Is this right?

Graham_Devon

Today I have learnt that a building programme will take place near to the town I work in, due to concrete cancer. These are council places.

The existing tenants (someone I work with is one) will be realocated houses.

Seems fair enough.

BUT. The person I work with, at a guess, must be 55-60 years old. Her childrenm moved out nearly 10 years ago, and she has a 3 bed home. She is therefore entitled to another 3 bed home, so she says, when the new ones are built, which will be a kind of rolling programme. She was saying shes learnt that they will get temporarily housed inbetween (assume the houses have to be knocked down and then the land reclaimed).

4 of us were in the office when she was, quite openly talking about this, and having what I'd describe as a polite moan about being temprarily housed, and a polite moan that she is being asked to move to a 2 bed, which she thinks is "victorian rule" in her own words.

Yet she states she is perfectly entitled to like for like.

1 other in the office suggested compensation for the stress of the situation, but fair play to her, she didn't feel that was right. But she was adamant that she would get a 3 bed, for 2 of them. 2 of us kept quiet, and bi&ched later (not about her, just the system).

Building work won't take place for some time yet, but what do others think? Should she be entitled to like for like, or should this be the opportunity to free up a 3 bed for those more in need of a 3 bed? Considering the shortage supply and general housing conditions out there, surely this is a prime time to look at this, rather weird legislation?

Disclaimer: I don't know all the details. Only learnt about this today.

mbga9pgf

No way ho se! Get her in a 1 bed studio flat. Council tennant at 60? The state should have written her off years ago.

FATBALLZ

I'm happy for her to go into a 3 bed council house with two other couples.

PasturesNew

She'll also get an allowance to decorate her new place/s and some cash in hand for the inconvenience. Possibly a few grand.

Graham_Devon

Is it actually right though? Is she actually entitled to 3 beds, as she seems to think she is?

Would that right change if they own, and rent out another home?

Sambucus_Nigra

Should she be entitled to a council house at all? What are the entitlements to council houses? Shouldn't the entitlement be reviewed on a change of circumstances or on a yearly basis? Why should one person get a council house over someone else? What's it all about?

Confused.com

Graham_Devon

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Should she be entitled to a council house at all? What are the entitlements to council houses? Shouldn't the entitlement be reviewed on a change of circumstances or on a yearly basis? Why should one person get a council house over someone else? What's it all about?

Confused.com

Well the answer to this is yes. She has a lifelong tanancy I'd assume like all other tenants.

Just not sure how that works when it's a different house.

Also, to save confusion, on reflection, the second home is some kind of deal in spain. She rents it out and has "loaned" it to a couple of people at work for holidays. It's advertised in the kitchen. Think, and again, don't know all the details, it's dual owned or something. But still, what I'm trying to say is, she's not on her knees.

Sambucus_Nigra

I said 'should' not 'is'....I think you have proved the point - a house [or a half] in Spain and still entitled to a council house here. Wrong!

Wee_Willy_Harris

She signed up to a "secure tenancy" and all the protection from eviction that affords her. As such, she has an enshrined entitlement should she be displaced as a result of regeneration/demolition. She will also get a disturbance allowance (usually about £3-£5k) to cover her costs (including decorating) and the loss of any financial investment she may have made in her existing home.

Security of tenure is the main reason people want social housing, in much the same way as it's the main reason people take on a mortgage. If you had bought a home and the council wanted to demolish it, YOU would want full market value so you could replace it "like for like".

ninky_2

yes as a council tenant she will have a lifetime tenancy so regardless of what her circumstances become (winning the lottery / buying other property / change in family size) she is entitled to a council house of the same size she is currently in.

it comes from an era when council housing was not seen as a privilege of circumstance but as a choice.

FATBALLZ

ninky wrote: »

yes as a council tenant she will have a lifetime tenancy so regardless of what her circumstances become (winning the lottery / buying other property / change in family size) she is entitled to a council house of the same size she is currently in.

it comes from an era when council housing was not seen as a privilege of circumstance but as a choice.

Any evidence to back this up? I wasn't able to find anything concrete but it was suggested that councils generally reserve the right to rehouse if there is under-occupancy.