Well well....there's a shortage of "affordable" housing?

lynzpower

RHemmings wrote:

And after it's paid off, the NHS can force you to sell it. :eek:

Complete misrepresentation- NOT TRUE!!!!!

Bottom line is if you are ILL and need NURSING BASED CARE then there is no question the NHS will pick up the tab under the continuing care budget. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/IntegratedCare/ContinuingCarePolicy/fs/en. this is when one lives in a NURSING HOME

If however, you need increased SOCIAL CARE, be it any of those things which are not a MEDICAL need such as
helping you in and out of bed
shopping
cooking
cleaning
personal care such as bathing & toileting
that can be done by someone that is not a TRAINED MEDICAL STAFF ( iea neighbour, relative, paid carer) and your needs are such that you cannot remain at home, you can SELL your home to move into ANOTHER ONE WITH A RESIDENTIAL SOCIAL CARE COMPOENENT, IE SHELTERED ACCOM, RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS

There is a fundamental difference between nursing and residential care, both legally and for the recipient. It also requires reminding that NURSING care can and IS provided for many many people in thier own homes with ( ime) up to 5 qualified nurses providing full time care on rotation to someone at home. Ie they havent sold thier home, but 5 trained nurses paid for by the NHS work from his home as if it were a ward IYSWIM

rant over

RHemmings

lynzpower wrote:

Complete misrepresentation- NOT TRUE!!!!!

Certainly the reports in the press seem to suggest it is true. Can you discuss the problem in light of press coverage such as the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4768518.stm

Melanie Henwood estimates the total figure of the number of people who have to sell their homes to pay for care is around 40,000. The Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow, in his own survey, estimates a total of 70,000 a year.

Hereward

That report is over six months old. IIRC there was a big fuss about the programme and several changes have been implemented since then; therefore, lynzpower is correct that the NHS cannot force you to sell your home for health care, but your local council can for social care: it's even alluded to in the article that you posted.

wolvesinwales

There seems no big effort to solve the affordable housing problem around here. A few years ago an old army base closed down and all the perfectly good houses on the site were demolished and new houses were built on the site and sold for £300,000 +

MickKnipfler

Is it just a question of "affordability" or does "value" make a difference? Is it just the monthly payment that matters or confidence that your asset will always be worth what you paid for it?

PoorDave

Bargain_Rzl wrote:

Sorry, my previous post crossed with yours.

Perhaps not in all areas of the country - but as I've said, in London at least, rental can also be crippling. In a run down area you could look at paying £600 a month for a studio flat, £750 for a 1-bed, and at least £900 for a basic family house (2-3 bed terrace). For somebody on less than the average wage, that is not affordable.

I suppose if purchase in your desired area is too expensive, as is rental, and commuting costs too much from further away, then there's a big problem!

SmartGirl_2

ringo_24601 wrote:

What does 'affordable' mean? Me and the gf are both mid-20s amd buying a house that is 3.5x our joint income, in London.

We make ~50K between us, had a 20k deposit and the house we're buying is 200k. It's a 2 bedroom house in a nice area of hertfordshire, with train links into London. We could have aimed for a cheaper flat, but I want a garden and no service charges.

Personally I don't know what all the fuss is about, people just want houses without going through the effort of saving a deposit.

But what would happen if you decided to have kids and your GF chose to stay at home looking after them thus loosing half of your income? Or if one of you lost your job or became sick or if you split up? How affordable would your house be then?

Apparently 80% of people in the area where I live would not afford to buy their properties if they were FTBs buying at today's prices. Does that mean that property is still affordable? I know several people who make about £20-£30k a year and live in properties worth £300-£350k. They have always been on average wage, but they can afford these properties because they bought them long time ago. Why does somebody need 2.5 average salary to afford the same property today? Not exactly what I call affordable.

Newone_2

PoorDave wrote:

I suppose if purchase in your desired area is too expensive, as is rental, and commuting costs too much from further away, then there's a big problem!

i think you really hit the nail on the head here!!!


quote "Is it just a question of "affordability" or does "value" make a difference? Is it just the monthly payment that matters or confidence that your asset will always be worth what you paid for it?"

of course the asset matters but it means nothing if you just cannot stretch to cover the mortgage/rental payments. i kind of see where some people are coming from when they can't see why people have such issues but i do think there will always be some differences in peoples meaning of *affordability* in regards to house prices. I find that 99% of the house prices in Leeds are *unaffordable* for my on my salary, having to buy alone. i would need a further 75 to 100% of my budget for lending as a deposit to be able to buy in most parts of leeds. So. when i say *unaffordable* for me, it means the houses are too highly priced. therefore, i couldn't pay the mortgage payment and the house bills as it would take my over my monthly income, leaving nothing for transport, food etc, so i would have a house but no money to live on.

however, on a bigger salary, they may still be overpriced for what they are but i would be able to *afford* to buy/rent.

everybody will always have their own meaning behind using the word affordable.

Newone_2

lynzpower wrote:

But dont forget, that its not YOURS until the mortgage is completely paid off. the bank can take it back off you until that date if they so choose, or you run into adverse financial difficulty. I call my flat *mine* in the same way Id call a rented flat mine ( ie come round mine for a pizza) but its not mine, is it? And wont be till the mortgage is settled.

i think i may have caused some confusion, i appreciate until its fully paid for its still owned by the bank, i just meant living somewhere that was under my name rather than my mums.

this is exactly the reason why i haven't really pushed to move yet as i don't want to be making myself penniless by paying a mortage/rent as these would be classed as priority anyway under any financial difficulty situation so it would be any other creditors that would suffer and i don't want to end up not being able to meet my other commitments just to be able to live on my own. (i see this kind of situation every day in my job, where people are paying the majority of their income on mortgae/rent and general house bills and having nearly nothing left to pay unsecured credit or live on) its scary to see that kind of situation and i would want to do everything i could to avoid it for myself. i know in most cases its down to stuff completely out of their hands but i want to be able to have a bit of breathing space.

just today saw one where the person had taken a mortgage for less than they were renting for but to the max they could now afford each month following a redundancy and having to take a lower paid job, but then following a couple of interest rate rises, they now pay out their full income in mortgage and house bills. this in my opinion, has turned their situation from being *just about affordable* to *totally unaffordable*

LittleTinker

My daughter wants to move out into her own place...well...with her boyfriend but I have said as much as I can to discourage her from paying out rent.

The cheapest rent around here for a terraced house would be roughly £400 a month. Ive said to her to pretend shes renting now, put the £400 away in the bank each month and before long, a sizeable deposit will grow. Trouble is, so do the house prices.

She really doesn't stand a chance because to buy a house that may be £400 rent a month, would cost her £120,000 to buy. North Yorkshire house prices arent all that cheaper than London......but the wages certainly are!

We have given up and are going abroad next month to find a place for us and them.