interestrateripoff Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11639968/Legal-and-General-chief-Pensioners-are-stuck-in-oversized-properties-worth-820bn.html If the 3.3 million over-55s who are looking to downsize could find suitable homes, the shift would unlock 18pc of Britain's property market, FTSE 100 insurer claimsThe shortage of suitable housing for older people in Britain is keeping homeowners stuck in properties worth £820bn and leaving 7.7m spare bedrooms empty, according to a study that highlights one possible exit route from the housing crisis. Almost a third of homeowners aged over 55 have considered downsizing in the past five years, yet only 7pc have actually made the move, the research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economic and Business Research suggested. While the Queen’s Speech last week introduced several policies to encourage housebuilding, including a register of brownfield land to enable developers to find sites more easily, the notion of new homes for retirees has not yet come of age, with just 2pc of the country’s housing stock designed with pensioners in mind. “There’s an increasing recognition, not least among the last-time buyers themselves, that there isn’t enough supply,” said Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General. “It’s a 20-year plan, not a political cycle plan.” Surely this should read over 55's stuck in housing that younger people cannot afford? Seems the solution would be to admit the illusory property value is in fact over inflated and correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Usual ******** survey. As a bloke "have you considered having an affair?", and all honest blokes will answer yes. Everyone has considered it, but most don't follow through. As a result of that they say "insufficient quantity of women mean that blokes are unable to have affairs", when truth is that there are plenty of women, it is just that the blokes thought the better of it, or have such a large beer gut they are unable to have an affair. There are loads of 2 bed houses on sale for someone with a 4 bed house to sell. If there were no 2 bedders on the market, they might have a point, but there are plenty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Many stuck in homes that will never sell for what they hoped. Boo Hoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If you can afford the house you are living in and like the area why would you put yourself through the hassle of moving? My parents could move but they've spent 35 years in their current house and are within walking distance of a shop, pub, their church and their friends. You only give that up if you have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeTrader Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Link to the sister Telegraph article authored by Nigel Wilson, Chief executive, Legal & General: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11641911/Its-not-just-first-time-buyers-who-need-help-in-todays-housing-market.htmlMr Wilson's suggestions include a new Help to Buy scheme for older buyers and additional tax relief for them too:"We need to cut transaction costs to incentivise right-sizing. The changes to stamp duty could be extended further, with full relief on all home purchases by those over a certain age. It would be cost-neutral. Older people would pay no stamp duty for right-sizing, but younger people buying homes that would otherwise not have been available would drive increased stamp duty receipts. Other tax measures could include a council tax holiday – say three years – for new retirement homes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) They don't want to give it away. They will just confine themselves to the lower level and the top spare bedrooms will go unused. Generational apartheid. My Mum and dad are 85 and 89 respectively use all their 3 bed house, grandkids always staying over. Old man still chops wood. They aren't untypical. not all 80 year olds are dribblers in a care home Their money, their choice and they worked damm hard for that option so nothing to do with generational apartheid Edited June 1, 2015 by Greg Bowman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If you can afford the house you are living in and like the area why would you put yourself through the hassle of moving? My parents could move but they've spent 35 years in their current house and are within walking distance of a shop, pub, their church and their friends. You only give that up if you have to. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 So this is the end-game for most home owners - all that HPI never realised. They are likely to be mortgage-free by retirement age which is a good bonus, but then - we all need a retirement plan whatever our circumstances. Just....the whole HPI thing - who ever really benefits from it apart from the usual tiny minority we know about? Owner occupiers don't tend to, that's for sure. Buy / pay off mortgage / mortgage free versus Rent / save / retire abroad in relatively low cost country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Surely this should read over 55's stuck in housing that younger people cannot afford? Seems the solution would be to admit the illusory property value is in fact over inflated and correct? Anything but to say.......ALL HOUSING/LAND IS OVERPRICED....and needs to drop down a peg or two. ......or else it will be sold to those that already have plenty of cash and or credit they want to find a home for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 “There’s an increasing recognition, not least among the last-time buyers themselves, that there isn’t enough supply,” said Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General. “It’s a 20-year plan, not a political cycle plan.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If you can afford the house you are living in and like the area why would you put yourself through the hassle of moving? My parents could move but they've spent 35 years in their current house and are within walking distance of a shop, pub, their church and their friends. You only give that up if you have to. Agree......a house is a home, to most people the value to them is what it does for them, not on how much it is worth in monetary value......they can't take it with them. People I know who wanted to downsize, (they could have sold their place twice over), looked but decided against it for the reasons above, apart from the fact that the homes they are building new for the over 55s are far smaller squashed into high density and most definitely not of equivalent value.....soulless places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyboy1973 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 If the govt really wanted pensioners to downsize, they wouldn't be exempting the family home from IHT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BalancedBear Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) I don't see a problem with older people staying in their houses if they want to. many older people enjoy gardening and living in the house that holds lots of memories for them. Also, many of the smaller houses that may be suitable would not offer them the same location. If you took housing allocation to an ultimate conclusion you would have state allocated housing for everyone and it would be assessed annually. I would not want to live in such a country. The main problem in the UK is that we have unregulated population growth but a highly regulated planning system. If we all need permission to build a house, and any other buildings, then perhaps we need a system of permission for all immigration, where every person coming here needs to have a specific reason and proper accommodation available before they come. Edited June 1, 2015 by BalancedBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 They don't want to give it away. They will just confine themselves to the lower level and the top spare bedrooms will go unused. Generational apartheid. .....Not about giving it away, more about not wanting to move away.......many more people now have their priced out children living with them, this helps fill rooms and also brings extra income and life into a home, I see nothing wrong with that if it works for all parties......also it is getting more popular to let out rooms in a sectioned part of a larger home, going back to the days of 'the landlady'. Only landlady because in times gone by it was more likely that she was the widow living on her own......another way is to rent out Monday night to Thursday night for people that work nearby but family live in another part of the country, sometimes a hot meal can be provided after a long day in the office.......there are plenty of ways that empty rooms can be utilised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax2 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 schools are back today, and I can give you an anecdote from my local area (LDN zone 4)......school catchment zones are going to become very interesting in the near future. Most "houses" around any school seem to be occupied by those who have grown-up children now still living at home. You can tell by the numbers of cars outside the house as time moves on. And the absolute increase in traffic compared to Friday last week shows me that most kids are being driven in...this form a school with a 1mile catchment area. Nothing within 1 mile is obtainable by the average little couple with a freshly minted 5yo child. 20 years ago you could buy that house at a massive stretch (and they did) and the child went to the school and life was good. But no young couple can touch that house now. Will the school have to move? (haha), will catchment zones be a thing of the past? Will these people, of increasing age, start moaning more as the years roll on, with the inability to have a quiet morning cuppa due to traffic/kids? Maybe we can have HTS (Help to Stay) whereby they can rent their address as a virtual residence, with mail forwarding, so that children can get access to the school without technically living in the catchment area? (oh wait, that already happen, we just must not talk about it very loud..taboo). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What will happen (especially in London) is that schools will close or they will have a much wider catchment area. Most good primary schools are at the peak of their intake (imo) as they have caught the last generation who can afford to 1) live in London and 2) buy in London. Even in the naice area that I live in the school population is changing quite significantly (lots more churn of pupils, lots more Eastern Europeans children etc). So why is London such a 'special' place to live?......there are good schools in fact brilliant schools all over the country, many good teachers have moved out of London already and in some places people also do not have to wait so long for a doctors appointment, the doctors are good also. About time infrastructure, jobs and resources were spread more evenly over all of the UK,,,,,,,,,times are changing, they have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 .....Not about giving it away, more about not wanting to move away.......many more people now have their priced out children living with them, this helps fill rooms and also brings extra income and life into a home, I see nothing wrong with that if it works for all parties......also it is getting more popular to let out rooms in a sectioned part of a larger home, going back to the days of 'the landlady'. Only landlady because in times gone by it was more likely that she was the widow living on her own......another way is to rent out Monday night to Thursday night for people that work nearby but family live in another part of the country, sometimes a hot meal can be provided after a long day in the office.......there are plenty of ways that empty rooms can be utilised. I have never seen why living in a multi generational household was seen as some how second class. Successful cultures and our Asian friends being a good example do it all the time and it has nothing to do with income level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) So why is London such a 'special' place to live?......there are good schools in fact brilliant schools all over the country, many good teachers have moved out of London already and in some places people also do not have to wait so long for a doctors appointment, the doctors are good also. About time infrastructure, jobs and resources were spread more evenly over all of the UK,,,,,,,,,times are changing, they have to. +1 but if you have a few bob the provinces just seem a little tame. Osbornes Northern powerhouse project will certainly make a difference ably supported with economic refugees from the Soviet State of Scotland and if you feel that is a Londoner talking excerpt from a good mate of mine who runs a business in Edinburgh and is more Scottish than Robbie Burns: Don’t get me started! I lost faith in the common sense of large swathes of the Scottish proletariat before last year’s referendum & I can see what’s coming next…..’we don’t want to be out of Europe, we have a mandate from the Scottish people’ (which they don’t – 50% isn’t a mandate), ‘we demand another referendum’, etc. I might even have to apply for English citizenship someday! J Edited June 1, 2015 by Greg Bowman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 My Mum and dad are 85 and 89 respectively use all their 3 bed house, grandkids always staying over. Old man still chops wood. They aren't untypical. not all 80 year olds are dribblers in a care home Their money, their choice and they worked damm hard for that option so nothing to do with generational apartheid Greg, I suspect you've misconstrued the op. It refers expressly to over 55s who are actually looking to downsize, saying they have insufficient options. If your folks do not wish you downsize and they can afford their house without unnecessary subsidy then they are not being targeted here. I certainly wouldn't believe in forcing someone in this respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I have never seen why living in a multi generational household was seen as some how second class. Successful cultures and our Asian friends being a good example do it all the time and it has nothing to do with income level. Agree, my Asian friends when first came to London from Africa did exactly that and worked very hard in own small businesses, corner shops and the like.....full happy homes are the best homes to have.....elderly care for the young, then the young then care for their elderly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Agree, my Asian friends when first came to London from Africa did exactly that and worked very hard in own small businesses, corner shops and the like.....full happy homes are the best homes to have.....elderly care for the young, then the young then care for their elderly. Let me also agree with the idea that multi-generational households are healthy and perfectly normal...which is anathema to the atomised society modern governments want. They want low occupancy households - good for the economy. Two parents stretched to the limit is good for the economy. Sharing is bad for the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BalancedBear Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Let me also agree with the idea that multi-generational households are healthy and perfectly normal...which is anathema to the atomised society modern governments want. They want low occupancy households - good for the economy. Two parents stretched to the limit is good for the economy. Sharing is bad for the economy. Very true. Governments want people to live alone, pay for all help they need, so they can skim tax each step of the way. Pay someone to look after your children, pay tax in the process, move house as often as possible, pay stamp duty, pay others to do DIY, pay tax in the process, encourage all parents to work and let their children be brought up by others, so they can pay more tax and be bigger "consumers". Everything about modern governments is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I agree....big business depends on dependency.......^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) Yet when you look at house prices there are always houses for sale that are cheaper/smaller than the higher priced houses. Admittedly they aren't in the same exact same spot as the higher priced ones so people have to move. When there's been too many big houses people have renovated them to convert them into smaller houses or built some more cheaper/smaller places. It sounds as if L& G's chief has identified the demographics and is justifying some policy but pensioners aren't stuck anywhere - there are always cheaper/smaller properties if they want to/need to move. Actually pensioners in big houses are the least stuck of any of the population. One thing that stops them wanting to move is the government's continual interference in house prices. Once upon a time house prices went up and down so anyone who wanted to downsize would pre-empt and try to move near the top of a cycle and try not to move at the bottom of a cycle because that would mean less spare money in pocket (the price differential being less at the bottom of a cycle) but now that it's obvious house prices have never ending government support if you don't have to move then why bother to move. On that basis downsizing if you don't need to has been a financially wrong move for ages. Edited June 1, 2015 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabConH8er Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I have never seen why living in a multi generational household was seen as some how second class. Successful cultures and our Asian friends being a good example do it all the time and it has nothing to do with income level. 3 generations in my household and it's a f'en nightmare ... they do it in Asian nations because they can't afford to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.