Council house? Not if you are on over £100k pa

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

a quick look on rightmove suggests that the rent (which includes service charge) would not be much of a problem, at least not compared to the lack of supply, as there 779 retirement properties to for rent in the entire country (including the outer hebrides) which suggests that this is unlikely to provide a solution!

i reckon bob crow should be retired and made to live in one though. pref outer hebrides.

I had a look in my area 2 available the rent more than a 2 bed house.

Unlike a lot of people on here I'm a believer in trade unions but you have to wonder why a trade union leader earns that much I wouldn’t imagine many train drivers do.

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

Under occupancy is a problem but is there suitable accommodation to put the 80 year old Doris in.

Yes. This isn't the issue. The issue is doris won't accept the suitable accommodation, saying there isn't enough space for her to put all her stuff.

Plus, she's now come to see the property as "hers".

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

Might go towards it you never know it might even cover the service charge.

Not all service charges are excluded from housing benefit. Indeed, more are included than are not.

And please, the benefits system has been geared to support the over 60's in a massive way since the early 2000's. The creation of the pensions service, and the ability for a homeowner in their 60's to claim pension credit (with no need for re-assessment for 5-7 years) to then sell their home, bank £250k plus, and move into sheltered housing or a council property and claim housing benefit (because they get pension credit - guaranteed for the next 5-7 years) and therefore live rent free.

The over 60's are quite well off thank you. Attendance allowance, concessions with tv licence, more flexible benefit rules than the rest of the populace, subsidised travel, pension credit, housing/c tax benefits and so on. The over 60's are the most protected and mollycoddled in my experience. Especially across the past decade.

ukcarper

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes. This isn't the issue. The issue is doris won't accept the suitable accommodation, saying there isn't enough space for her to put all her stuff.

Plus, she's now come to see the property as "hers".

My mother is in an over 60s ex council, now housing association property and there is no shortage of people wanting to move in there. There will always be people who do not want to move out of their council house but if the alternative is attractive enough a lot will.

ukcarper

lemonjelly wrote: »

Not all service charges are excluded from housing benefit. Indeed, more are included than are not.

And please, the benefits system has been geared to support the over 60's in a massive way since the early 2000's. The creation of the pensions service, and the ability for a homeowner in their 60's to claim pension credit (with no need for re-assessment for 5-7 years) to then sell their home, bank £250k plus, and move into sheltered housing or a council property and claim housing benefit (because they get pension credit - guaranteed for the next 5-7 years) and therefore live rent free.

The over 60's are quite well off thank you. Attendance allowance, concessions with tv licence, more flexible benefit rules than the rest of the populace, subsidised travel, pension credit, housing/c tax benefits and so on. The over 60's are the most protected and mollycoddled in my experience. Especially across the past decade.

The point is, is in worth moving a 80 year old woman into a privately rented flat which costs as much as a 2 bed house.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

My mother is in an over 60s ex council, now housing association property and there is no shortage of people wanting to move in there. There will always be people who do not want to move out of their council house but if the alternative is attractive enough a lot will.

What do you mean by the alternative being attractive enough?

Monetry incentives? Or the alternative accomodation some sort of standard? if so, what sort of alternative do you have in mind?

vivatifosi

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes. This isn't the issue. The issue is doris won't accept the suitable accommodation, saying there isn't enough space for her to put all her stuff.

Plus, she's now come to see the property as "hers".

At which point Doris's family will club together and exercise RTB.

To be fair to "Doris", we should at least try to see her point of view. If she had exercised RTB years ago when she first had the right she would probably have been able to buy her house for about £10k and her family have probably paid way more than that in rent since and on that reasoning she will see the house as hers. She will say that the reason she didn't exercise RTB is that she has a lifetime tenancy and that had she known the government was going to change the ground rules, she would have bought the house back then, at which point people wouldn't be arguing about it because it wouldn't be in the council stock. At least this way it will come back into service when she dies.

In reality, the likes of Doris are coming to the end of their lives and we need to sort out lifetime tenancy agreements so that in 80 more years time, when there's an even greater shortage of public housing, there isn't another Doris, sitting in the same house, in the same position. Do this first, then sort out the Dorises.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do you mean by the alternative being attractive enough?

Monetry incentives? Or the alternative accomodation some sort of standard? if so, what sort of alternative do you have in mind?

I mean the sort of property my mother is in. How keen woukld you be to move from a 3 bed house into a 1 bed flat in a tower block.

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

The point is, is in worth moving a 80 year old woman into a privately rented flat which costs as much as a 2 bed house.

In order to ease the burden on some families, yes it is.

ukcarper wrote: »

My mother is in an over 60s ex council, now housing association property and there is no shortage of people wanting to move in there. There will always be people who do not want to move out of their council house but if the alternative is attractive enough a lot will.

I agree 100%. Difficulty is, there is absolutely no incentive for people to move at this time - whether it be to another LA/HA property, or private sector. Because of the secure tenancy, tenants simply say no. If it was legislated for, tenants would be a lot more willing to consider moving, as they'd know their time was going to be up. Alternatively, tenants would possibly move members of their extended family in to ensure the house is fully occupied. This too may ease pressure on waiting lists, though similarly may raise questions of fairness & how it is policed (eg what if an adult grandchild moved in who earned £100k?)

As it stands, there is no reason for any person in social housing to ever have to consider moving. If they knew it was inevitable one day, they would consider some options at least.

lemonjelly

vivatifosi wrote: »

At which point Doris's family will club together and exercise RTB.

To be fair to "Doris", we should at least try to see her point of view. If she had exercised RTB years ago when she first had the right she would probably have been able to buy her house for about £10k and her family have probably paid way more than that in rent since and on that reasoning she will see the house as hers. She will say that the reason she didn't exercise RTB is that she has a lifetime tenancy and that had she known the government was going to change the ground rules, she would have bought the house back then, at which point people wouldn't be arguing about it because it wouldn't be in the council stock. At least this way it will come back into service when she dies.

In reality, the likes of Doris are coming to the end of their lives and we need to sort out lifetime tenancy agreements so that in 80 more years time, when there's an even greater shortage of public housing, there isn't another Doris, sitting in the same house, in the same position. Do this first, then sort out the Dorises.

Used to see this a lot.
Worse, we used to regularly see 2 scenarios. First, Doris did buy the house under RTB in the 80's. As she grew, to avoid care home fees, she put the house in sons/daughters name. Then, when getting into her 60's/70's, and becoming a little frail, she applies to the same HA/LA to be rehoused in a bungalow, as she doesn't own her own home & her family will not adapt the property for her. When I worked in a small HA, we used to get at least 1 such application a week.

I have also seen cases where enterprising children have encouraged parents to use the RTB, & have funded it. Sadly, there are cases where after 2-3 years, said children have evicted their own parents because of the value of the property. LA/HA ends up rehousing the homeless parents.

ETA I'm not convinced we should ignore the current doris'. I do see doris' POV, & do sympathise. Getting into a philosophical debate about the greater good is likely to detract from the thread. Cynically, should we wait for the doris' to die of? Or should we act in relation to them too? I'm not convinced that it would be a fair and r4easonable message to send out to say "in the future you cannot under occupy, but we'll allow it for now as she's a lovely old lady & it looks bad on the front pages". Could also lead to some legal inconsistencies.