PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Be cautious about buying McCarthy and Stone!

12346»

Comments

  • SarahB16
    SarahB16 Posts: 405 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    Hoenir said:
    As with hospices. These establishments are people intensive. On call 24 wardens for example cost money. Last year's budget ramped up the cost of employing people significantly. Just another unintended consequence of the policy. 
    I agree.  That is why I was interested to hear if what was being built was more of a multi-generational community was being built which may lead to people supporting their neighbours as they get older.

    Most people wish to continue living in the same place or at least in the same community without the need to move away when they get older.  This is why I think housing schemes should have a mix of properties to enable people to move to smaller properties but still within the same community or even road as they get older.  Great if there is some sort of community hub too.   

    There are better housing standards these days in terms of homes being adaptable and if a person can live independently in their own home for the rest of their life (which is what most people want) with the support of neighbours and friends there is no need for them to move into retirement village type places (e.g. Audley) or lower end (such as McCarthy Stone or Churchill) as they are still expensive in terms of their service charges.  

    I think there are many 'Good Neighbours' community groups set up across the country and hopefully this is all that some people may need as they get older but I do appreciate that some people will need a higher level of care and support.

    My personal opinion is that people do need suitable housing options for when they get older but I don't see what is being provided at the mid-market level, i.e. we have housing association/registered providers or Audley Village/McCarthy Stone/Churchill but I can't see what is being offered between those two extremes? 

    The cost of adult social care is getting higher and higher and we are all paying for this via our council tax (which I don't object to) but if housing was developed in such a way that there was more 'natural' adult social care from simply being neighbourly then the cost may be lower but the housing needs to be built such that it creates these communities where people can live for their whole life so they know their neighbours and will wish to help and look out for each other.  

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.6K Life & Family
  • 256.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.