Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[Kay]

I have read on this forum about the elderly being moved out of 'bigger properties' to smaller 'properties/homes' and I have vehemently been against it - mainly because I felt those who would be moved (elders) would be moved to Care Homes - which they would not have liked.

My friend has recently 'down-sized' from a two bed bungalow..... to a one bed place/flat/sheltered housing.

It is something I have never come across before and it would never have entered my head to think of the place she went to.

I am trying not to make it obvious where / what it is called, but will describe as best I can.

I think - maybe - a number of elderly worry about their independence and fear of not having a home.

My friend is in a 1 bed flat(let) which is part of a complex of flat(lets).  I went to see her today and was surprised when I entered the building to go into a long hall way - which the flats 'run off'.  The Hall way was carpeted and central heated. 

From these corridors were the flat(lets) - which had space for their disabled (electric) chairs.

She didnt even have the heating on and it was warm - the building is generally kept warm anyway.  There is a Launderette within this building for residents to do their  washing. A communal garden - which is really lovely and a room where (if a resident is very ill and needs someone with them) they can stay and sleep with a family member.

I was amazed - it cut out Water rates (the whole complex is on a meter and - I think from memory - it is included in the rent).

The reason I am mentioning this is because it was such a lovely place and I wonder if - perhaps - Councils have thought of building other such properties (with someone living in one of the flats - but who is also paid to work there in the day).  I was amazed at how nice it was - it allowed a person to be independent without isolating themself and made me think if I were to ever need such a place, I would be more than happy to go to a place like that in my 'older years'.

I thought it an ideal way of assisting in the lack of Housing for those families in need of a home and for those elders who do and would find it too much to stay in a family home.

If I haven't explained that very well - apologies.

tt4n
Kay

GRANT: If you would like to know the name of the place, please PM me and I will get in touch with you. I think it would be well worth you visiting to get an idea of one such place (and possibly build a few more?)

[GhostTown68]

Its a difficult one - old people shouldnt be uprooted from their homes of course, yet there are people literally crying out for social housing on waiting lists, its a catch 22 that I (for once) dont have the answer to.

Dont expect it to get any better under the Tories though!

[Kay]

GT - It is a difficult one. I have always been anti 'forcing' the elderly to move from homes they have lived in for a long time.... after I visited the complex where my friend now lives, I was amazed!!  It is such a good example of how the elderly can be cared for but stay independent - which - let's face it, most want as long as they can anyway.

It made me realise there IS another option to being put in a home.... (which I suspect is why most want to stay in the home they are in - fear of the unknown).

tt4n
Kay

Its a difficult one - old people shouldnt be uprooted from their homes of course, yet there are people literally crying out for social housing on waiting lists, its a catch 22 that I (for once) dont have the answer to.

Dont expect it to get any better under the Tories though!

[GhostTown68]

What sort of complex is this, a warden controlled place? I'm not entirely up to speed with elderly homes, it does seem wrong to kick them out of places theyve effectively bought in rent to make space - it shouldnt come to that in the first place! We have Mrs Thatcher to thank for that though 

[jonmorris]

It might 'seem' wrong, but surely if you rent then notice can be served with the suitable time.

If you don't want this, you will have to go down the route of buying. Of course, buying a property means you may have to sell it to pay for a home.

Life doesn't get easier just because you get old does it. The problem is that too many people (myself included) probably never think they'll get old and haven't made preparations or invested as necessary. One thing is guaranteed, no Government will cover you - and it's only going to get worse as people live longer and the population increases.

[Kay]

Jon - Notice can be served anyway... it is just a slightly long process to just kicking someone out on the street.

Problem is: every time someone has been evicted, they still have a 'right' to a roof over their head and will need to live somewhere.

tt4n
Kay 

It might 'seem' wrong, but surely if you rent then notice can be served with the suitable time.

If you don't want this, you will have to go down the route of buying. Of course, buying a property means you may have to sell it to pay for a home.

Life doesn't get easier just because you get old does it. The problem is that too many people (myself included) probably never think they'll get old and haven't made preparations or invested as necessary. One thing is guaranteed, no Government will cover you - and it's only going to get worse as people live longer and the population increases.

[I am Legion]

While people might want to live in the same subsidised social housing all their lives its not fair for them to do so. Once the kids have flown the nest you should move to smaller more appropriate accomodation in order that others on the waiting list can have a suitable property. As for people "paying for their houses in rent" they do no such thing at all. Repairs, maintenance and of course the obligatory refitting of the houses is done by the council, and rents ARE subsidised to be below the market rate.
 
If you really want to stay in the same property then use the right to buy legislation and purchase (yet again at a subsidised rate), if not then be thankful the state provided you with such spacious accomodation and make way for those more needy than yourself.

[GhostTown68]

Disappointing, but not surprising - this is a Tory site after all.

Social housing is a right not a privilege.

[Lid]

However in my opinion it is now an outdated right.

[I am Legion]

Disappointing, but not surprising - this is a Tory site after all.

Social housing is a right not a privilege.

Disappointing, but not surprising, you are a socialist after all.

Never mind rights, what about reponsibilities? What about the working class bloke living in his own house who has to pay extra taxes so someone can live alone in a three bed council house? What about the family with kids who has to live in some grotty bedsit because an elderly person who has no need of the extra rooms doesn't want to move?

Everyone should be provided with housing if they cannot afford to buy. If you can afford to buy, or are in a property which is larger than your needs then its your duty to move out and let someone else have THEIR rights respected.

[jonmorris]

Just to add; I never wanted to suggest that someone being given notice would, or should, be thrown out onto the street.

Of course, if you're being housed by a council then you may have this privilege. If you're a private tenant, you have your notice and must find somewhere else in that time.

Many Council tenants really don't understand what they enjoy, which private tenants and private home owners do not. Fortunately, the council does spend a lot of time making sure the tenant is made to realise this if they opt to buy their council property.

As there's always going to be a shortage of housing, I see no reason not to move people around to make best use of stock. Anyone wanting to have complete security will have to buy their own place.

[Kay]

jonmorris "Many Council tenants really don't understand what they enjoy, which private tenants and private home owners do not."

Are you kidding here?  Having been on both sides (living in Private accommodation .... being brought), and living in Council housing, you make it sound like those who buy their home are disadvantaged.

They are only in as much as 'they' have a mortgage which was CHOSEN by 'them'.

The problem with people who (may) be evicted by Councils is that 'they' may well go to other areas and cause trouble.  Likelihood of those who may be evicted is that 'they' are probably on benefits AND could end up renting a private property anyway - being paid from benefits. If 'they' are evicted from the private rented home - Councils still have an obligation to house them - Human Rights etc.,  vicious cycle.

There is a house in Stonecross Rd which has been 'trashed' beyond recognition to how it used to be years and years back.  The former tenants have totally trashed it and it is unhabitable.

tt4n
Kay

[jonmorris]

Pros and cons for each side.

I happen to think that unless you did right to buy in the 90s when you made a small fortune (house values going up, massive discounts to the tenant) then you'd be an absolute fool to buy a flat. A house is different.

The council must explain all the positives and negatives and then it's up to you. It's not obviously that black and white, as there are lots of other factors to consider (such as the area). If you bought a place in a really rough tower block, then you'd have almost no chance of selling it.

Not that I think that even Hatfield or Stevenage are yet bad enough to be compared with the problem areas that I had involvement with when I worked at Haringey Council in the mid 1990s. I am not sure people were given the same advice then either.

[Kay]

Yes, I Agree - pros and cons. I'd hope the Council's would surely mvoe the - for want of a better word - rogues on if they were disrupting life for everyone else.

Again, it comes to 'where will they send/put' peoplel.  Difficult one.

tt4n
Kay

Pros and cons for each side.

I happen to think that unless you did right to buy in the 90s when you made a small fortune (house values going up, massive discounts to the tenant) then you'd be an absolute fool to buy a flat. A house is different.

The council must explain all the positives and negatives and then it's up to you. It's not obviously that black and white, as there are lots of other factors to consider (such as the area). If you bought a place in a really rough tower block, then you'd have almost no chance of selling it.

Not that I think that even Hatfield or Stevenage are yet bad enough to be compared with the problem areas that I had involvement with when I worked at Haringey Council in the mid 1990s. I am not sure people were given the same advice then either.

[Mighty Hatfield]

Disappointing, but not surprising - this is a Tory site after all.

Social housing is a right not a privilege.

Disappointing, but not surprising, you are a socialist after all.

Never mind rights, what about reponsibilities? What about the working class bloke living in his own house who has to pay extra taxes so someone can live alone in a three bed council house? What about the family with kids who has to live in some grotty bedsit because an elderly person who has no need of the extra rooms doesn't want to move?

Everyone should be provided with housing if they cannot afford to buy. If you can afford to buy, or are in a property which is larger than your needs then its your duty to move out and let someone else have THEIR rights respected.

what about the council tenant whos rents are paid to a landlord (through housing benefit) who charges over inflated rents to house a family in private accomodation because there isnt enough social housing?

Why should council tenants prop up the private sector?

When people are told they HAVE to buy a house (even if they dont want to pay into the pockets of banks, lawyers, estate agents, surveyors etc) then you'll see things getting worse, not better.
 
Just think of how much money the council would have if all those houses sold of since thatcher brought it in, were paying monies to the council, and not profits to the banks? I wonder how much they could afford to take off council tax then eh?