No more council houses 'for life' - thoughts?

[Ewe]

Link

A large part of me thinks that with the social housing crisis as it is then this is most certainly a good thing. However, when I start to think about it in more detail I find myself wondering how this could possibly work? How much notice would people get? Would you enable them to downsize if in a house too big? When adult children have left home etc.

I do agree that something needs to be done but it does seem like yet another thing that is going to negatively impact people on benefits (his aim, no doubt!) along with cuts to housing benefit.

Its hard.

My Grandad lives in a 3 bed house (in a very undesirable area so no queues for it I imagine) on his own. We really really want him to move, its too big for him to manage, he is socially isolated but he absolutely will not budge. He has lived in the house since it was built in the early 50s, he raised his family in it and it is really the only home he has ever had as an adult (lived with his parents until he married).

He is so scared that if he moves to a smaller bungalow he won't be able to have my mum stay with him and so she won't visit him. He is scared he will be placed away from the drs and the shops he knows and the bus routes he knows and his church. He will have to get rid of the furniture he chose with my nana, empty his house out of the posessions he has accumlated over a lifetime etc.

I don't know what the solution is, I think it is fine to give people limited term contracts now but it would be cruel to move my Grandad from a house he loves and was given with the understanding that it was for a lifetime. If he had to move it would be better for him though but he doesn't and he is an adult and can make his own decisions so there we go

Sorry for long reply, subject very close to my heart.

I thought RTB was a travesty of social engineering

Not read all thread but although on the surface it seems sensible I wonder if it will just contribute more to the poverty trap - not worth earning more than X amount because they will take away cheap housing and people will end up worse off

maize As I understand it the proposal will not affect existing council house or housing association properties in any way, so your granddad will be fine.

It will apply to new occupants only. It is an excellent idea.

Depends on the term. If you know you have the right to live somewhere for say 10 years, you are going to invest in that place and look after it. Make it less than five and I don't think it works because people do just feel like it's a stopgap and it's not good for the kids re schools etc.

So for example for 'family' housing you get the right to stay for a decade - or long enough to get the kids to say 18 and then are forced to move or at least attest for your continued occupation.

That way if the family broke up or all the kids buggered off into houses of their own you don't find someone living in a six bedrooomed house on their own.

But I think we also need to create a diversity of house sizes, for example single person and couple units in the same area as the big family homes. Because people don't want to lose their community when they move. Would think this was a big part of the 'big society' myself.

To be honest, I've never understood why it was for life anyway. After all, circumstances can change. I have a friend (a close friend) who married a man who had a 1 bedroom council flat. She already owned a 3-bed house in Hampstead and is an accountant for a top 5 firm, earning over £100k p.a. They then had 2 little girls, had their council flat upgraded to a much bigger one, in an expensive area of central London, which they then had the right to buy at a substantially reduced price. They sold her house in Hampstead, which she'd had for about 8 years, at the top of the market a couple of years ago, making a profit of c. £350k. They bought another house, mortgage free, which they rent out, and now live in the ex-council flat. And it makes me mad as hell, when I think of the number of people I read about here on MN alone, who need accommodation.

The real solution is to build more houses.

The way to build more houses without spending more government money is to

• not make housebuilding uneconomic to developers by insisting on a ludicrously high percentage of social housing provision

• to let local councils keep all of the extra tax revenue that comes from the extra houses

• to encourage micro-level projects of less than 10 new houses per existing 1000, instead of massive new developments arranged by Whitehall, and imposed on unwilling local communities after multiple appeals against

• drum up local support by ensuring that existing local residents have the right of first refusal on new houses

Ask yourself: would you mind one new house at the end of your street, if there is room?

Now ask yourself: would you mind a big new estate of 1000 houses plonked onto the nearest available land near you?

Where I used to live there were a lot of council tenants on the same street. Many of them elderly - they'd moved into the houses when they were first built, brought up their families, and were now on their own rattling around in 4 bed houses.

However, it would have been extremely cruel to force them out. Many had health problems due to old age and the stress of a forced move would have been very bad for them. They had friends and family and doctors they'd known for 40 years - take that away from elderly people and they go downhill very fast.

There's clear statistical evidence that elderly people are hugely more likely to die in the few months after a move, especially if it's not something they've chosen, such as going into hospital when they don't want to, or a care home closing down.

Also, having spare bedrooms meant their grandkids and children could come to stay. One bed flat = family who have moved away just aren't going to be able to visit that often unless they are quite well off and can afford a hotel. (Btw, four beds sounds luxurious but two of them were tiny - basically one small double split into two boxrooms.)

Suspect the answer to a shortage of social housing is to build more and allow councils to keep the money from the sale of council houses, not just let the Treasury swallow it all.

round here they seem to have no trouble finding land to build gated off communities of million pound plus private homes.

and i think we shouldn't be so precious about green belt land.

think its pretty glum to suggest pensioners move out into smaller houses too.

in answer to the OP, I think it would be a good idea.

Yes, I agree too. As I say, circumstances change. Obviously moving is expensive and can be traumatic for some people, but a review every 5 years or something wouldn't be unreasonable, surely?

Fixed term contracts don't encourage people to look after their properties in any meaningful sense or to take pride in their homes. What's the point in planting up a lovely garden or decorating if you're going to have to leave it all at some point?

If people who have found work know they stand to lose their council house, it'd seriously put them off looking for a job, wouldn't it? Council tenancies are far better than the private sector, which in some areas charges far too much for the low paid (and this is only going to get worse with changes to Housing Benefit for those who qualify for it) AND you face the risk of having to uproot your whole family every six months.

Btw, council houses are available to anyone in theory - not just those on benefits. Only if you earn £40k you won't come very high up the list, obviously!

I think it is rather insulting to tenants to say that we don't look after our homes.

I don't rent a council house but I do rent my home, we haven't needed to decorate but we have transformed the garden, we do basic maintenance and treat our home with the same respect as the properties we have owned. As a landlord out tenants have treated our property in a similar manner.

It's a completely terrible idea.

It will result in areas where everyone is on the poverty line.

It will break up established communities and support systems for people if they are forced to move.

It will mean people have less respect for their current property if they think it is short term.

It will create ghettos and increase problems.

If you want an estate to prosper you need lots of different types of people. Studies have shown time and time again that if people are surrounded by others not working they are less likely to work by choice and visa versa.

Instead they should build more social housing /incentive for cheaper housing and offer people incentives to move out of too large properties.

They need to mix the social housing in with all the other housing. Where I live has some council housing nearby - most has been sold off (boo) but some has not and I think it is a better way of doing things rather than having massive estates which can then develop huge problems of their own.

The thing about old people having to move - don't many people who aren't in social housing have to move when they retire and their income drops? Staying in the same place that you raised your family in at the moment seems to be then those in social housing and the very rich - the people in the middle can't afford it. That was my impression anyway.

I generally feel that social housing should be based on need and I've never understood why they were for life/no subsequent means testing/no downsizing when the kids move out etc.

I think it is very sad that they are getting rid of something that has existed for years. They claim it is to help those in greater need, but why can't they just find a cheaper way to build more houses?

If we didnt have council houses and housing associations and council run sheltered accomodation we would have to either go back to workhouses or much bigger housing benefits to allow people to rent privately.

It is as simple as that.

There's no other benefit that once you qualify for you retain for life regardless of your circumstances and needs.

Why should social housing be any different?

There are a lot of complications with this and it needs to be thought through carefully but something does need to be done.

I've seen both ends of the Council Housing ladder with old people whose children all left home years ago still rattling around big four bedroom houses and young families desperate for a place to call a home facing a wait of years.

Something's not right with that.

However neither is it right to suddenly turn around to 80 year olds and kick them out of their home and into a flat.

But maybe start to change it for new tenants?

You see social housing as a benefit? I don't. I see it as a necessity.

I am a property owner, an ex council house on an estate which I didn't buy through RTB but bought off an existing tenant who did. I paid market price for my house, but I am grateful I could. My children will be housed. Not everyone's children will be so fortunate. Social housing is damned near impossible to acquire and private renting is absorbitantly high and not secure.

I don't think any of the changes are right or fair. I know there are pensioners rattling around in four bed houses, but through natural life cycles, one day they won't be and a family will acquire such properties then. Likewise bringing up a family, perhaps having them leave home to realise they'd made a mistake and not being able to return 'home' because parents having to give up tenancy is just wrong. Surely councils would like some people to actually pay the full rent?

I hate the idea. It's very frightening.

Why is it happening now all of a sudden? If it was so unfair, why didn't governments tackle it in the past? Now is an easy time to dismantle much of the welfare state and blame it on the financial crisis, which was caused by the banksters. I wonder if Labour will put up a real fight, or will they just offer up token opposition? They never built more council homes when they were in power. They probably secretly agree with the Tories. Those champagne socialists just hope their voters don't see through them.

Thinking about it, the socialists will probably witter on about climate change and sustainability, instead of helping real council tenants in need. The poor are always shafted by these charlatans.

So by that logic, council tenants should remain in large family houses once they no longer have dependents in case one of them decides that they want to move back home ? Even when it means that people who actually do need that property are housed in some in some cramped flat?

Let's not pretend that any government has the power to conujure up thousands of new council/HA homes, managing the existing ones seems the only sensible measure.