Loss of Council House on Death of Parents

pulliptears

teeni wrote: »

if he is a pensioner he will not be effected by the changes so wont be forced to move anywhere,

He's in his 70s and is going, he has told neighbours he's been "told to leave as he doesn't need a house this big". He's been doing a fair bit of complaining about it around the local area. Of course it could be bravado to save face and he's actually asked to move.

Either way the point is the same, thanks to the new rules a single man won't be able to hog a three bed family home unless he's willing to pay extra for the privilege.

Wine_of_the_World

Also could they buy it in joint names - hers and her dads. She may be able to get a small mortgage or be lent the money as its pretty secure investment given the house is worth more than she can pay for it.

Gigglepig

That comment about asylum seekers was not very nice.

I'd look at the flip side and ask your friend how come, after having been subsidised her entire life, it had never occurred to her to save up for a mortgage deposit? Or if perhaps, after all these years, she has considered that it may be someone else's turn to be susbidised?

She has been extremely lucky not to have to pay market rent and multiple moving costs as most people renting privately will have. Surely all this time she has been in a much better position to save up for a deposit than people who rent privately?

It sounds like she did not take much care to plan and provide for herself, but is very lucky as she will be rehomed and doesn't need to face the private rental market.

KxMx

I'm 25 and in poor health and living with Mum still. We've both been in touch with our Housing Officer and I know now exactly what will happen in the event of her death.

It's not nice but it is a council house we live in so it is not ours. The practicalities have to be planned for.

teeni

pulliptears wrote: »

He's in his 70s and is going, he has told neighbours he's been "told to leave as he doesn't need a house this big". He's been doing a fair bit of complaining about it around the local area. Of course it could be bravado to save face and he's actually asked to move.

Either way the point is the same, thanks to the new rules a single man won't be able to hog a three bed family home unless he's willing to pay extra for the privilege.

possibly bravado as you say as the new rules specifically do NOT effect pensioners who are exempt from the so called bedroom tax.

It may be that he wants to leave as financially running a 3 bed house is too much for him but if he has a secure/assured tenancy they cant force him to move and he will get the full hb paid towards the rent after april as he does now..

The point is not the same, only people who are under occupying and are under pension age will be forced to move, pensioner's who are the most likely to be under occupying will not be effected

teeni

pulliptears wrote: »

He's in his 70s and is going, he has told neighbours he's been "told to leave as he doesn't need a house this big". He's been doing a fair bit of complaining about it around the local area. Of course it could be bravado to save face and he's actually asked to move.

Either way the point is the same, thanks to the new rules a single man won't be able to hog a three bed family home unless he's willing to pay extra for the privilege.

Maybe he has asked to move as the cost of running a 3 bed property is too much for him and he is too proud to say so BUT the fact is the under occupying rules for Housing benefit does not effect him or any other pensioner.

The point is that many property's will continue to be under occupied because of this and the new rules will not make a jot of difference. So your statement that the new rules will mean a single man wont be able to hog a three bed house unless he is willing to pay extra for the privilege is plain wrong.

ON the other hand many people who would move if there were properties available cant because there are not sufficient properties of the right size available and if they leave their secure tenancies and move to private rents they will cost the tax payer more as local housing allowance for even the smallest household is much higher than the rent of a secure council tenancy in most cases.

pulliptears

teeni wrote: »

possibly bravado as you say as the new rules specifically do NOT effect pensioners who are exempt from the so called bedroom tax.

It may be that he wants to leave as financially running a 3 bed house is too much for him but if he has a secure/assured tenancy they cant force him to move and he will get the full hb paid towards the rent after april as he does now..

The point is not the same, only people who are under occupying and are under pension age will be forced to move, pensioner's who are the most likely to be under occupying will not be effected

Point is exactly the same. If you read my post again you will see where I said the daughter moved out 30 years ago. He has been effectively blocking a disabled access home for 30 years, long before he became a pensioner.
Under new rules he'd have been moved out and the house would become usable as intended again and that is exactly why this new system should be applauded

teeni

pulliptears wrote: »

I'm sorry but what a bloody horrible comment. Whichever family end up in the home it will be a family who desperately need a roof over their heads and for whatever reason cannot afford to put one there themselves.
:mad::mad:

Well said Pulliptears.

pulliptears

Its also worth pointing out here that the man in my example doesn't claim housing benefit and worked to retirement.

teeni

pulliptears wrote: »

Btw I think you mean 'affected' not 'effected'

Yeah i do always get those 2 wrong.