Any way around 'over 50s only' for a homeswap?

AnotherJoe

rtho782 wrote: »

That's exclusionary and discriminatory.

In the actual meaning of the words, rather than their emotive content, thats not necessarily against the law. I'd discriminate between a prawn thats gone off and one that hasnt. When hiring into my company, I discriminate in favour of those that can do the job vs those that cant. Discrimination isn't necessarily bad, or illegal.

I'm a quiet 33 year old, I don't want to live near to noisy people. Why should I have to because they have all been pushed out of the "over 50s" areas. An over 51 year old person might have a 30 year old partner who is noisy, or a teenage son/daughter come live with them.

They might but the odds are lower, and the owners may not wish to cause a precedent. And in the latter case there would be a time limit on the teenage dependent staying there.

Closed and "managed" insular communities are a bad plan.

Thats your view but its nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are allowed.

societys_child

rtho782 wrote: »

I'm a quiet 33 year old, I don't want to live near to noisy people.

Well, when you're 50 you can maybe get a place with the over 50s

Why should I have to because they have all been pushed out of the "over 50s" areas.

They haven't, they were never there to be pushed out

An over 51 year old person might have a 30 year old partner who is noisy, or a teenage son/daughter come live with them.

I'm sure the 50 year old would keep them in check or risk having to move . . .

If you're 33, why do you want to live with the 'oldies', you have your own house, why do you want to move into rented that's reserved for over 50s? . .

Mardle

I have a friend who is under 50 but has mobility issues. She lives in an 'over 50s' one bedroom housing association bungalow.

Ygritte

Thank you to those who posted helpful replies ��

I've sent a query off to the council that is the landlord of the property.
Though the current tenant now isn't sure about the area I live in so it's probably all for naught.

rtho782

societys_child wrote: »

Well, when you're 50 you can maybe get a place with the over 50s They haven't, they were never there to be pushed out I'm sure the 50 year old would keep them in check or risk having to move . . .

If you're 33, why do you want to live with the 'oldies', you have your own house, why do you want to move into rented that's reserved for over 50s? . .

I don't, I was more playing devils advocate

I just don't understand why it is acceptable to sell/rent properties to certain demographics only. It's no better than putting "Whites only" or "No single mothers" on an advert.

Cornucopia

The principle of sheltered accommodation is well established.

marliepanda

rtho782 wrote: »

I don't, I was more playing devils advocate

I just don't understand why it is acceptable to sell/rent properties to certain demographics only. It's no better than putting "Whites only" or "No single mothers" on an advert.

You're being ridiculous.

There are services that make more sense to older people. To keep them safe and able to live 'independently' for longer.

There is nothing that separates races in terms of what they need to live comfortably, nor is their anything that affects single mothers (which isn't a protected class, by the way...)

PasturesNew

rtho782 wrote: »

I just don't understand why it is acceptable to sell/rent properties to certain demographics only.

It's usually because there is a need to be met - and services available.

Those Over 50s probably have special services wired in, or are specially adapted with wet rooms and wider doors, etc.

It'll be part of some policy for "housing for life" policies (where people can stay where they're living as they're already adapted), or under some special "vulnerable people" policies. It won't be arbitrary. There might be Help Cords already fitted, lower door handles, wetrooms, lower kitchen units for wheelchair access, flat access paths, access ramps.

There will probably be some legislation as the starting point behind these, or some special reason why they were needed and needed to be protected by the label.

Various housing solutions exist for various people for a variety of valid reasons. As somebody seeking housing one will encounter these and maybe be "annoyed" as "it's perfect" .... but that's life. One day they might benefit from such a term and they'll be all happy they exist.

moneyistooshorttomention

Very true PN.

The trouble harks all the way back to the fact that so much housing hasnt been built as a "lifetime" property.

I'm thinking of some brand new houses I know of. At first glance one would think "Possible to stay there long term. Big enough. Detached. Got garage. Convenient location". At second glance there are insurmountable problems in the design. So - even though they are brand new - they havent been built to be "disabled friendly".

I'd like to see all new housing built with things like wide doors/all steps being ones its easily possible to put one of those stairlift things on if need be/etc/etc. But until that day comes - then "disabled friendly" housing does need to be kept for disabled people. Shame - as it helps create ghettos in effect - rather than mixing people around.

But OP's friend is in the same position - and hence I think its worth asking.

davidmcn

marliepanda wrote: »

nor is their anything that affects single mothers (which isn't a protected class, by the way...)

"No single mothers" would be unlawful sex discrimination...