It's STILL tough and not getting better - so how are we coping?

gailey_2

Housing such a minefeild in uk im not sure if selling off all the council houses was best thing they should have built one house for each they sold but they dident seems to be squandered..

My mil really upset us last year as fatherinlaw was very ill got leg infected and had to have one leg amputated, e got very down in hospital and wanted to go home.
But their house would have been very difficult for disabled person as on steep hill, lots of steps to front and back it would have needed serious conversion and still wouldent have been suitable and his mum ruled out out moving to bungalow , she would have prefered him to go into home which seemed madness.
Caused real bad feeling dident have heart to tell him he couldent go home sadly he passed away of heartattack in hospital so never had to deal with issue.
Since he passed last year his mums going even nuttier than usual.
She rarly goes out, we do her foodshopping, take her anywhere.She was going to start a club but she hasent.she employs some cowboy to do her garden despite hubby saying we do anything she needed for free, the garden huge so high maintaiance and the area she is has gone down hill over years we worry about her at times.

Mums cousin has me and sold her house and moved into council bungalow.
But bungalows are in short supply within social housing she was quite lucky.

My aunt got house repossed in 90,s got house on new ha estate they were fairly new things back then.
The whole estate looked lovley mix of houses and flats could have been so nice.
A year later it was awful burnt out cars, houses now looked tatty, gardens bad and earned quite a reputation for itself. My mam says because the older council estate had mix of age groups and some private owned too was much nicer sense of community.
The new estate seemed to be where they placed lots of teen parents and what coucil called bad families but guess ghettos exist everywhere.
My aunt managed to get back on property ladder really not sure how within 2years.
What was worse was her mil lived with her but she got lovley coucil flat in mostly private neighbourhood just for elderly and was quite happy there.

When I worked on sink estate lost of young ones thourght having kids would get them house most of time it did others had to live in family home which was already overcrowded.

Privatly anymore than 2bedrooms in decent area is quite expensive , 3beds on average 650 upward round here under new housing benefitrules ist capped at 400 a week which woudl get you 5bed executive home here maybe its just london, south east that have all mad cases you see in news and papers.

Silvercharming saw something like foyer scheme on secret millionaire think it was belfast maybe extension of that for younger people from dysfunctional familes or teen mums would be good as gives them their own space, allows them to be independant and learn lifeskills as well as having all the support they need.
I dont think sheltered housing has to be bad could be made so much better guess its expensive that puts governments off.

One thing caught my eye on news is co-op where a group of people poole together to buy land houses are built for each family and some communal facilities too.
The one I saw was lovley rural area and they had to commit to working together as a communitya nd eating together in communal dining room once a week maybe its just my inner hippy coming out but modern day commune.
I would love to buy one, got secret dream for flatpack wood home from germany on grand designs but he was left land as land pricey and think bank only give morgages once complete.

Saw programme c4 about amish other day was facscinating how oldstyle their community is and they dont really have financial worries and are self suffienet and despite solem image seemed really happy.:)

We have lost sense of community in some areas looking after others very insular soceity seen people pass someone on street wos collapsed or people make snap judgements on appearance without getting to know the person, worked with lot of homeless in past and they had normal lives once but took one wrong turn and ended up on street.

Dont know many of my neighbours apart from elderly ones who do tend to talk more.

anyone see mastercard/eden do something caled the big lunch like large street party like after the war cant see that happening in many places which is sad really.
If we communicated more with others and helped out where and when we can then that improve things I think thats what big soceity would mean to me.:A

Im such a contradiction a socialist tory:rotfl:

Anyway im intrigued by all you guys stockpiling.

Hubbys fussy over brands so decant cheapo stuff into brand boxes with he would be less so as think eldests noticed.

As we forsee food rising what kind of things you all stocking up on.
just wondering as could maybe try find some more space for food.
I guess all things with vat on them
We already only buy brands of on offer, own brands and basics not sure how much 2.5percent vat would add to monthly shopping bill.
Wonder how much years supply bog roll be as thats value added we get through tonnes.

I stockpiled herbs and spices other week hopefully they last ages .
Lots of stuff that you dont expect is shortdated like soft drinks, beer ect.

had tiring morning at messy play, then went to park, cornershop let me off 5p owe them next time and picked plums /blackberries not bad for days work.

rang tax credits they so useless wonder how they function.

Housework and cooking await me next.

Grumpycupple

silvercharming wrote: »

.

Oh, and as for Thatcher? I don't want to start a political row here, but let's just say I've got my best dancing shoes ready...

I have had my tap shoes polished for a while

Thanks for listening to everone who replied to my post yesterday.Still in limbo about the funeral but less stressed today.

Told my DH about storing and he is just !!!! a hoop about it. We already have a cupboard for toilet rolls and washing powder and WU liquid. His eyes lit up about the thought of stocking up on dried goods so this thread has definitely cheered us up,

The_Thrilla

silvercharming wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to ask, don't they have brothers or sisters or children either? I mean, no they shouldn't push elderly people into places like that, but neither should anyone else be forced to live that way either. The elderly are not the only ones made vulnerable through circumstances beyond their control.
I do get the point that you're making, but it raises more questions about social housing than just that one. The facts are, we have too little social housing in this country. Too much of it is too poorly maintained, and too many councils have allowed entire estates to 'sink' because it was too easy and there was too little incentive not to. Too many obligations on the parts of individuals and society generally have been allowed to decay. The entire social housing system is screwed, and this latest announcement from 'call me Dave' is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If we're all blaming the selfish empty-nesters for wanting to stay in their homes, we won't blame the successive 'leaders' since Thatcher who have allowed the system to collapse.

They're not leaders: they're political hacks. They couldn't lead in a game of contract bridge.

I take your point about the small flats. In the town where I live, most of these are in the grottiest estates. One estate in particular no one decent wants to live in. I did know someone who lived on that estate with her son, and she wanted to get out badly on health grounds. The flat was so badly insulated that it was stricken with condensation the like I had never seen before. There was mildew all over the walls, and not only the walls. There was an outbreak of mildew in her kitchen cupboard, and she showed me cereal boxes with mildew on them. What an utter disgrace. Obviously the spores led to respiration problems. Then there were the neighbours. The estate was full of junkies, gangs of hooligans, grafitti, alcoholics, and the proverbial fellow with the switchblade knife. Fortunately, after being represented by a doctor, a councillor or two, an MP and an ambulance chaser, she and her son were moved into a lovely 3 bedroom house just out of town. Her son has flown the nest, and she now lives there alone. She must be in a dreadful state wondering if she is going to be moved back onto that ghastly estate.

You may remember, if your memory stretches back that far, that the Thatcher government put some kind of a moratorium on the building of council houses. Councils had money set aside for the purpose of building new housing, but were forbidden from using it by the Thatcher government. Now, I had assumed that the Blair government had reversed that. Apparently not. I was talking to someone who was on some committee or other, and he said that the councils were still not allowed to touch that money. I met this guy in 2004. It's divide and rule again. It's not the fault of the political hacks: it's the fault of people like the late Arthur Mullard. As I have said, he and I answer to the same description. The only difference is that he rented his property off the council and I own mine. Someone who rented off a private landlord, would, I assume, be proof from this lunacy. So anyone like Arthur Mullard and the lady who lived in the mildewed flat, would be discriminated against just because they live in council accommodation.

Now there are some who think that just because it is council accommodation that some phantom committee who try to behave like a tenth rate Geheimstaatratspolizei has the right to turf them out of their houses and placed in a pokey little flat surrounded by junkies. I say they don't. They are the landlord, and so long as they are getting their rent money - from whatever source - they have no reason to turf them out of their homes.

gailey_2

The_Thrilla wrote: »

They're not leaders: they're political hacks. They couldn't lead in a game of contract bridge.

I take your point about the small flats. In the town where I live, most of these are in the grottiest estates. One estate in particular no one decent wants to live in. I did know someone who lived on that estate with her son, and she wanted to get out badly on health grounds. The flat was so badly insulated that it was stricken with condensation the like I had never seen before. There was mildew all over the walls, and not only the walls. There was an outbreak of mildew in her kitchen cupboard, and she showed me cereal boxes with mildew on them. What an utter disgrace. Obviously the spores led to respiration problems. Then there were the neighbours. The estate was full of junkies, gangs of hooligans, grafitti, alcoholics, and the proverbial fellow with the switchblade knife. Fortunately, after being represented by a doctor, a councillor or two, an MP and an ambulance chaser, she and her son were moved into a lovely 3 bedroom house just out of town. Her son has flown the nest, and she now lives there alone. She must be in a dreadful state wondering if she is going to be moved back onto that ghastly estate.

You may remember, if your memory stretches back that far, that the Thatcher government put some kind of a moratorium on the building of council houses. Councils had money set aside for the purpose of building new housing, but were forbidden from using it by the Thatcher government. Now, I had assumed that the Blair government had reversed that. Apparently not. I was talking to someone who was on some committee or other, and he said that the councils were still not allowed to touch that money. I met this guy in 2004. It's divide and rule again. It's not the fault of the political hacks: it's the fault of people like the late Arthur Mullard. As I have said, he and I answer to the same description. The only difference is that he rented his property off the council and I own mine. Someone who rented off a private landlord, would, I assume, be proof from this lunacy. So anyone like Arthur Mullard and the lady who lived in the mildewed flat, would be discriminated against just because they live in council accommodation.

Now there are some who think that just because it is council accommodation that some phantom committee who try to behave like a tenth rate Geheimstaatratspolizei has the right to turf them out of their houses and placed in a pokey little flat surrounded by junkies. I say they don't. They are the landlord, and so long as they are getting their rent money - from whatever source - they have no reason to turf them out of their homes.

I was a kiddy during thatcher years dad still moans about her.

Its not the selling off as such its the way it was done

no new houses built
should have been conditions to buy as lots sold on for profit and theres uses to be right for relatives when the council tennant died as know someone who moved into and brought nans old council house.

So is this money protected then and still in some account somewhere.
Imagine last governent spent it if they could as sold off gold and lots of other stuff and spent tonnes on benefits and public sector.

Would be nice if it still existed and mass housebuilding went on.

Not heard much about new coalitions policy think housing benefit amounts needed to change as landlords were charging too high with some charging over grand a week.

Agree with mansion tax
capital gains rise has stopped mass selling of buy to let properties
2nd homes and holidays home should be taxed more as some pople cant afford to live where they grew up.
More help in areas of country where prices are stupidly high to help low income familes live near their familys

social housing a lottory some familes live in lap of luxury mansions with huge familes.
Others are lucky they get brands new housing or sometimes social housing amongst private areas rather than on huge estate.
But then theres once on sink estates and on tower blocks of common programmes were they have extreme damp situation, drug problems or fear for their safety.

I thourght changes in planning laws might have helped so when new deveopler builds a they have to build quota of social housing too although not see much evidence of that.

Everytime new ha housing built in hometown resident would complain as thourght it would bring trouble possibly even devalue their homes.Yet all the new build 2buy houses were 200grand plus and average salary majority of town 12grand.

I think its worse when you got kids to consider as you get 3choices if you refuse all 3 then bottom of list .
The better schools push buying and rental prices up.

Maybe if every street had to have proprtion of social housing rather than huge estate would be good thing to mix things up a bit.

Andraste

Gailey, as far as I know, it's usually the case that when a builder applies for permission for a development of any reasonable size, a proportion of the stock is supposed to be for social housing. It's generally a condition of granting the planning permission. The idea, obviously, is to get a mix of people living in the development. In reality, there's nothing to stop the builder 're-allocating' the social stock and putting it all in one area, thereby keeping the development as purely private housing. The social housing can then be stuck in a less profitable area, keeping profit to the maximum possible.

katholicos

When I signed on the dotted line for this house, it was on the understanding that I could not be forced out of it. Surely there are legalities which err on the side of the tenant. What happened to occupancy being 9/10ths of the law? Why do the landlords and police officers have such a tough time evicting squatters from property? This infuriates me. I remember the Thatcher years and it was one of the reasons that I wished Labour had performed better during their reign, because i knew there would be thousands of people who had become dissolusioned with 'New Labour' and that many others would have forgotten about or not been aware of the damage done by the previous Tory government.

Shame on the Lib Dems for colaborating with the Conservatives and enabling them to dictate, rather than govern this country, once again.

Primrose

I can see both sides of the social housing issue. It's not an easy problem to solve and I do think that if families have lived in social housing accommodation for a certain number of years and want to buy them to secure their tenure for the rest of their lives, they should be able to do so. But this does reduce the number of properties available for rent, so there ought to be a rule of "One out, One In" so that for every local authority house sold, another new one one should be built for rent. This would ensure that the stock of housing available never reduced.

Charis

Charis wrote: »

I'll be 60 next month and am grateful that we went without the luxury lifestyle many people take for granted and put everything we had into buying our own home.
If we hadn't, maybe I would be left facing retirement with the cost of rent hanging over me. Maybe I could get help towards it, but with current cutbacks who knows how long that will be possible As a widow I would probably be told I could only have enough to live in a one bedroomed flat and I might have little choice when it came to the area I would end up living in.

Charis

Blimey, this deja vu is getting worrying. :eek: I only posted this a few days ago.

gailey_2

Decided might bulk buy coffee, sugar and chocolate in case get snowed in.
Hubby will think I gone mad wondering if ordered pallet of bogroll online sainsbury would think me odd.

grumpy you dh made me chuckle wish hubby get exited about foodbuying.

jediteacher

I'll probably be shot down for what I'm about to say.

However, we live in an ex-council house. We bought it six years ago. It's in a relatively quiet area (although I would love to live rural). There is one council house on our road and up till now we've not had any problems (not that there should have been). However, this january a new family moved in and we have had nothing but trouble. Cars have been broken into, houses burgled, rubbish thrown into gardens - such as dirty nappies, sanitary towels etc. The tenants in the council house are responsible for all this - they have been caught and arrested several times. I am the local contact for the council and Police as I seem to be the only one willing to confront them if I catch them in my garden, touching my car, being abusive to my three year old daughter. I have found out that this family have already been evicted 5 times from council homes due to their anti-social behaviour and what do they do - they give them another house to destroy and new neighbourhood to terrorise! How is this fair? They have everything paid for them as none of them work and they just think that society owes them a favour. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I would love to be a SAHM but we would loose the roof over our heads if I didn't work (I went through repossession of a house as a child and it's not nice and not something I could go through again). Why should they be entitled to everything and I who struggle to meet bills, pay for food and behave in a 'social' way am worse off! This country is really backwards in this and I'm not surprised that so many people (my sister is one) choose to live off the state as they're better off. My sister freely admits to me that she gets more money staying on benefits than if she went out and found a job.