Pensioners could be offered £1,000 to free up their houses for homeless families

Town hall chiefs are considering offering £1,000 to elderly people living alone in large council houses in a bid to persuade them to leave - so homeless families can move in.

A report discussed by councillors this week reveals a raft of measures being looked at by Manchester council as it struggles to cope with the city’s ongoing homelessness crisis.

It also includes measures aimed at tackling some of the tragedies uncovered by the M.E.N. last year - including finally counting homeless deaths and ensuring the hotels in which children are placed are up to scratch.

Among the proposals is an incentive scheme sparked by the city’s lack of larger social housing for rocketing numbers of homeless families.

An ‘extremely low’ number of such homes ever come vacant, it says, with just two units five beds or more becoming available in the last six months.

Part of the problem, the town hall believes, is that some older people who have not downsized from their original family homes have not moved out - and may simply need some help and some options.

“One of the difficulties for social housing providers is the under occupation of housing stock,” says the report.

“There are currently a number of family houses occupied by an elderly single person, who may be better accommodated in a smaller property that is more manageable.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pensioners-could-offered-1000-free-15933281

It begs the question - should people in council houses be made to move if it has more rooms than they need?

It depends doesn't it, if they can be re housed in their locality, shuffling an elderly person away from their family and support system doesn't help them, although it could help the situation by them falling, falling ill or getting depressed and lonely and dying out of the way.
I watched a programme about this and a woman who was retired and had looked after her mother for a few years had to leave the home she was born in and had lived in for all her life, because she was now the only occupier, it makes sense on paper, but this woman couldn't be found a local authority place for single people and had to move out of the area and rent privately, she could barely manage the rent which was more for her flat than the council house. Her and her mother had been excellent tenants, paid their rent on time and maintained the house and garden and in the last years had cared for her mother who would have required carers if she hadn't been there. Its a logical idea I agree, many people probably would like to have somewhere smaller but it must be a wrench.

They might want something smaller, but then the main option is a flat, and they might not get a garden. I'd hate to live in a flat myself, especially if there was no private outside area. I wouldn't move for £1,000. Then again, council properties are supposed to be for those who really need them.

Vintage wrote:It depends doesn't it, if they can be re housed in their locality, shuffling an elderly person away from their family and support system doesn't help them, although it could help the situation by them falling, falling ill or getting depressed and lonely and dying out of the way.
I watched a programme about this and a woman who was retired and had looked after her mother for a few years had to leave the home she was born in and had lived in for all her life, because she was now the only occupier, it makes sense on paper, but this woman couldn't be found a local authority place for single people and had to move out of the area and rent privately, she could barely manage the rent which was more for her flat than the council house. Her and her mother had been excellent tenants, paid their rent on time and maintained the house and garden and in the last years had cared for her mother who would have required carers if she hadn't been there. Its a logical idea I agree, many people probably would like to have somewhere smaller but it must be a wrench.

Very interesting and shows the potential problems with this.

My mother moved from a three bed property to a two bed flat on the same estate, to give someone else the chance to have the three bed property. If she was around today she'd have to pay extra for the second bedroom which she had because my brothers worked and lived abroad and she wanted somewhere for them to stay with her when they visited.
We should ask ourselves why there is such a demand for houses, as there are many reasons, not least there are too many people in this country, the old are not dying quickly enough for some and of course they are all as rich Croesus, councils don't build social housing anymore or very little and there's no rent control as in other European countries, we can't keep building everywhere, there'll be no green left for humans to enjoy and other species to live. The group of villages around here are set to become one large housing estate in the next few years, we've already had enough houses built to join up three villages, with another 800 planned, no extra schools or doctors, not to mention the local hospital fairly recently built being down graded to what will be a day hospital with various clinics. The paint on the houses is hardly dry before someone moves in, its already a problem getting anywhere with the traffic we have, where are all these people coming from?.

People don't pay extra for a second bedroom, they just get less in housing benefit.

I wish they'd build some small bungalows with small gardens, or what about prefab houses? They were great!

Raggamuffin wrote:People don't pay extra for a second bedroom, they just get less in housing benefit.

I wish they'd build some small bungalows with small gardens, or what about prefab houses? They were great!

I know. I'm not £1k would go very far. Instead of booting pensioners out of their homes, why not build more. I hope they'd make sure they put those old people in decent flats and not some privately rented hovel

Raggamuffin wrote:People don't pay extra for a second bedroom, they just get less in housing benefit.

I wish they'd build some small bungalows with small gardens, or what about prefab houses? They were great!

Some people do if they work and doesn't that come down to the same thing anyway?

Vintage wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:People don't pay extra for a second bedroom, they just get less in housing benefit.

I wish they'd build some small bungalows with small gardens, or what about prefab houses? They were great!

Some people do if they work and doesn't that come down to the same thing anyway?

The rent is for the house, not each room, yes?

Maybe there should be more "halls of residence" like you have at university. I was in one for two years and I loved it - it was much better than having to find a house. You get your meals all cooked, and a nice room to yourself, and you get entertainment thrown in.

Raggamuffin wrote:It begs the question - should people in council houses be made to move if it has more rooms than they need?

The council house has always been something that makes zero sense to me.

People should get a stipend based on their situation and use that money to rent a home. That way, they will downsize on their own because larger homes would cost too much money.

It also allows for people to move to chase employment, instead of being afraid of giving up their council home.

We pretty much did away with government housing decades ago. Now you get a check made payable to a landlord.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It begs the question - should people i That way, they will downsize on their own because larger homes would cost too much money.

It also allows for people to mn council houses be made to move if it has more rooms than they need?

The council house has always been something that makes zero sense to me.

People should get a stipend based on their situation and use that money to rent a home.ove to chase employment, instead of being afraid of giving up their council home.

We pretty much did away with government housing decades ago. Now you get a check made payable to a landlord.  

That's what housing benefits does... many people live in private rented accommodation not council houses.

Are there many council houses left?
Most of the houses and apartments built now are either privately owned or bought by housing associations, round here that's the case anyway.
I dont think a single person should hang on to a 3 bed council house, but if there are no suitable homes available in the area what choice do they have?

More one bedroom bungalows suitable for older people should be built. There is a small estate of this type of bungalow locally that rents solely to OAP's.....my mum lived in one when she moved near me. They are ideal, but demand far outweighs supply.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It begs the question - should people in council houses be made to move if it has more rooms than they need?

The council house has always been something that makes zero sense to me.

People should get a stipend based on their situation and use that money to rent a home. That way, they will downsize on their own because larger homes would cost too much money.

It also allows for people to move to chase employment, instead of being afraid of giving up their council home.

We pretty much did away with government housing decades ago. Now you get a check made payable to a landlord.  

Council houses are much cheaper to rent than private houses - that's why people want them. Those who can't get a council house have to pay more to rent. It's not really a fair system because it means that those who can actually get a council house are living more cheaply than those who can't.

It does tie people down to an extent - once they have a council house they're not going to let go of it, but they can do swaps or ask the council to find them something smaller.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It begs the question - should people in council houses be made to move if it has more rooms than they need?

The council house has always been something that makes zero sense to me.

People should get a stipend based on their situation and use that money to rent a home. That way, they will downsize on their own because larger homes would cost too much money.

It also allows for people to move to chase employment, instead of being afraid of giving up their council home.

We pretty much did away with government housing decades ago. Now you get a check made payable to a landlord.  

and you also have a significantly worse homeless problem
the USA is Literally the example of what the rest of us should not do, you did that and things a got worse. the only people that benefited where slum lords

I think lefties and liberals in Brighton should be forced to do this

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The council house has always been something that makes zero sense to me.

People should get a stipend based on their situation and use that money to rent a home. That way, they will downsize on their own because larger homes would cost too much money.

It also allows for people to move to chase employment, instead of being afraid of giving up their council home.

We pretty much did away with government housing decades ago. Now you get a check made payable to a landlord.  

and you also have a significantly worse homeless problem
the USA is Literally the example of what the rest of us should not do, you did that and things a got worse. the only people that benefited where slum lords

Do we? So you think letting poor people choose their own housing is worse?

How about food? Do you think the poor should be given food, or a stipend to go buy food?

the public housing system works quite well here.

when operating on the scale of the gov't with an long term need for the housing, it is cheaper after only a few years to by large blocks and put up apartments or townhouses than to rent them off landlords. it is simple economics, my taxes aren't being given to them for shits and giggles, I am paying to see them housed. this is the most cost effective way for that to be achieved.

everything else is covered under the dole check, but there is also additional 'rental assistance' for those that probably don't need a place long term or are in 'less need' and can cover rent from the dole if we give them an extra $100 a week (targeted at single men, young adults, short term unemployed)

Food stamps don't work as intended since you can trade them for drugs/cash anyway
all they do is reduce the purchasing power of the dole since trading them people only get 50-70 cents on the dollar. which just entrenches poverty ... and makes it shitty for those that were doing the right thing.

veya_victaous wrote:the public housing system works quite well here.

when operating on the scale of the gov't with an long term need for the housing, it is cheaper after only a few years to by large blocks and put up apartments or townhouses than to rent them off landlords. it is simple economics, my taxes aren't being given to them for shits and giggles, I am paying to see them housed. this is the most cost effective way for that to be achieved.

everything else is covered under the dole check, but there is also additional 'rental assistance' for those that probably don't need a place long term or are in 'less need' and can cover rent from the dole if we give them an extra $100 a week (targeted at single men, young adults, short term unemployed)

Food stamps don't work as intended since you can trade them for drugs/cash anyway
all they do is reduce the purchasing power of the dole since trading them people only get 50-70 cents on the dollar. which just entrenches poverty ... and makes it shitty for those that were doing the right thing.

We had housing projects. We found they became nuisance, high crime areas. The word "projects" is synonymous with the "hood". I live near the last project in Ft Worth and it will soon be history for the benefit of everyone involved.  

It works better to spread them out. Plus, if you put them in a concentrated area, and jobs are not nearby, they can't work. And there is no stigma attached to their housing.

It's not like the US is unfamiliar with the idea of government housing. It's that it was a disaster here.

the system is similar but different to the UK
we have a more tiered system, so there is less concern about crossing a threshold and losing benefits.
Most of those in long term Public housing are disabled or pensioners.

we have also had a more reliable economy over recent decades, there has been enough work nationally, but there can be regional specific unemployment when the major employer shuts or moves. So generally ours is better resourced because it hasn't been as over burdened as the UK one. the UK is currently a bad example because it has been economically battered over the last few decades by external factors that have nothing to do with their internal systems.

we have a mix of concentrated areas and dispersed among private owned dwellings, both have been tried over the decades and the reality is the solution is too have both.

also the concentrated ones in Western Sydney (which I'm most familiar with) are all next to industrial areas, I think there original planning (60's and 70's) was they became a noise/pollution barrier between the industrial area and  private suburban homes.

in eastern Sydney (normally just called Sydney) they can actually be in very good areas since originally they were 'solider cottages' for returned WW1 veterans .. Sydney is 10 times the size it was then so they are now expensive inner city areas. the gov't does sell them off now(normally when the old pensioner dies or goes to a nursing home) because the land is worth (2-3 million) so much they can buy 4 homes elsewhere in Sydney or 10 in a regional center with the money.

veya_victaous wrote:the system is similar but different to the UK
we have a more tiered system, so there is less concern about crossing a threshold and losing benefits.
Most of those in long term Public housing are disabled or pensioners.

we have also had a more reliable economy over recent decades, there has been enough work nationally, but there can be regional specific unemployment when the major employer shuts or moves. So generally ours is better resourced because it hasn't been as over burdened as the UK one. the UK is currently a bad example because it has been economically battered over the last few decades by external factors that have nothing to do with their internal systems.

And the UK has the council home, which I alluded to. It's silly for a single retiree to be living in a 3br 2 bath home just because it's been their home for 20 years or more. It's an inefficient use of resources.

Hence this thread.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the system is similar but different to the UK
we have a more tiered system, so there is less concern about crossing a threshold and losing benefits.
Most of those in long term Public housing are disabled or pensioners.

we have also had a more reliable economy over recent decades, there has been enough work nationally, but there can be regional specific unemployment when the major employer shuts or moves. So generally ours is better resourced because it hasn't been as over burdened as the UK one. the UK is currently a bad example because it has been economically battered over the last few decades by external factors that have nothing to do with their internal systems.

And the UK has the council home, which I alluded to. It's silly for a single retiree to be living in a 3br 2 bath home just because it's been their home for 20 years or more.  It's an inefficient use of resources.  

Hence this thread.  

I agree, but it would be morally wrong to turf an old person out of the home they have lived in for decades if there is nowhere suitable for them, in the area they know, to go to.

The only property being built in my area are expensive family homes or mills converted into posh apartments.

Offering a grand as a bribe  is no use if you have nowhere suitable for OAP's to move to.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And the UK has the council home, which I alluded to. It's silly for a single retiree to be living in a 3br 2 bath home just because it's been their home for 20 years or more.  It's an inefficient use of resources.  

Hence this thread.  

I agree, but it would be morally wrong to turf an old person out of the home they have lived in for decades if there is nowhere suitable for them, in the area they know, to go to.

The only property being built in my area are expensive family homes or mills converted into posh apartments.

Offering a grand as a bribe  is no use if you have nowhere suitable for OAP's to move to.

That's why it's better to tap into the market. Give people money to live somewhere else and they will be forced to live somewhere that fits their needs. But you do have to have folks building what folks want. That's never been an issue around me.