Pensioners to be encouraged to downsize

Mapleleaf

When people who come out with these notions (and who probably live in stately piles) downsize to a one bedroom town house (shed), I might consider it, otherwise, no thank you. I like my space and my garden too much. I also hate the idea of living in a development specifically designed for a certain age group.

Totally agree with you. If anything I am considering a modest brick built leanto extension on the back of my 4 bed detached so that I can grow plants etc. (not for cane furniture!) and over winter my pelargoniums. Never seem to have enough space. Like you, I like my garden, drive and lawned front garden. What do people do in a tiny place, no room for hobbies.

I don't think anyone is suggesting forcing older people out of their homes but, as someone who would like to downsize but stay in the same locality, any incentive to builders to build more 2 or 3 bed bungalows with manageable gardens in my area would be very welcome!

In the early 70s we bought an old cottage which, until a few years previously had had huge cracks un the walls and guttering hanging off', The previous owner had had to move out quickly for family reasons. It still needed a lot doing when we moved in with our children but it was so dilapidated.... everything attacked by woodworm , so unsafe staircase, broken window rag stuffed... that we could actually afford it as it was cheaper, even at the rates required then to pay for a mortgage rather than rent an army quarter

Roll on 15 years+ and THEY decided to list it. We were sent a letter; there was no right of appeal; list of conditions included; the possibility offered of a local council grant to afect repairs to the required standard and also the offer of a list of tradesmen who were regarded as competent
Another 40 years later. We most certainly can not decide what to do with the home we bought. No grants;no lists; just regulations
The place, in one of its incarnations had been a pub and sits right on the narrow road. Our MP, in his wisdom as Minister of trasport allowed very heavy vehicles to travel along the lane to a meat processing statiion. There is not enough room for them to pass each other I have a fine video of 2 who tried to turn a corner at the same time and managed to lock their wing mirrors and demolish a quite high grass bank Any passing traffic, both small and large can throw up gravel at our window panes. Several have been cracked.
One window was broken a few days before leaving for a 2-week holiday. Trying to be law-abiding I rang the authorities to say I needed to have it repaired. No, was their response..... Not until we have seen it which will be 3 momths. I explained we were going away but was told to nail a sheet of plywood over the broken glass. Fortunately, I had dialed whatever code it was at the time and my number had been with-held. The glazier was sent for and within a few hours you could not see that a repair had been effected.
Just one example of many instances of unwarrented interference.

No We shall stay as long as we can. My husband bought books for his retirement and a bedroom was turned into his library. I have my hobby room
The cotttage would not now be standing had we not bought it. The authorities were not interested in buying it in its tumbledown state. When I remonstrated with them over the broken windowI was told I should feel priveleged to live in
such a house. '
Everything we do, inside and out should be scrutinised by someone who can say what we are allowed to do. Mostly they like a repair to be effected but there is no advice about who can carry out the repair to meet their exacting conditions. This is a small row of labourers' cottages/pub/ and not Chatsworth or a museum
If They ( no matter which arm of government) want us to move out ( both in our 9th decade) then I still feel b*****- minded enough to say. No thankyou. It would need to be an extraordinary young family who could either afford the extra financial burden ( an additional tax) or the interference

It seems a reasonable idea and properties for pensioners don't need to be all on one great estate. Maybe for every 10 3 bed houses on an estate the developer might be obliged to build one 2 bed bungalow, or something of that nature.

As someone has said, there are no bungalows to downsize into.

I agree with Calendar Girl. If a property is LA/HA rented it should be accepted that you live in a house appropriate to your needs.

It isn't fair that one person can continue to live in a three bed house whilst families are crammed into smaller properties.

I appreciate that tenants make them into homes but at the end of the day they do not own the property.

I am sure many older people would jump at living in a two bed bungalow

I do wish people wouldn’t react as if the government was going to send the bailiffs in! I’m reminded of Cameron saying ‘Calm down dear!’ But if some incentive were introduced some people might welcome the opportunity.

Container housing looks intriguing.

www.container-housing.co.uk/

If you own a large house in good condition and want to downsize to a smaller house in good condition in the same area surely the incentive is the profit.

Extra money in the bank for security or a nice big holiday

Beswitched - true. I do think retirement villages are a good option provided they are well designed. But if, as suggested, developers are encouraged to buile more 'retirement friendly' properties rather than houses that end up being too expensive for first time buyers then the housebuying chain could move round accordingly. I also feel that some incentive would be useful such as paying solicitors and removal fees to those older folk who are downsizing.

Judy54 I’m right with you on what you have stated. It’s really audacious to start hitting people with a morality bat that have worked all their lives to live in large houses if they desire. Fuck that living with ALL old people!

My husband grew up on farm. He doesn't like close neighbours. To downsize, we would need a detached property with a garden as gardening is his main only hobby.
Where we live, there are pensioners bungalows, but they are in a square, and are terraced.
I'd quite happily live in an apartment, but he would never agree to that.

If a property is LA/HA rented it should be accepted that you live in a house appropriate to your needs.

In private rentals, if the owner or one of their family needs the house to live in then the tenant can be evicted.

If new LA / HA tenancies had a clause saying something similar then a tenant who did not need e.g. 3 bedrooms could be evicted to make way for someone who does need that.
New LA / HA contracts could start to include that.

Of course, then the LA would be obliged to find them suitable accommodation which they can't do at present.

I don’t feel that I worked all my life to have a big house, I worked to pay the mortgage on a house that suited our lifestyle when we had four children at home.
Now I feel I might like to cash in, sell up and buy a small flat in a town nearer to amenities and a bolt hole in a sunny climate. If that frees up a large family home for a large family win win.

From a purely selfish ,but practical ,point of view a large house is the best investment. If one sells up and downsizes what do you do with the equity you release? Interest rates are virtually nonexistent on savings, whereas property prices continue to soar. Most people want to pass money onto their families rather than see the money dribble away. Hard hearted but true.

Round the corner from us there is a houseing development that primarily forms the homes of people aged 65 and upwards.

The advantages are that there is a janitor who clears snow and autumn leaves from the pavements, wheels bins out on bin days and can be relied upon to do small repairs or contact tradesmen to do them.

To my mind these advantages are greatly outweighed by the disadvantages;
The accomodation is in reality flatlets with a fair-sized livingroom, a bedroom only barely large enough for a double bed, wardrobe and chest of drawers, a miniscule hall, bathroom and kitchen. In other words no way you could continue living there if you were in a wheel-chair or needed help getting in and out of bed, as a carer neither could nor should work in such cramped conditions.

An even bigger disadvantage is that most of the inhabitants are old women with too little to do, so what do they do?

They never mind their own business, as they are occupied from dawn to well after dusk minding everyone else's!

If you don't keep a perfect garden, they complain. If you let a cat roam freely, they complain. If you put carefully wrapped cat litter in the bin (which the bin-men don't mind) they complain. If your dog barks, they complain. If their dog barks, well that is just a dog's nature, after all. If you hang washing out on a Tuesday, they ask why you don't wash on Mondays.

The list is far longer, but by now you have the picture, and realise why I assuredly will not be moving round there, however hard it might become to run this house!

You might have to use the value of your house to pay for care anyway, Sueki44.
PollyTickle has given an example of what she might like to do with the money.
Others could have different uses for it.
Simply clinging to a too-large house in order to pass it on is foolish, imo.

Wow, a example of how newspapers and Internet can throw out a headline and suddenly everyone’s getting in a stew about something that didn’t happen.

Absolutely nothing was said about people being made to downsize or complex just for older people. Nothing. Yet there are lots of posts getting all indignant about just those issues.

I really can’t see why anyone would oppose ensuring that new builds include homes suitable for older people who no longer want to maintain or live in their larger homes, with relevant features like waist-high sockets and wider doorways.

Instead of just big four bedroom houses, which is what most new builds seem to be. Because that’s where the maximum profit is.

There is an idea when we retire we just want a nice sit down - for ever. For the first time in life we have TIME - so we are actually likely to be home more - and doing stuff. I do sort of agree that in very late life maybe one would like less to maintain. But as for the rest - we need space at home. What young and old need are well insulated homes with decent space and light. Pity we are governed by people who would not dream in living in 'ordinary' homes.

FarNorth I agree that keeping hold of a too big house just to pass it on is not the best solution. We could sell up and share the excess with our children now although there would be tax implications over a certain amount and within a certain timeframe, worth seeking legal and financial advice to compare with inheritance tax on our death.

I wonder if those who are very much against downsizing are younger and in better health than those who would consider it.
At the moment I’m happy to selfishly sprawl about my big house or perhaps split between two small places but I might feel differently if I was older, alone and /or infirm.

I don't think there's anything illogical about someone "rattling around" in a huge house which has more rooms than can be affordably heated - or maintained - being encouraged to downsize to a more manageable property. Though I do wonder just how many pensioners are actually in this position. Most, judging from the comments on here, appear to be putting their extra room / rooms to good use - accommodating visits from family, hobbies, etc. And why shouldn't they - or is this only the preserve of the very wealthy elite?

What irks me about the suggestion from the minister is the fact that it won't solve the housing crisis because I don't believe that there are enough such properties that can be put back on the market, and those that are, are quite possibly likely to be outside the reach of the average couple wanting to start a family, or already having a child or two.

The problem with housing is the refusal of successive governments to properly plan for the expanding population - not to mention the number of properties seized up by landlords to rent; nor the sale of council houses and the lack of re-placing them under Thatcher's government. Then there is the issue of cost. As everyone knows who's moved, it is not cheap - and for some it's just nor affordable.

I think this is just another of those ministerial pronouncements - like suggesting pensioners replace East Europeans by working in the fields, picking fruit, which simply has the effect of pitting the generations against each other.

Property prices are too high, wages are too low - and for those with children, nursery fees are more than many can afford. And there are simply not enough affordable houses to rent - they also offer no security of tenure (which they did, at one time). That is where the problem lies.

How many 'grannies' are there roaming around big multiple-bedroomed houses in reality? I don't know any, there don't appear to be any in my area. Or perhaps the minister believes that elderly people should only have the one bedroom that they sleep in?

Apart from the fact that many of us really don't want to live in 'purpose built' accommodation - away from mixed communities, I think this minister is going to get short shrift and we should ignore his 'suggestion' and let it die along with all the other ideas about what older people should or shouldn't be allowed to do. Those that want to downsize will do so anyway.

What we need is a more equitable and fairer society for all - not a sectioning off of one demographic to make way for another.

I refuse to feel guilty for living in a larger house. We have worked hard all our lives and love it here. Absolutely agree Judy54 I don’t want to live in a retirement village or a flat.

PinkCosmos

I agree with Calendar Girl. If a property is LA/HA rented it should be accepted that you live in a house appropriate to your needs.

It isn't fair that one person can continue to live in a three bed house whilst families are crammed into smaller properties.

I appreciate that tenants make them into homes but at the end of the day they do not own the property.

I am sure many older people would jump at living in a two bed bungalow

"It isn't fair that one person can continue to live in a three bed house whilst families are crammed into smaller properties"

That is just as "unfair" in the private sector as in the social sector: if there is a shortage of these larger houses, and you are under occupying yours, you are potentially depriving a bigger family of a more suitably-sized home whether you own yours

The real issue would seem to be a lack of (affordable) housing of the sizes that are most needed, and this applies as much to owner-occupied homes as it does to social housing.