the extortionate rents. Not getting worked up about that though, are you?

People in private rentals pay rent forever too. I don't understand your point and it also doesn't mean that you've 'paid off' your property just because you pay money to live somewhere. Especially when it's only 50% if the market rate. Have you heard of interest only mortgages? People can pay repayments forever and never own their homes. You don't get to claim some weird moral ownership because the amount you paid would have covered the principle amount. That's not how things work.

Where do families go now when they can't get a property? If it's good enough for them then why isn't it good enough for council tenants house blocking?

What is a "normal house"?

Paying someone else's mortgage?

The answer for those with a conscience would be that they know that they were helped in their time of need and now it is time for someone else to benefit. It is the same as any type of handout. Why would someone come off the comfort and security of benefits etc.