elderley to give up council homes

ninky_2

skint_taffy wrote: »

i notice none of you mention that the elderly who have lived in a coincil house for most of their lives have paid for the house twice over in rent not all tenants are on benefits

i wonder how that argument would stack up for those renting in the private sector who also pay for the properties they live in? no security of tenure there though.

no one is arguing to make people homeless, just move them to smaller ones to make room for families.

skint_taffy

yes i take your point but i dont know any people who have rented in the private sector for 20-30 years

ninky_2

skint_taffy wrote: »

yes i take your point but i dont know any people who have rented in the private sector for 20-30 years

i do. given that the average age of the first time buyer without parental help is now 38 many people spent the first 2 decades of adulthood renting. and some longer than that.

true that is unlikely to be in the same property - private rentals do not offer such security. when i was renting it was usual to move at least once a year - not least because when sharing (who could afford to rent their own place?) it could be hard to find a suitable flatmate to replace one who had moved on. so all those years of paying rent and nothing but memories to show for it. why should social housing be any different?

Hank_Rearden

http://www.thresholdcentre.org.uk/cohousing/ownership.htm

A good example of innovative social housing, targeted, but not exclusively, at older people who want small private spaces but larger communal (including guest suites).

lostinrates

skint_taffy wrote: »

yes i take your point but i dont know any people who have rented in the private sector for 20-30 years

I do too. But not all of them because of being priced out. Some prefer renting and flexibility* and some rent second/third homes.

*it occurs to me that some of the people we know who could probably afford to buy yet rent have rented in the same place for ages, decades...maybe they don't feel the need to buy for stability?

sjaypink

Here, and I suspect the same throughout the country, as has already been suggested, it is not that people necessarily want the bedrooms, they just don't want to live in the smaller properties available. Not because they are smaller but because of the locations and the neighbours.

I know from my own family and friends that they would never have left their family houses for a 1 or 2 bed flat. After years of privacy, garden, driveway there is no way you would give that up for needles in the stairwell and your clothes getting nicked off the communal washing line.....

But, they were/are happy to move to the OAP bungalows and (second choice of course, but not to turn down) retirement flat complexes. Problem is these are in short supply and you won't even be considered until you are 60, and even then without major health issues there is a very long waiting list.

With an ageing population, I think more suitable and desirable homes for older renters should be a priority, this would surely then filter down so that the availability of all types of home improves.

vivatifosi

sjaypink wrote: »

But, they were/are happy to move to the OAP bungalows and (second choice of course, but not to turn down) retirement flat complexes. Problem is these are in short supply and you won't even be considered until you are 60, and even then without major health issues there is a very long waiting list.

A couple of years ago one of the housing trusts in my local area put adverts in the national papers stating that they had homes (mostly 1 bed flats) to rent to the over 60s. They genuinely did have a lot of spare stock. However there was absolutely nothing on the market for anyone over, say 50. As it is an arbitrary limit I don't see why they don't just reduce it a bit. That way people wouldn't be living among much younger people with different housing aspirations and needs but it would be shared around a bit more.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

The theory is, if social housing is more efficiently used it will be the equivalent of increasing the housing stock and reduce the pressure on house prices, so it would affect you

that seems a pretty dubious benefit to me, to be honest. Rather remote!

I'd just rather than families with, say, 3 children, weren't crammed into 1 bed flats while single elderly people live in a 3 bed council house.

gauly

skint_taffy wrote: »

i notice none of you mention that the elderly who have lived in a coincil house for most of their lives have paid for the house twice over in rent not all tenants are on benefits

Hmmm, but at a significantly lower rent than the market rent - and almost certainly lower than the interest on a mortgage. I'm not sure that really counts as "paid for twice over" when they haven't paid as much over the years as someone would who bought the same house??

suburbanwifey

gauly wrote: »

Hmmm, but at a significantly lower rent than the market rent - and almost certainly lower than the interest on a mortgage. I'm not sure that really counts as "paid for twice over" when they haven't paid as much over the years as someone would who bought the same house??

Has no one thought about this point: a lot of people in social housing get their rent paid for them in its entirety as so many in social housing live on benefits. Therefore, if they increase the rent on social housing, that increases the rent the council has to pay on their behalf! I dont think social housing rents should go up (and I live in a private house by the way) - the facilities are poor, the conditions usually not very nice and quite often there are anti-social behaviour problems from either children or adults with 'problems' etc.

And yes, many who live there all their lives have paid the cost of the build of the house many times over - they used to be able to buy them, they are not allowed mostly now I don't think, which is wrong.

My personal opinion - private rentals are way too high! I wouldn't pay the rental costs I see on advertised properties, just to line someone else's pocket, pay their mortgage for them. Yes, buying your own home is expensive, mortgages can cripples people, but so can the rental costs from private houses. People who usually live in LA housing, usually earn low-pay - tell me how they could pay the equivalent costs of private rentals? Its a ludicrous idea to put their rents up, just another way for the government to target the poor to pay for the mistakes of the rich bankers.