will i be forced to give up my 3 bedroom house now i live alone

pastmybest

whitesatin wrote: »

Home, for many people, is where they brought their family up. It is difficult to give up that home where so much emotional and otherwise has been invested.

My mum would have been devastated to have had to move out of the family home. She eventually became confused and unable to cope alone, I think that would have happened even sooner had she been moved elsewhere. Fifty odd years of living in a house, making friends, watching the world go by from the window, neighbours popping in, I am glad she was able to stay there as long as she did. She paid full rent all her life and did not opt to buy when we offered to help. A family did get the house eventually but they were very different from the remaining tenants, shall we say, and had everything paid for them, the house refurbished etc. etc. By all accounts they have not turned out to be very good neighbours either. I think it is important to have continuity in the interests of community.

Yes I fully agree and do not agree with the social engineering stance taken by some who have contributed to this thread.

delain

pastmybest wrote: »

Yes I fully agree and do not agree with the social engineering stance taken by some who have contributed to this thread.

I fail to see how it's social engineering.

If you want to live in a three bed house after your kids have left home, private rent or buy.

If you wish to remain a social tenant, then take the cash incentive most HA's and councils offer and downsize.

It's not fair that working families on low incomes suffer because the previous housing system was too generous.

pastmybest

When I lived in my council house with my parents it was all as whitesatin said for her mum. A lifetime of friends, neighbours and familiarity with the numerous points of reference brought by longevity in one place.

Today's world forces people and familes apart and has wrecked the once close knit communities that used to exist.

No it is not perfect having deserving folks live in unsuitable acccommodation and so I don't condone that. However there is a really big picture that needs looking at and my view is that cooercing someone out of their family home of many years is not where to start. There are more obvious areas in which to spend ones time trying to sort out the mess.

So we beg to differ which is fine.

aliasojo

I agree with the points made by pastmybest.

I have no idea if this differs between HA, but our one would definitely not look to make anyone move in this situation. They may well enquire whether the tenant would consider moving/swapping but that would be it.

timmmers

I think the moral stance taken by some here would vanish in a puff of smoke when their contributions to the homeless VS cash spent on their own home came into the picture.

I could easily just say that people with no home and several kids should have used a condom instead of bleating about needing a 3 bed house couldn't I ? Why breed like that when you know that housing isn't there to live in ?

I know of several people living in homes after the kids have left or even after divorces...and they have been for years so legally they must be safe.

My advice would be to read the agreement with your landlords...and unless anyone mentions it staying silent and not bringing it to the attention of some "social engineers" who may wish to try donating your home to a Jeremy Kyle family to destroy.

Don't feel guilty for having a home you feel happy in whatever you do.

t

delain

timmmers wrote: »

I think the moral stance taken by some here would vanish in a puff of smoke when their contributions to the homeless VS cash spent on their own home came into the picture.

I could easily just say that people with no home and several kids should have used a condom instead of bleating about needing a 3 bed house couldn't I ? Why breed like that when you know that housing isn't there to live in ?

I know of several people living in homes after the kids have left or even after divorces...and they have been for years so legally they must be safe.

My advice would be to read the agreement with your landlords...and unless anyone mentions it staying silent and not bringing it to the attention of some "social engineers" who may wish to try donating your home to a Jeremy Kyle family to destroy.

Don't feel guilty for having a home you feel happy in whatever you do.

t

My Mum lives in the 3 bed HA house I grew up in, and yes, she has a lot of memories and has spent a lot on it.

She is however, talking about exchanging with someone she knows who is in a 2 bed flat in the same street and is overcrowded, so she is remaining involved, and helping people in her own community, living about 5 doors down from where she lives now.

She also knows there's no point me working as well as my OH because my house is near identical to hers and costs more than twice as much, so we would be unable to feed ourselves, so we're forced to stay on housing benefit.

I do find it offputting that people who go on to earn large salaries and have a brand new car every couple of years (and yes, I do know about motability, before anyone starts) and do damn well whilst the low income WORKING people who really need them struggle to live.

poppy10_2

whitesatin wrote: »

Home, for many people, is where they brought their family up. It is difficult to give up that home where so much emotional and otherwise has been invested.

That's fair enough, if they are paying for the house themselves through a mortgage or private rent. But if they want to stay in the same oversized house while expecting me and other working people to pay for them using our tax money, they can GTFO.

squinty

poppy10 wrote: »

That's fair enough, if they are paying for the house themselves through a mortgage or private rent. But if they want to stay in the same oversized house while expecting me and other working people to pay for them using our tax money, they can GTFO.

How exactly are you paying towards council tenants through your tax money?

This is simply not true. The government operate a national subsidy scheme for council housing - except its not subsidised. Council tenants pay more into the pot than is paid out. Last year council rent payers actually subsidised the general taxpayer by over £200 milion through the scheme.

There are, of course a number of council tenants who receive HB - and there are also a number of private sector tenants who recive LHA. What would you rather happen - pay high cost of private rent through LHA and line the pockets of private investors - (often this is over twice the level of HB for council tenants) - or pay the money to a council?

There are problems. The government should allow local councils to retain their rental income to reinvest in more social housing. But then again, thats a different issue!

BitterAndTwisted

An awful lot of Local Authorities have hived off their housing stock to ALMOs mainly because they are more able to access investment for necessary building improvements and, so I understand it, the ALMOs can retain any profits from rents received to build and maintain more social housing. Therefore there should be less cash going to central government and there might be an improved chance that people in need of properties at a fair rent would be able to access them. It seems to me that the only party not benefiting from that arrangement would be the Chancellor and therefore the tax-payer.

eamon

You probably do have security of tenure. You tenancy agreement should tell you that. Also many HA have housing schemes for the over 50's (though you could well be a glamorous young person and feel that is for old folks). Even if you don't want to move you out of curiosity should investigate what your HA has to offer. Speak to your housing officer, you may be pleasantly surprised.