Council tenants with too much room forced into smaller properties

diable

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes cos there's just loooooads of single council flats going. ( Not). Where do they shunt them out to then ? Because not many of them by the same token that they are under occupying a 3 bed home.. will be entitled to be homed in anything other than a 1 bed council flat ( if we're talking just about singles).

If they are to be placed in private, well, given the LHA limits, then there's likely to be less than is needed in the same area, given again, that those singles who were previously renting private at above the 30% percentile of average rental rates will ALSO be looking to rent the same properties in order to get the same lha cover.

Swapping with a couple in a one bed flat with a child would be a start.

dopester

wymondham wrote: »

This is a quite a big problem I suspect, and one which is difficult to work out fairly.... what do you do when families are living in B&B's, and the retired couple, or single elderly person is on their own in a 3 bed semi??

In the private sector, in areas of high demand for accommodation especially, you absolutely have to scrap the single person council tax discount on 2 or 3+ bed houses (when there are no children living in property.)

In fact you could push council tax up (or a new property tax) considerably for single people/couples who have houses with 2-3+ beds who have no children, nor any other adults in their homes who are registered to vote. (If you have children it doesn't apply).

That would pressure single/couple owners to either make use of the extra bedrooms, by taking lodgers or housing other family. Or it puts pressure on a decision to downsize.

The government needs to make money on property. Gordon loved ever higher stamp duty revenue during his boom which could never end.

So maybe a charge of £100 to £500 a year payable by adult lodgers/relatives/friends living in the owner's house, depending upon area + allowing the owner to still charge and accept up to £4,000 tax-free rent per year.

The result of course, in my opinion, is it would help make accommodation for people bemoaning there aren't enough council houses. The private sector would be much more amenable to making use of spare bedrooms in bigger houses.

Older people living alone in big council houses with lots of rooms might be encouraged to downsize, freeing up space for younger people.

Or, if you're younger, single and need housing, such a policy (higher council tax) would help encourage private market owners to provide accommodation in their homes. The private sector which would now have more focus towards taking lodgers/friends/relatives in when they are currently not making good use of extra bedrooms to look for a lodger.

Generali

dopester wrote: »

In the private sector, in areas of high demand for accommodation especially, you absolutely have to scrap the single person council tax discount on 2 or 3+ bed houses (when there are no children living in property.)

In fact you could push council tax up (or a new property tax) considerably for single people/couples who have houses with 2-3+ beds who have no children, nor any other adults in their homes who are registered to vote. (If you have children it doesn't apply).

That would pressure single/couple owners to either make use of the extra bedrooms, by taking lodgers or housing other family. Or it puts pressure on a decision to downsize.

The government needs to make money on property. Gordon loved ever higher stamp duty revenue during his boom which could never end.

So maybe a charge of £100 to £500 a year payable by adult lodgers/relatives/friends living in the owner's house, depending upon area + allowing the owner to still charge and accept up to £4,000 tax-free rent per year.

The result of course, in my opinion, is it would help make accommodation for people bemoaning there aren't enough council houses. The private sector would be much more amenable to making use of spare bedrooms in bigger houses.

Older people living alone in big council houses with lots of rooms might be encouraged to downsize, freeing up space for younger people.

Or, if you're younger, single and need housing, such a policy (higher council tax) would help encourage private market owners to provide accommodation in their homes. The private sector which would now have more focus towards taking lodgers/friends/relatives in when they are currently not making good use of extra bedrooms to look for a lodger.

An excellent post as ever dopester. Are you up early or late?

My belief is that over the next couple of decades, the market is going to force people out of large homes and into smaller ones.

There is basically zero chance that pension promises as they exist currently are going to be paid, there simply isn't enough money to cover the underfunded and unfunded schemes and Generations X & Y don't have enough money to fund their own pensions plus those of their parents.

The result is going to have to be that baby boomers will sell their homes, either to move to a cheaper area or to a smaller property. You'd have to be crazy to live in a half million quid asset while eating beans out of a tin!

heretolearn_2

I don't agree with force but there needs to be a good national scheme for people to voluntarily downsize in social housing.

A few years ago I ended up living alone in a 3-bed council flat. I didn't need the space, I thought about the families that did, and rang the council thinking it would be happy to move me out and a family in. Maybe they had a special scheme to allow for this? Nope. The woman had a right go at me and called me a 'queue-jumper' and that I couldn't expect special treatment and would have to go on the waiting list to move. OK, (seething), how long is the waiting list, I asked. She said 'about 11 years'.

I gave up and just moved out of social housing a couple of years after anyway. But I always felt guilty about having 2 spare bedrooms when you hear about families having to get by in grotty B&Bs. But if the council didn't care, why should I?

ceridwen

ninky wrote: »

about time too. it's ridiculous that people stay in council homes that are too big for them. longterm this shouldn't impact pensioners anyway as generally the home will be too big before retirement so they will have had to downsize prior to this.

as for 'forcing' people out of their homes....i don't notice many complaining when the property they are moved to is bigger.

"...will have had to downsize". Not necessarily.

The thing that has to be borne in mind is that a persons home is their HOME and not just a brick-built box they live in. That is still the case even if that home is rented from the Council - rather than owned by them.

If I were a pensioner in a home I had already been allocated years back because I had a family - then I certainly wouldnt move if I was quite happy where I was.

1. The purely personal reason of I have too much stuff to fit into a one bedroom flat.

2. I would know my neighbourhood and have worked out my routines accordingly/made friends accordingly/etc. I wouldnt want to have to spend time working out who was who again in a new neighbourhood (unless it was a better one of course - in which case it would be worth it). I would have worked out/heard through the local grapevine exactly who was a decent helpful neighbour to have and who to steer well clear of, etc.

3. THE most important point of all is that Councils arent quick enough off the mark to throw out antisocial tenants. I think people would be a sight more prepared to move if they knew they wouldnt have any antisocial tenants as neighbours - because the Council didnt allow people to BE antisocial neighbours.

Also - if Councils threw out the antisocial element as fast as possible it would free up housing for everyone else. If people are trashing their (Council-allocated) home or terrorising the neighbourhood - then they should be thrown out as fast as they possibly can be and not rehoused again. That would lessen the likelihood of people acting antisocially in the first place - as they'd know they would lose their home if they did - and free up the place they had just been ejected from.

If I were a private landlord I wouldnt hesitate - or bother myself very much about abiding by the law either:D - in getting shot of any antisocial tenants I had. I appreciate Councils have to abide by the law more than I would personally...but I still wonder why they let these people carry on renting for so long....

ceridwen

wymondham wrote: »

This is a quite a big problem I suspect, and one which is difficult to work out fairly.... what do you do when families are living in B&B's, and the retired couple, or single elderly person is on their own in a 3 bed semi??

At least take some account of the fact enshrined in the phrase "You made your bed - you lie on it".

There are obviously families who ensured that they were all sorted out on the housing front BEFORE they had the children in the first place - and something that was totally out of their control happened subsequently. Those people I feel sorry for.

On the other hand - I definitely do NOT feel sorry for a person/couple that went ahead and had a child/children even though they werent suitably housed first - eg deliberate single parent families. It is absolutely wrong of people in those circumstances to try and put pressure on for old people to be thrown out of their homes - so that they can have them instead.

I certainly wouldnt want to see some perfectly "innocent" person being ejected from their home - in order to house the children I had chosen to have. It would have been MY choice to have those children - why should someone else suffer because I had done so? I hope I wouldnt sink that low as to expect OTHER people to suffer because of MY choices.

ceridwen

dopester wrote: »

In the private sector, in areas of high demand for accommodation especially, you absolutely have to scrap the single person council tax discount on 2 or 3+ bed houses (when there are no children living in property.)

In fact you could push council tax up (or a new property tax) considerably for single people/couples who have houses with 2-3+ beds who have no children, nor any other adults in their homes who are registered to vote. (If you have children it doesn't apply).

That would pressure single/couple owners to either make use of the extra bedrooms, by taking lodgers or housing other family. Or it puts pressure on a decision to downsize.

The government needs to make money on property. Gordon loved ever higher stamp duty revenue during his boom which could never end.

So maybe a charge of £100 to £500 a year payable by adult lodgers/relatives/friends living in the owner's house, depending upon area + allowing the owner to still charge and accept up to £4,000 tax-free rent per year.

I do HOPE you arent referring to single owner-occupiers with more than one bedroom. It is galling enough to be expected to pay 75% of the Council Tax that a couple or family would pay - without some "bright spark" coming along proposing that we should pay exactly the same as a couple or family would pay:mad:. I'm on a low income - and its only going to get worse in the not too distant future. Just where do you think I would get the money from to pay any extra Council Tax from? Oooh...I forgot..take in lodgers. Forget it - been there/done that - NEVER again:eek:.

Oh...and theres just the little practical matter of very very few one bedroom houses in my area to swop to - and the fact that flats have things like Service Charges payable on them (besides having to put up with having neighbours above and/or below you).

ARe you offering a good price to do the work of knocking through my bedrooms into one huge bedroom then - so that I could tell the Council "Honest - I only live in a one bedroom house guv'nor - so I still pay that little bit less C.T. than a couple/family". Don't think I wouldnt do it - I love calling peoples bluffs:D - let me know if I need to go out and buy a dustmask and equipment to start taking down those walls....:rotfl:

carolt

ceridwen wrote: »

At least take some account of the fact enshrined in the phrase "You made your bed - you lie on it".

There are obviously families who ensured that they were all sorted out on the housing front BEFORE they had the children in the first place - and something that was totally out of their control happened subsequently. Those people I feel sorry for.

On the other hand - I definitely do NOT feel sorry for a person/couple that went ahead and had a child/children even though they werent suitably housed first - eg deliberate single parent families. It is absolutely wrong of people in those circumstances to try and put pressure on for old people to be thrown out of their homes - so that they can have them instead.

I certainly wouldnt want to see some perfectly "innocent" person being ejected from their home - in order to house the children I had chosen to have. It would have been MY choice to have those children - why should someone else suffer because I had done so? I hope I wouldnt sink that low as to expect OTHER people to suffer because of MY choices.

Trouble is, that may work, by punishing the parents.

Unfortunately, though in the process you end up punishing the children too, who after all didn't ask to be born.

Difficult balance to get right.

vivatifosi

I'd like to see a situation where all new council house tenants are given a fixed-term lease (say 5 years), revokable mid-term if for example, they fail to pay the rent or are anti-social tenants (per Ceridwen's post above). If it becomes clear that the tenants have sufficient income to rent from the private sector or or buy their own property, then at lease break the tenants should be given notice and the property should be given to someone whose need is greater. I'd also remove right to buy in order to preserve the very limited remaining stock.

silvercar

If council tenants in 3 or 4 bed properties were given the option to move to 2 bed properties, rather than the council only allowing a move to a 1 bed property, I'm sure many more would consider the move.