Council/company want to demolish inlaws estate

Cakeguts

The new build bungalows should be much better insulated so cheaper to run.

silvercar

patman99 wrote: »

What about buying the bungalow via right to buy?. The Council cannot demolish what they do not own.

Even if this was possible, you don't want to be in the last house standing, living on a boarded up estate.

Davesnave

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Does anyone have any experience of this?

Many people of their age do something similar voluntarily, whilst others don't, then later-on, wish that they had.

I'm referring to downsizing.

Ivrytwr3

They have already downsized, moving from a top floor flat to their current bungalow.

Davesnave

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

They have already downsized, moving from a top floor flat to their current bungalow.

My parents went from a six bedroom house to a 3 bed house, and then to a 2 bed bungalow in the years between retirement and their 80s.

Finally, my Dad moved to a bed-sit in a retirement home in his mid-90s, but he left that too late to make the most of the situation.

It was a natural progression, when concerns about the physical nature of the properties and their costs over-rode others about losing friends and neighbours.

Those with a secure council tenancy do not have quite the same concerns, but they may need to move when their family shrinks, or if their landlord decides to re-develop, as in this case.

In both scenarios, a perceived change for the worse in the local area or a physical development, such as a new road scheme, may also prompt moves. If the council is re-developing, there will be good reasons within the area for them to do this, although your in-laws may not see themselves as disadvantaged by the current situation.

As others have said, there is little point in trying to resist the move and every reason to look for the positives, pushing for the best from it, whatever that might be.

moneyistooshorttomention

patman99 wrote: »

What about buying the bungalow via right to buy?. The Council cannot demolish what they do not own.

For once I would agree with buying a house out of Council stock.

Worth looking into whether they have the legal right to buy as per normal circumstances (which they probably do) and then checking from there whether these "special circumstances" cancel out this right or no.

At the least - maybe they can use the amount of money they would be due to be given (as discount on the house) as leverage to get more than a measly £5,800 compensation. After all - if the Council couldnt prevent them using "right to buy" - but then could get the house back out of them on "compulsory purchase" = chances are that even a "compulsory purchase" price (as opposed to normal price that would be due on the place) might be a difference of more than £5,800.

I would also be checking what the chances are of the Council doing "compulsory purchase" on one (or two or three - if other people copy them) little house. There must be some national regulations laid down somewhere for the circumstances in which Councils are allowed to compulsory purchase houses off people - and there might be some leverage in that.

I gather that some Councils are using demolition of perfectly good existing housing as a way to squeeze in more housing onto the total plot - and don't agree with it. "Budge up - there's more people to shoehorn in - courtesy of the fact there are just more people everywhere" doesnt constitute a "good reason" imo for a redevelopment.

EDIT; one quick google for "criteria for compulsory purchase" brings up stuff to research and see whether the Council could manage to get one little house that way (as opposed to a whole sheaf of housing - which is what one visualises when it comes to compulsory purchase schemes). Might as well have a read of some of it - to see if it's any use.

Pixie5740

Right to Buy won't be an option. One of the eligibility checks is "I can confirm my home is not due to be demolished."

https://righttobuy.gov.uk/am-i-eligible/eligibility-quiz/

davidmcn

I suspect the right to buy may be unavailable for stock which is proposed to be redeveloped - and anyway, who would recommend gambling that they even get their money back via a CPO, never mind enough to buy a new place? I think they'd be best to stick with the right to retain a secure tenancy.

moneyistooshorttomention

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Right to Buy won't be an option. One of the eligibility checks is "I can confirm my home is not due to be demolished."

https://righttobuy.gov.uk/am-i-eligible/eligibility-quiz/

Darn - that idea falls at the first hurdle then:(.

Next.....

EDIT; now googling "standard criteria for house demolition" and found standards the Council would have to comply with (in exact detail if it affected me - and I had time to monitor them):

www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/demolition.htm

Brainstorming still going on....as to how to prevent the Council doing this or at least be able to "make their life heck" for doing so. It's surprising how even well-known/respected national companies can fail to observe all relevant criteria I've found before now - and had to start enforcing it....

davidmcn

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would also be checking what the chances are of the Council doing "compulsory purchase" on one (or two or three - if other people copy them) little house.

Extremely likely if it's blocking a redevelopment of this nature.