Pensioners to be encouraged to downsize

Ginpin & Scones I am in there with you too. Born in 1956, I too was bullied in teaching once I got to be deputy head. Our mortgage rate got to 17.5% on our first house. You forgot to mention the retreating pension for WASPs too!

I don't think its fair to treat those who couldn't afford to buy their own house differently. They have spent years making their council house their home too.
What is wrong is that they can buy their house at a vastly reduced price after a certain length of time. Also I think they should have to show proof of income to prove they can't afford to buy. I know people who made a huge profit on their council houses then reapplied for LA housing.
I would like to downsize but I dislike how pensioners are being targeted. There are lots of younger people 'rattling' about in large houses. And some older folk rattling about in, dare I say it, castles.

We are considering down sizing. We have a large 4 bed house good size garden etc. Tbh we are rattling around in it.

My concern is the future upkeep of it. Cost of heating empty rooms, etc Maintaining the outside, Keeping up the garden, decorating general maintaining it. Yes we can pay for it but this house should be for a family.

My parents in thier mid 60's sold our family home and moved into a 2 bed bungalow, if was perfect for them. When my Dad passed away in his 80's Mum agreed to move to a 1bed flat perfect for her.
Thier example has been in the back of my mind for a while.

If we sell, the next generation moves up the house chain releasing the first time home that someone desperately wants.
I will keep an eye on the market and see what's what no rush but will probably go for it at some stage.

The problem we found when looking for a smaller house was that room sizes were so much smaller than we were used to. We wanted fewer bedrooms but good sized rooms throughout. Took a long while to find what we wanted.

I am one of the guilty ones.
I live in a 4 bedroomed house with 2 large reception rooms and a conservatory.
I am not alone though as my GD lives with me since my H died.
I would have liked a bungalow but even 2 bedroomed ones are expensive and the rooms are so tiny.
Apartments are smaller still.
What I am considering is making my almost unused dining room into a bedroom for me.
I have a shower room downstairs and I could be self contained on one level, ideal if I was on my own.
Actually moving to downsize would be impossible for me now, I am 84 with a home full of furniture and memories.
It will be sold when I die.

I already live in a place where all residents are over 50.
I love the peace and quiet of it.
I shan't be downsizing. No-one would want this big old shed which I live in.

I have to ask.

Did any of the above posters bother to read what he actually said rather than the media headlines?

It sounded very reasonable to me.

That house builders would be required to make at least 1 in 10 of their buildings suitable for occupation in later life. And that by increasing the supply of suitable accommodation to enable people to downsize we would free up some of the larger properties for family use. This would then have a knock on effect in freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers.

He did use the term “rattling around” which is emotive. But would anyone actually disagree with what he proposed?

We bought our current home 10 years ago when we were in our early 50s, it is our future proof ( hopefully) home, as it is a large bungalow, walking distance of shops, doctors surgery etc. Mixed road, mixed ages, mixed house prices. Perfect.

Hellogirl1

Almost every house that comes up for sale around here is snapped up by someone to be let out as a house of multiple occupation.

This is an excellent point. A much fairer and less divisive way to open up the market would be to use taxation to cut the number of Air B&Bs, HMOs and holiday cottages that block the way for anyone (of any age) who wants to move to an area where those types of housing proliferate.

Nothing wrong with encouragement or incentives.
Nobody is going to be hurled out with their furniture onto the street.

It does depend on what anyone considers ‘suitable’ for older people, though.

Having looked at a lot of retirement flats with my mother (who eventually decided to stay put in her fairly small 3 bed house, which was already a downsize from a 4 bed) I wasn’t impressed. Mostly poky, and too often with small windows too high up to see anything out of but sky, unless you were standing right by them.

My mother was particularly unimpressed with no dishwasher, and no space even for a small one. ‘Well, they thought old people wouldn’t want them,’ said the sales person of maybe 25.

Exit my DM in high dudgeon! ‘Do they think I want to start washing up again at my age?? I’ve done enough of that!’ ? ?

This was all quite a while ago now though - maybe they’ve improved.

nadateturbe

I don't think its fair to treat those who couldn't afford to buy their own house differently. They have spent years making their council house their home too.
What is wrong is that they can buy their house at a vastly reduced price after a certain length of time. Also I think they should have to show proof of income to prove they can't afford to buy. I know people who made a huge profit on their council houses then reapplied for LA housing.
I would like to downsize but I dislike how pensioners are being targeted. There are lots of younger people 'rattling' about in large houses. And some older folk rattling about in, dare I say it, castles.

Council houses were built for families who needed them, an elderly person on their own does not need a 3 bedroom house regardless that it was once a family home and theyve lived there half of their life. I think its really selfish of them.

I agree about it being wrong that you can buy a council house that should never have been allowed as its taking a home away from someone who needs a home.

I don’t object to holiday cottages which are available for people to holiday in all year as that boosts the economy in areas reliant on tourism as well as the UK economy in general. I do however have a thing about people who own a second home which they rarely visit. Not one they use most weekends to escape the city they have to live in for work. I have a retired neighbour who lives elsewhere, has a BTL portfolio and bought a second home here which she very rarely visits and it’s not let to holidaymakers (for which truth be told I am grateful). I know she has to pay council tax and when selling she will pay CGT but in the meantime she is depriving someone else of a home. I’m not jealous, I could do the same if I chose to, but it seems morally wrong.

I've recently downsized from a five bed house to a bungalow, and have finally got used to the lack of storage and space. I wish I'd been able to afford a small house, with the option of a stair lift, I do miss going upstairs. I didn't sell to a lovely family unfortunately.

I've just discovered a widowed neighbour has moved from her three bed council house to a two bed bungalow, but she is pleased as she has both hip and knee problems.

It's tricky, as people should have the freedom to spend their own money as they wish, but holiday cottages - whether they are rented out to different people throughout the year, or owned by weekenders - massively impact on the villages where they are situated.

As an example, if the population moves out every Sunday night, the local shops have few customers, and may have to close three days a week, meaning that permanent residents have nowhere to go if they run out of bread, or whatever. Similarly bus routes get pulled, schools close and so on, until the villages die altogether.

There is a huge amount of hidden poverty in my rural area (particularly in the winter months) as well as a great deal of wealth. It’s an area a lot of people choose to retire to, as we did, and our house is unlikely to be within the financial reach of those local people who need homes. The holiday cottages help to provide a living for local people but at the same time price them out of the market. My neighbour’s mainly empty home does very little to support local businesses. It’s not something that I am suggesting should be legislated against as we all have our freedoms which are very precious, but the lack of conscience is something that doesn’t sit well with me. That particular place would be affordable by a good many locals, unlike ours (I am not crowing about my home, before anyone leaps on me, simply saying that my retiring here has not had the impact on the local housing situation that my neighbour’s smaller empty home does).

Peasblossom you're right.
Requiring builders to build a range of homes, of different sizes, would give people more options to find something suitable.

If people can't find something they like, to downsize into, then of course they'll keep 'rattling around' even if they don't want to.

Quite a few of our friends, as well as us, have moved in the past few years with a view to future proofing our housing needs and in some cases being nearer our families. Some moves have worked well, some haven't. One friend commented that she realised with hindsight that they had been unduly pessimistic about their capabilities and had downshifted too far.

Our big concern at our last cottage was the huge garden, realising that it would get increasingly difficult as we got older. It was a semi-detached, quite large, with three bedrooms. Fast forward a couple of years and we are in a light, modern four bed detached with two reception rooms and a garage and a nice small garden, still private. We are also near our daughter which was also one of the purposes of our move. We've absolutely no intention of downsizing further. We have loads of hobbies and need separate space. The other bonus is we're near public transport and local shops and pubs, but still in a village. Our daughter is in a small three bed semi with her family, hopefully they'll be able to move on at some point to something bigger. We gave them the deposit for that house, and at least it means they do have a decent roof over their head.

My DD bought an ex-local authority house last year. It is a fabulous family house with good sized rooms. They have had to completely renovate it. The couple who lived there were in their 90's. The adjacent properties all seem to be mainly occupied by 2 people who must all have bought their houses from the LA. Years ago they would have been encouraged sometimes financially to move into smaller properties and a family house would be available for a young family who need it. I do think it should be a choice though as no-one should feel they have to move. Bungalows are more expensive than houses nearby and there's not many of them.

nadateturbe

I don't think its fair to treat those who couldn't afford to buy their own house differently. They have spent years making their council house their home too.
What is wrong is that they can buy their house at a vastly reduced price after a certain length of time. Also I think they should have to show proof of income to prove they can't afford to buy. I know people who made a huge profit on their council houses then reapplied for LA housing.
I would like to downsize but I dislike how pensioners are being targeted. There are lots of younger people 'rattling' about in large houses. And some older folk rattling about in, dare I say it, castles.

Totally agree. I own my own house with no mortgage. I cannot be forced to move, also neither should a council tenant. Over the years they have made it their home, how they want it, and paid their rent.

Where will my visitors stay? This is our family home and we'll only downsize if WE want to.

It shows how out of touch he is thinking most first time buyers could possibly afford these large houses to start with!

As this buffoon lives in a teeny tiny village of just over 7k pops. With an average property value in excess of £650k I doubt he has ANY qualifications or knowledge or indeed experience to comment on how others should live! How arrogant.......yet strangely unsurprising.......

It will be the poor people in Council and housing associations houses with just the state pension forced out with more stupid ideas like bedroom tax.

Just about all of the housing developments around here consist of 4 + bedroom houses . What happened to the starter homes that used to be built ?
The "affordable" homes - not sure who decides what is classed as affordable, but these ones certainly aren't and they are the ones being built right next to the road, lovely!
As someone else has already said, even if there were the smaller homes available in communities that people wish to live in, the young families that would like to move into will be priced way above what they can afford.