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 there is no point in being vitriolic towards the so-called 'haves'. My parents never went abroad on holiday, they ran one economical very ordinary hatchback, my father worked hard for this country and died an untimely death leaving my mum with her memories and a tiny pension. Her house is hard for her to cope with, and she dreams of having a purpose built home. However, the town planners and property developers keep building on our green fields for 'families'. Yet these new builds are miles from the nearest schools and amenities and are unrealistically priced.

Her house needs redecorating top to bottom - so would not be as expensive as a new home and it has all the advantages of being near schools and amenities for children. However, there has been so much pressure by the likes of estate agents on home-owners to tart up their homes for sale (not helped by daytime t.v) which means they'll end up getting a bigger percentage. It's a win-win for no effort for the estate agent (bigger commission) while the home-owner just hopes they won't get ripped off and break-even.

FIL lives in a two-bed flat, council, just him. The estate he lives on is quite small no trouble, near some shops and a park that he visits every day. He'd happily move if he could get a one-bedroom on a ground/first floor on the same estate. Otherwise he's staying put. I don't really blame him either.

Ninedragons - many will be paying in full for their care homes anyway (or for care within their own homes) based on their income and savings, before you even get to look at the value of the house.

It seems callous to suggest that whilst dealing with the trauma of putting someone you love into care, the elderly should also have to deal with the hassle of marketing, selling, buying and moving as well. I also doubt the care homes would wait for their fees until the house was sold.

I think the focus should more firmly be on bringing back all the derelict and empty properties into circulation. My local health authority owns a whole STREET of terraced houses near here that has been derelict for years. Likewise, a local polytechnic university owns another long row of terraces that has been derelict for a similar period. This is in South London. Scandalous.

How do they justify that Rhubarb?

The NHS trust wants to redevelop the land but doesn't have the funds to do so. But they won't sell, because due to government rules any capital gains go straight to the Treasury, not to the Trust. So despite the property being worth millions, there is no incentive for the Trust to sell. So the site is left to rot, hardly contributing to improving the area, making that street feel unsafe to walk down on a night, and denying a number of families a potential home. Total waste.

I don't know the ins and outs of the university property but I suspect it's something similar - they are hanging onto it in the hope that at some distant future time they can afford to do something with it. In the meantime, boarded up houses in an area with a chronic shortage of homes.

Ah, Yes. In a twisted way, it makes sense.

I agree with Rhubarbgarden. That certainly is scandalous - mismanagement of the tax payers' funds, as the Health Authority is not a person, but an organisation run by individuals (who in this case haven't stewarded this asset terribly well). I can't imagine a HA has no money to do up one or two properties, then use the funds from renting or leasing that to fund the refurbishment of the rest. How about sorting out the unoccupied +/- derelict properties first before doing a Big Brother/Nanny state and telling elderly people where they should or shouldn't live? Tax those higher who leave properties unoccupied, incentives and interest free loans for people to occupy the properties.

Do not focus on the elderly or any other group in particular. Innitiatives should be focused at house price control until wages and the economy catch up. It should never have been allowed to happen.

Okay, maybe ensure second homes that are not a main residence get 125% council tax (some local authorites do this). Increase capital gains tax on sail of second homes/BTL and some form of "mansion tax" in a form of increased council tax (assessed at different levels in different areas). These should help control house prices.

sorry, "sail" should be "sale"

iggly2 What do you mean by house price control? You can't control house prices. There is a market.

You can allow more house-building by relaxing planning controls and defying the NIMBY element - or, depending on your point of view, riding roughshod over local democracy .

Wow, house price control, that is certainly some idea! I wonder how it could be achieved? The "government" would have to use some sort of ratio or formula - possibly based on the ?1990 council tax band valuations? Then, what, only allow sales at a certain percentage above that? But what about those people that bought at the market's peak in 2007?

I'm not taking the piss, I think it would be freakin' excellent, but how to do it?

The ideas I have come up with would control it! I am not talking about you must not pay over X amount .

Encouraging banks to control mortgage lending would help, program of building more houses (relaxing plan in certain areas).

Sorry "relaxing building regulations".

House price rise has been a disaster. So much of peoples income goes into housing whether rental or mortgage, how well would economy be doing if this was not the case? The majority of people on housing benefits have jobs yet need help with rent. A lot of that money goes to BTL private landlords as there is not enough social housing.

As soon as the "investment" side of house ownership is removed the better .

funnyperson - going way back to page 4 - their lovely grandchildren wanted to stay with them but they didn't let them. Their lovely children did for a while as an emergency with their children but would have had to adapt their lives entirely and not change a thing or make any noise, blablabla. They did it for a while and were then told to go.

These people have a right to keep their home. But their home has now become a pot of treasure worth 1.5M.

The pot of treasure isn't earned wealth, it's acquired wealth - if the house wasn't worth as much nobody would question it. It is not about the house, it is about the fact that their grandchildren live in cramped accommodation precisely because her house is now worth so much.

Actually what we need is a massive house market crash and life will be fair and equal once again.

iggly x post - I think we are saying the same thing. Unusual for MN...

Probably the worst thing that ever happened was that under Mrs Thatcher's Tory government, the Right To Buy was started. Probably a good thing. But why was the money raised by councils selling the properties to residents forbidden by the Government to be re-invested in building more social housing?

Perhaps this government could be brave and prohibit buy to let? It had nearly died our for a while recently but there are now signs it is starting up again. Then lower priced accommodation could possibly be purchased by people on average incomes? Or people that are renting might have a better chance of saving a deposit?

@scaryteacher

That's great if if people have sufficient savings and investments to pay for their care.

That's actually my point - if you have GBP1m in shares and rent, you pay for your own care. If you have GBP1m in the form of a large suburban house, the state pays. The current system actually discourages any movement from big houses into smaller properties.

Why should the state have to pay for someone because although they have a gigantic asset, it's the family home?

Anyway, it's all irrelevant - politically any such scheme would be like radioactive waste.

NineDRAGONS thanks, I wanted to point that out to Scaryteacher.

"Why should the state have to pay for someone because although they have a gigantic asset, it's the family home?

Anyway, it's all irrelevant - politically any such scheme would be like radioactive waste."

This is the elephant in the room "baby boomers all now retiring are a large demograph with a 75% voting turn out. No political party will risk losing the grey vote. So : winter fuel , bus passes, prescriptons are pretty protected.

I do not think anything can be prohibited (BTL) but removal of profits (eg increase capital gains on second/third etc homes up to 40% plus-as it used to be) would deter it. Maybe higher rates of stamp duty if not primary residence.

Xenia with her "There is more poverty in the old than the young , actually despite what newspaper articles says. Many of the elderly are lonely. Plenty live on a state pension. Many saved all their lives and have capital but not much and are trying to live on their building society interest rates which are very low.." is wrong as the percentage of elderly living in poverty is lower than the percentage of young working families (In a guardian article).

The trouble is when these people bought their £1.5million houses in the 1970s they cost a few thousand and they could pay for them with an average income. They never actually asked the properties to increase so much in value, they have a home and to them that is all it is.

But things have changed and it would be very nice for some of these people to be given a little encouragement to show them an alternative way to live. Sad fact is even if they downsize it won't release much equity as they won't want to move out of their area and their area is expensive.

Mandy remind me what happened with right to buy? Was the money not allowed to be used to build more homes - is that right?

Yep money went to central government not the LA so it was swallowed up and not distributed locally.