Loss of Council House on Death of Parents

teeni

sorry if i appeared to rant but I spend half my working day at the moment trying to help people who are going to be hit with this change and I have have many calls and appointment's with pensioners who have been advised by a friend or have read that they will have to pay this charge and are already packing ready to be evicted as they wont be able to afford it. Thanks for the correction on ( affected, effected) I am always getting them wrong.

Teeni

cockaleekee

Wine_of_the_World wrote: »

As its not a huge amount what about a bank loan rather than mortgage - or could friends lend the money to buy it. Or perhaps put some of it on credit cards - perhaps not all of it but maybe a mix of savings / credit cards / friends she could get the money together to buy it.

An unsecured loan for £60,000? :eek:

pulliptears

teeni wrote: »

sorry if i appeared to rant but I spend half my working day at the moment trying to help people who are going to be hit with this change and I have have many calls and appointment's with pensioners who have been advised by a friend or have read that they will have to pay this charge and are already packing ready to be evicted as they wont be able to afford it. Thanks for the correction on ( affected, effected) I am always getting them wrong.

Teeni

Personally, this may sound harsh but I don't see why pensioners should be exempt as those are often the very people rattling round alone in 3 bed homes.
There are bungalows being built and certainly in my area extra cares are popping up everywhere so why are the very people who would most benefit from these changes exempt from them?

LittleMax

pulliptears wrote: »

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

So in that case he wouldn't have been affected by the bedroom tax and would have stayed in the 3 bedroom house just the same.

LittleMax

pulliptears wrote: »

Personally, this may sound harsh but I don't see why pensioners should be exempt as those are often the very people rattling round alone in 3 bed homes.
There are bungalows being built and certainly in my area extra cares are popping up everywhere so why are the very people who would most benefit from these changes exempt from them?

But that would have upset DM readers - whereas if we say it is assylum seekers and scroungers that will be affected then DM readers think it is a good thing.

teeni

pulliptears wrote: »

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

Yes i did see that and agree he should have been persuaded to move 30 years ago but obviously it was his tenancy not the daughter's and that is why he is still there, I still cant see why they are now telling him he has to move or given your next post which says he doesn't have housing benefit how the new rules affect? him or people like him.

Am i missing something here as i cant see the connection to the changes at all but could be having a very bad day.

But absolutely agree that if disabled adapted properties are no longer needed there should be a way of moving the tenants to alternative housing to release expensively adapted properties for those who need them.

A neighbour of mine has an adapted bungalow and would love to move as it is no longer required as her husband who the work was completed for,has passed away but cant get alternative accommodation for love nor money. The adaptations on her property cost in excess of 50K and i am sure there will be some one out there who actually needs them to make life easier.

I also dont understand why the pensioners have been left out of these changes as they are the most likely to be under occupying, We are not too far apart in out opinions really when you get to the bottom line are we .:)

pulliptears

LittleMax wrote: »

But that would have upset DM readers - whereas if we say it is assylum seekers and scroungers that will be affected then DM readers think it is a good thing.

Oh so true.

I think people are looking at council properties as homes for life which to an extent is wrong. I'm fully in support of any piece of legislation that comes along to say under occupying should lead to you being removed to a property more suitable to your needs. A little re jigging of current housing stock could make a huge difference to lives and waiting lists.

Why does a 70 year old lady need a three bed home and all the hassle that comes with heating it when there are extra care flats that come with support and community?

jellyhead

What are extra care flats? Are they those little estates of retirement homes that are being built everywhere? Do they have a warden, like sheltered housing? How much do they cost, and would housing benefit cover it?

Just curious

pulliptears

teeni wrote: »

Yes i did see that and agree he should have been persuaded to move 30 years ago but obviously it was his tenancy not the daughter's and that is why he is still there, I still cant see why they are now telling him he has to move or given your next post which says he doesn't have housing benefit how the new rules affect? him or people like him.

Am i missing something here as i cant see the connection to the changes at all but could be having a very bad day.

But absolutely agree that if disabled adapted properties are no longer needed there should be a way of moving the tenants to alternative housing to release expensively adapted properties for those who need them.

A neighbour of mine has an adapted bungalow and would love to move as it is no longer required as her husband who the work was completed for,has passed away but cant get alternative accommodation for love nor money. The adaptations on her property cost in excess of 50K and i am sure there will be some one out there who actually needs them to make life easier.

I also dont understand why the pensioners have been left out of these changes as they are the most likely to be under occupying, We are not too far apart in out opinions really when you get to the bottom line are we .:)

Not at all, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll assume his move is bravado and he perhaps doesn't want to admit is time to leave.

As a further note to this, when the daughter left she did so with her mum as they divorced. Daughter was given a nice new adapted bungalow at the end of a run of properties. The bungalows were one bedroom and somehow the council were persuaded to build an extra bedroom on the end for the mother. Mother died some years ago and again daughter is alone now in a property with an extra uneeded bedroom funded from much needed housing and adaptation budgets.

I'm constantly amazed at a local authority that had the money to even cater for this whim in the first place to be honest.

jellyhead

pulliptears wrote: »

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

I wonder why he's moving? I don't think any of the changes will affect him, so perhaps he's moving because he wants to. Or there may be somebody looking at the housing stock to try to persuade people to downsize - that's a good idea, especially if there's an adapted property that the tenant no longer needs.

I personally feel that pensioners shouldn't be forced to move - but I am thinking of frail people in their 80's with mobility and sight problems, not fit and healthy people in their 60's.