elderley to give up council homes

chucky

Fiddlestick wrote: »

That doesn't make it theirs though.

Clogging up a 2 or 3 bedroom house by themselves is pretty selfish.

why shouldn't they live in it - they could have 18 rooms.

it's up to them and how much space they want to use or not use.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why can't people in HA share properties. you can stick 4 or 5 in a big house, plus they can look after each other and have company.

students share houses. no reason why elderly widowed people or young singles can't share.

They'd kill each other :rotfl:.
Don't know how old you are but the world is a much different place when your'e of student age than it is when you get older.
I don't know many pensioners who would want to live all together like students or have the tolerance levels either.
Think about it would you like to go back to co-habiting with people outside your family when you reach old age.
It would be worse than living in an old folks home,poor sods.
I'm torn on the council house issue by the way it's a tough one.

Malcolm.

lemonjelly wrote: »

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/10/18/elderly-offered-3k-to-move/

I know, having worked in a HA that to free up movement, & address under-occupation of social housing it is something that staff would like to be able to do.

Can't see it being retrospectively applied though. & £3k is a pittance, & nowhere near enough.

Thoughts?

My thoughts: Why should those living in council homes have more rights than those renting privately?

Surely it should be equal.

MrsE_2

Fiddlestick wrote: »

That doesn't make it theirs though.

Clogging up a 2 or 3 bedroom house by themselves is pretty selfish.

I wouldn't call 2 bedrooms excessive.

I think the answer is to build attractive little bungalows for them;)

dori2o

There is another answer. Refurbish all the boarded up houses that are currently sat idle accross the county. Instant increased social housing.

michaels

I type it on here in the afternoon and by the evening it is govt policy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923

What would you like me to recommend next?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7521401/California-to-hold-referendum-on-legalising-marijuana.html

michaels wrote: »

How about rents being set at market rate, that would be an incentive for people to move in to a property that suited their needs. Those on HB would be impacted by the caps the govt is bringing in and it would not cost overall as HB paying HA rents is just moving money around the govt.

Hank_Rearden

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.

Apologies - as has been pointed out, I was having a stupid moment - this was nonsense.

Fiddlestick

MrsE wrote: »

I wouldn't call 2 bedrooms excessive.

When you have one person occupying a 2 bedroom house that could be used to house a family with two young children then yes, that *is* excessive.

Social housing should be assessed on the basis of need.

mcjordi

Fiddlestick wrote: »

When you have one person occupying a 2 bedroom house that could be used to house a family with two young children then yes, that *is* excessive.

Social housing should be assessed on the basis of need.

i wouldnt call it excessive, i live in a 2 bed property on my own and like hell would i move to a one bed flat..

i could of had a 3 bed on my own if i had even bothered to fight for it when my mam passed away.

i can see some jealousy on this thread:mad:

Fiddlestick

mcjordi wrote: »

i wouldnt call it excessive, i live in a 2 bed property on my own and like hell would i move to a one bed flat..

And is that social housing or do you rent privately?