elderley to give up council homes

neverdespairgirl

robin_banks wrote: »

I'm torn on this one.

You don't live a million miles from me so you'll know that there isn't a huge of property that is suitable for said older folk.

No, and suitable (close by the old place) should be a pre-requisite.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Many of the old people are part of local communities, maybe they should be building some one bedroom properties within those communities to enable transfer without leaving a lifetime of friends behind.

Good idea Stevie. Unfortunately, far too good to be considered

Jowo_2

I recall that Southwark council made a concerted effort to try and free up large properties ( 4 or 5 bedroom ones, I think) that were under occupied and contacted the tenants of all properties that were affected. I can't find a link to the results but thought the results were fairly dismal.

They've also detected dozens of fraudulently obtained and illegally sublet properties (unauthorised occupation) which they've brought back into use. In one year alone (2005), they detected 60 properties this way through part of the year with the expectation of recovering 150 in total rhat year so presumably there are many hundreds of properties in this borough alone who have occupants in them that aren't entitled to live there, which means there must be thousands across the capital.

Perhaps councils should increase the rewards for genuine tenants to tempt them to downsize and be more proactive in contacting them and increase the scrutiny of their tenants to detect those who have no right to a tenancy (for example, have moved away and sublet it without permission)?

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

stuff....well, they could give it to their children/grandchildren who are struggling to buy a lifetime's worth of stuff. Its fine living in the same home for decades....if you are providing for yourself, if living in social housing then it seems fair to accept that other people are now in the need they once were, for a decent family home. I know it seems hard and tough, but it is. Moving people away from friends and family would not be right at all: and a potential further burden on resources...friends and family do a lot for each other, but to ask to move within area seems fair to me.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Tough, really.

Same was true for my Granny - she sold the large 4 bed detached house with massive garden where she'd lived for 30 years after she was widowed.

In theory, I agree with you. Was playing devils advocate.

However, having had to explain such theoretical stuff to people, being in the situation is a little harder than the objective view.

Hank_Rearden

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Tough, really.

Same was true for my Granny - she sold the large 4 bed detached house with massive garden where she'd lived for 30 years after she was widowed.

Exactly - there are many families who've worked hard all their lives to buy a house and then, when one partner dies, the one left behind ends up having to sell it because of inheritance tax - it does therefore seem unfair when those whose housing is paid for by others don't suffer the same.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

However, having had to explain such theoretical stuff to people, being in the situation is a little harder than the objective view.

LJ, most people who own will indeed have to ''go through'' this in a support role to parents or grandparents who live in their own houses. My main wish is that my grandmother had moved before her dementia became so pronounced, even better had it been before she was widowed. Moving so late was, I think, harder because it took control from her, and familiarity. Now I watch as my parents are deciding what to do for themselves.

Jowo_2

My aunt was happy to give up her 2 bedroom flat when her children left home and was waiting for a 1 bedroom property to come up in the areas she preferred. Her social housing landlord contacted her to let her know that very few properties become available there and persuaded her to view some properties in other areas she'd not considered. They made it clear she was not under any pressure to accept them but they wanted to show her some more options. She accepted a new property fairly soon after they'd made the effort to show her vacant properties.

I imagine this softly softly approach is the best way to deal with someone nervous about losing their home and being applied pressure to lever them out.

Having said that, I'm in favour of it being mandatory for social housing tenants to downsize when their household shrinks and to ensure that social housing tenants have a secure tenancy in social housing that doesn't mean they can rattle around a 5 bedroom property on their own.

I never understood why social housing tenants have the entitlement to larger sized properties as their families expand and no reciprocal requirement on their part to make arrangements to move into smaller properties when it contracts. The same tenant who would march up to the social housing landlord's HQ to demand an extra bedroom when they have a new kid is precisely the same tenant who feels absolutely no obligation to be proactive when their kids leave home.

LydiaJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Moving people away from friends and family would not be right at all: and a potential further burden on resources...friends and family do a lot for each other, but to ask to move within area seems fair to me.

Friends and family living nearby are definitely a good thing. I don't think my parents could manage without more paid-for help if their lovely next door neighbours weren't helping out voluntarily. But I agree with lir, staying near the people you know doesn't have to mean staying in the same house.

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Exactly - there are many families who've worked hard all their lives to buy a house and then, when one partner dies, the one left behind ends up having to sell it because of inheritance tax - it does therefore seem unfair when those whose housing is paid for by others don't suffer the same.

Err... no. There's no IHT on leaving your main residence to your spouse who shares it with you. However, many older people who own their own houses may choose to downsize either because the upkeep of a large house is too much for them, or because they want to free up the equity to pay for care of one kind or another.

StevieJ

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Exactly - there are many families who've worked hard all their lives to buy a house and then, when one partner dies, the one left behind ends up having to sell it because of inheritance tax - it does therefore seem unfair when those whose housing is paid for by others don't suffer the same.

Ah, so you want people to suffer?

blueboy43

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Exactly - there are many families who've worked hard all their lives to buy a house and then, when one partner dies, the one left behind ends up having to sell it because of inheritance tax - it does therefore seem unfair when those whose housing is paid for by others don't suffer the same.

Utter rubbish.

There is no inheritance tax due for transfers to a husband or wife.