Calls for Help Freeing Up Family Homes

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Free Up Family Homes The charity 'The Intergenerational Foundation' is recommending tax breaks to encourage older people to leave oversized homes. They estimate that there are 25 million unused bedrooms in England. Half of over 65's have 2 or more spare rooms in their home. Housing minister Grant Shapps doesn't sound keen on the idea. But what do you think? Should home-owners and tenants be encouraged to trade down for public-spirited reasons? Or should they be able to rattle around in their multiple spare bedrooms and left alone?

I agree that people in HA/council houses with spare bedrooms should trade down once their families have grown up and moved out, but how or why can home owners be forced or encouraged if they are happy to live in a house which they've struggled for years to pay for and can afford to keep maintained?

I think one of the points being made by the group that has produced the report is that many elderly people in too-large, privately-owned homes would like to downsize in order to economise, but find that there are barriers in the way. The type of small flat that a student or young couple could manage may not be appropriate for an older person starting to have mobility problems, for example.

I think they have over egged the figures, as they

(i) assume an older couple only need 1 bedroom ( many use 1 each)

(ii) ignore the number of bedrooms that are now work-from-home offices.

(iii) assume those bedrooms are unused, many are partially used by family etc.

But looking at barriers to moving is a good idea.

Would the older people be rehoused within the same community, should they wish, otherwise there are likely to be increased costs in other areas of social care and could prove to be a false economy?

I think it's a great idea. It has long irked me, that when people talk about underused accommodation, they talk of council housing only.

Yes, people who have worked hard all their life should have the cushty retirement that they have earned, but I fail to see why so many want to continue to live in enormous houses. I am assuming that no-one will be forced out, just incentives, so if it's still important for someone to have a home office or spare rooms for grandkids then they can choose to use their finances for this.

I live on a mixed estate of nice bungalows, nice family houses and some cramped flats. There's also a very small amount of social housing which I live in. The bungalows are mainly appropriately used by the elderly, but the 70s style 3-bed houses also seem to be mainly occupied by 1 or 2 elderly people. The flats are lived in mainly by working families with 2/3/4 children. Lots of the adults have respectable jobs, nurses and teachers for eg. The flats aren't awful, but it seems crazy that families whose parents have taken responsible career paths cannot afford somewhere with a garden and are stuck in flats. If the children dare to play outside, they are soon reprimanded by the elderly who live in all the nice houses on the edge of the green.

And don't get me started on the area I work in. Very wealthy area where I know of virtually no young families, but elderly people living in houses with derelict tennis courts and swimming pools. Often these people don't even use the upstairs of their homes. I would much rather these sort of areas were redeveloped with useful housing rather than covering greenbelt land with more tarmac. Of course these people could demand a very high price and live in a very great amount of comfort for the rest of their days.

Is the problem really that people aren't moving out of these houses, or is it that families couldn't afford to buy them even if they did? DH and I are both working, but we could not afford to buy the house my parents live in. House prices have gone up so much it just wouldn't be an option, despite my parents having been able to afford it on one salary with 3 children.

Giving incentives about stamp duty sounds fine, if it encourages people to think about it. But I don't think its going to magically solve housing issues.

In the case of private home-owners I don't think it's a question of being 'rehoused' so much as making it easier to trade down. A freind's elderly mother was in this situation a few years ago. The family house she'd owned for 40 years, although average size, was too big for her needs but the availability of good quality retirement properties in the right area was low and she had to wait until a new development was finished. So it took longer for her to be able to downsize than if she'd been a fitter, younger person without specific needs. In the case of social housing, I think the onus is on the council or housing association to keep putting suitable properties forward, & build more if necessary by way of encouragement. I don't think force is appropriate.

Agree with both of you.

I don't think anyone should be forced out of their home, but I think the truth is that a lot of older people would like to downsize but can't because there is a lack of suitable accomodation for them. All the new developments built nowadays seem to be 1 and 2 bed flats which are designed to maximise profit for the builders.

And it is crazy that families are forced to squash into flats while the older generation rattle around in big houses which they can't afford to heat. But that's caused by soaring house prices (and mad mortgage lending) rather than lack of supply, I would have thought.

There is an element of lack of supply. If more owners of big homes downgraded in sufficient numbers and a lot of large houses suddenly came onto the market, the price would relax and owners of medium-size homes could afford to think about trading up.... that effect would knock on down the chain.

I suspect a lot of over 60s are not selling because if they downsized and stuck the money in the bank they would get a very poor interest rate on their savings. Maybe they feel their money is safer in property.

I think it would be very wrong for the government to bring in measures to force people out of homes they own outright. What the government could do is bring in measures to discourage people from having second homes which are left empty a lot of the year.

My mother was incandescent with rage when she heard about this on the radio this morning. Her point was that if you have worked to pay off your mortgage, and wish to stay in your home - why shouldn't you? She scrimped and saved when younger to afford a house in the 60s and 70s, and she doesn't see why the elderly should be pressurised to relinquish their homes.

We only have one child who will go off to uni in 3 years....we own a 4 bedroom house, so it is not just the elderly who have 2 or more spare rooms in their house (I presume the spare rooms referred to are bedrooms).

Dealer - my grandma in law was widowed in the 70s I think. She remained in her 4 bedroom house in Oxford until she died in 2007 at 98. She loved her garden and the memories the house held for her, as she'd lived there since the 30s. Her children had been born and brought up there, it was the house she and her husband had bought together and it was special to her. That's why people want to stay in their houses. My fil has just died, and mil wants to stay in their 5 bedroom house for the rest of her life. They have lived there since 1959 and again, the house is a place that she will not be willing to let go of for a long time, if ever. It is home to her.

I agree with MumInScotland that young families couldn't afford to buy some of these family homes that older people have anyway.

I think another reason older people want to hang on to their homes is in order to have something to leave to their children. Also, some families get bigger, not smaller, as children and grand children come to stay.

However, I am glad this has been mooted. No-one should be forced to move, but I think the subject should be raised with the older generations. What we can't do, however, is expect them to be more public-spirited than the rest of us are prepared to be. If they see younger people ignoring and marginalising them, cutting their benefits and their pensions, rationing their heating, depriving them of suitable health care and taking away the few perks of old age like travel passes etc, they won't feel like passing on their houses. In spite of this, however, the older generations are the ones who really do know what it was like to be 'all iin this together' and most of them dearly want to be able to help younger people.

I think the generations should work together to solve this, is what I mean (rather than blame each other as they do sometimes).

Actually, a more logical solution would be for young families to move back in with Mum/Grandma. I wonder if that will start happening again any time soon ...

"she doesn't see why the elderly should be pressurised to relinquish their homes"

I don't think pressure is being suggested. More incentives to make it easier to downsize. In the US, apparently, it's more the norm for retirees to sell up, rent a smaller place (the famous seaside condo) & enjoy the lower running costs, lower maintenance and lower local property taxes. Keeping on an oversized house for the sake of memories is understandable and, because moving house is such a hassle, you can also understand why many would rather stay put. But in terms of leaving something for their relatives, if you cash up a large house which is soaking up all your income, you can hand out a few early legacies to get you under the IHT, still have plenty of money left to live on and dramatically cut your living expenses at the same time. One suggestion is waiving stamp duty for over 65s..

No-one should be forced or pressurised, end of!

But if incentives help people to share resources, then I think they are a good thing, to encourage people to consider their possibilities.

It bugs me that lots of people in my parents generation harp on about working hard to pay off the mortgage, when actually often only one parent worked, often less than 40 hrs per week, and the other had the luxury of bringing their kids up. Most families now have 2 parents working all the hours under the sun, and have no chance of owning property at all. We definitely (in the main) work hard!

It's no good saying you should wait until you can afford a house to start a family. It's just not realistic.

I find all this a bit dubious.

If you are capable of buying a house, you are capable of selling it when you want to, and I find it immensely patronising to suggest there is an age-group of incompetents.

And they have completely omitted those whose house is their only form of investment, and who should be left alone to decide whether and when to realise their assets.

'It's no good saying you should wait until you can afford a house to start a family. It's just not realistic.'

Well, the other way of doing it is to make sure you have your house, and are secure in your jobs before you start your family. That's what we did.

The other reason for holding on to a house is that if you are married and have to go into care, the state can't include your house in your assets when calculating your contribution to care if it remains the sole home of the other partner. If you sold and had a lump sum, they could take that into account.

Don't know how old your parents are Dealer, but mine both worked 40 hours + per week (my Dad was Forces and they work many hours a week).

Dh and I both worked more than 40 hours per week - he is Forces, I used to teach.

Wet myself laughing when I read this. My mother, who has lived a very conventional life i.e. worked until she married & has subsequently been supported by my father for the rest of her life, never owned her own house, but has always lived in houses bought by my father - was spouting on about the housing crisis & said that people really shouldn't expect to own their own houses any more & that we should all just be prepared to live in rented flats. She, of course, lives in a huge house on a small farm - just her & my father. Will be asking her what she thinks of the report!!!!!

Looking at it, they're calling for tax breaks to be in place just as the baby boomer generation are in the position to receive them. The (younger) working population would have to pay for this, either by picking up the tab for these tax breaks, or facing even further cuts to services.

Given that paying for pensions is enough of a crisis, and the economy is probably going to remain stalled, is this remotely affordable?

We live in an ex local authority house (paid over £200k, previous owner bought it from LA 13 years ago for £93k, but that's by the by). Every other house around us that is still KA owned has one old person living in it. These are roomy, square 3/4 bed houses with huge gardens, almost all of which are overgrown and neglected because they're too much for the old people to look after

We live in a small rural town where demand massively outstrips supply

Other families we know have had to move miles away in order to buy a home big enough, and god forbid you gave a child or two and need social housing, you'll be lucky to getva house within a 40 mile radius

It's sad that people can't ve close to their families, when starting their own. A time when you need them the most

It's a good idea to make it easier to downsize if people want to. My street has a lit of large houses (6-7 beds) with 1-2 people in. All the families are in 3-4 beds. They are gradually coming on the Market as people die.

There's also a couple of empty houses in my street which need some work 10-20k? I would like to see those taken over, done up & sold/rented on.

Iarebaboon; that presupposes that people will not have moved away for work - my family were 3.5 hours away when I had ds and dh was god knows where under the water. My mum didn't move near us until ds was 5, and dh's parents stayed where they were.

Who will the tax breaks help? Are they saying that those down sizing will not have to pay stamp duty on their new purchase; or those buying one of the 'freed up' homes will not have to? If the latter, it's hardly helping the elderly vendors is it?