Council tenants with too much room forced into smaller properties

robin_banks

heretolearn wrote: »

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?

LB Camden used to offer up to £30,000 to surrender a 3 bed property, it was scrapped.

davilown

silvercar wrote: »

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.

TBH, why give them an option? If they are working and can afford to go elsewhere then let them go. It all comes back to the 'I'm entitled to it' mentality again.

LydiaJ

ceridwen wrote: »

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.

Indeed. But just because a home is a home doesn't mean that its occupiers have an automatic right to permanent tenure of it.

A few decades ago, all tenants had permanent tenure. Council tenants still have, but private tenants haven't any more. Private tenants don't like the insecurity of it, but that's the situation in which they find themselves, and they deal with it as best as they can.

Nobody on here has been suggesting that permanent secure tenure for council tenants is an inherently bad thing. Instead, people are saying that while it is quite probably a good thing, it is something that we as a nation are no longer able to afford - either financially or in regard to the housing stock.

puddy

what no one has mentioned here are the practicalities of this 'scheme'

firstly, are we talking about council owned properties or 'social housing'. if its only council housing, then thats not a great deal of people

then we're clearly only looking at people under retirement age, that reduces the number even more

thirdly, i would assume that we are talking about some sort of voluntary scheme. i assume that someone with an AST cannot just have that withdrawn by the council for no good reason, therefore they dont have to move if they dont want to.

so how many is this going to leave? 50thousand people wanting to move? i cant see it being much more than that

dopester

LydiaJ wrote: »

Indeed. But just because a home is a home doesn't mean that its occupiers have an automatic right to permanent tenure of it.

A few decades ago, all tenants had permanent tenure. Council tenants still have, but private tenants haven't any more. Private tenants don't like the insecurity of it, but that's the situation in which they find themselves, and they deal with it as best as they can.

Nobody on here has been suggesting that permanent secure tenure for council tenants is an inherently bad thing. Instead, people are saying that while it is quite probably a good thing, it is something that we as a nation are no longer able to afford - either financially or in regard to the housing stock.

I'm impressed by the way you've made your counter-argument here Lydia.

Good to see you back on the forum btw and thanks for your reply to my PM I left for you some time ago hoping all was well. (Noticed it had been 4 weeks since last log-in when I sent it, and your absence ran on to quite a bit longer still). I'd missed a regular who contributes quality posts like you've come back with in this thread.

dopester

Generali wrote: »

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!

That's generous praise from you Gen - thanks indeed; flattered in fact, coming from you. You must be kindly overlooking some of my posts which have a bit of irrationality and frustration in them. Had been up early, groggy after 4 hours sleep. Woken by the annoying battery-low beep warning of a smoke alarm. (1 of 3 in the room and took me a while to locate which unit needed attention). Had one spare Lithium PP3 in my draw to replace and couldn't instantly return to sleep without a lookin at the forum.

Have to fully agree with your own assessment as well. I'm seeing hints of early movement in this regard. Women down the street took a £50K cut on her initial asking price of 18 months earlier. Not a fancy mansion but a big 3 bedder which could be extended easily to a 4-bed. With her having lived in it alone for quite some time.

Her house itself was one of the scruffiest.. no double glazing, stripy wooden windows with the paint worn/flaky away. The listing showed it was unmodernised, with sofa from the 80s, an old style small tv in the lounge room, old kitchen, front door from when they were first built, ect ect.

She actually got a good price result considering all that needed doing to it. A young couple with 2 kids have moved in. Of course it could be said people have always traded down, but where significant monies are involved in a changing competitive market, there may be a point when there is a rush to do so - or, make better use of their homes by taking in relatives/friends/lodgers who can contribute financially.

Malcolm.

Generali wrote: »

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!

I disagree, the older generation hold the vote. I agree with your view that pension promises may need to be watered down. However, I think it's generation Y which will bear the burden. I can't foresee masses of baby boomers in large homes, often with final salary pensions, either having the pension removed or being forced to sell their homes.

I guess time will tell...

carolt

Malcolm. wrote: »

I disagree, the older generation hold the vote. I agree with your view that pension promises may need to be watered down. However, I think it's generation Y which will bear the burden. I can't foresee masses of baby boomers in large homes, often with final salary pensions, either having the pension removed or being forced to sell their homes.

I guess time will tell...

What about when Gen Y become older - wil they not then 'hold the vote'?

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

What about when Gen Y become older - wil they not then 'hold the vote'?

Yes, in 30 or so years they will probably 'hold the vote'.