Older people to be offered incentives to downsize homes

Trampas

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There allowed to be rented out as it is. There is absolutely no incentive for the elderly person or their family to do so and quite a few downsides to renting out. If the family the house occupied then it wouldn't be sold.

My family home is empty and will remain empty until they’ve passed on. Rent it out is possible but we wouldn’t see literally a red cent of the income as it would go in tax and fd. Imagine if we had to spend money on repairs after someone destroys it. I’ve been told they could lose their medical card over it also.

No incentive at all.

Must be thousands of houses like this around the country.

Spanish Eyes

Trampas wrote: »

My family home is empty and will remain empty until they’ve passed on. Rent it out is possible but we wouldn’t see literally a red cent of the income as it would go in tax and fd. Imagine if we had to spend money on repairs after someone destroys it. I’ve been told they could lose their medical card over it also.

No incentive at all.

Must be thousands of houses like this around the country.

There are. No incentive to rent them out is correct with FD.

beauf

Trampas wrote: »

My family home is empty and will remain empty until they’ve passed on. Rent it out is possible but we wouldn’t see literally a red cent of the income as it would go in tax and fd. Imagine if we had to spend money on repairs after someone destroys it. I’ve been told they could lose their medical card over it also.

No incentive at all.

Must be thousands of houses like this around the country.

If a renter trashes it you'd actually be down money. No point at all.

Spanish Eyes

Can you get insurance on an unoccupied property? Just wondered.

JoeCasey

I think people with large cars should be given an incentive to buy a motorcycle.

Spanish Eyes

JoeCasey wrote: »

I think people with large cars should be given an incentive to buy a motorcycle.

A rock of sense there.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Can you get insurance on an unoccupied property? Just wondered.

It's usually a condition of insurance that a property isn't left unoccupied for more than 3 or 6 months.

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

It's usually a condition of insurance that a property isn't left unoccupied for more than 3 or 6 months.

Yes that is what I thought. Thanks.

So these empty properties on FD are not insured. OK it is a gamble I suppose.

Electric Sheep

Rubberchikken wrote: »

nothing, except death, will 'incentivise' me to leave my large home, with very large garden.

My mother thought that too, until upkeep of the 4 bedroom house with large garden became too much for her. She lives in a small village though, and it took nearly 5 years before something suitable in that area. 15 years on she is VERY happy that she moved before she absolutely needed to, she can do without that hassle at her age.

There is a lack of suitable accommodation for seniors who wish to downsize.

tretorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But why not start with Council housing?

There are many three and even four bed properties totally under occupied since kids have gone and maybe the last person there is widowed.

There are few incentives for such people to surrender their big home for a smaller more manageable property that suits their needs.

Many families would benefit from an increased supply of larger Council property surely?

Private property owners can do whatever they wish. It is their home and paid for by themselves.

What is the situation with council houses where you might have a single or separated adult person moving back in. If the elderly person dies or goes into a nursing home is the house surrendered back to the Council or does the single adult take over the tenancy and stay there. I presume some people put adult children on the tenancy so they cant be asked to find private accomodation once elderly person is dead or in a nursing home.

I think this is very unfair, if the single adult child takes over the council house he or she doenst pay inheritance tax. The elderly person has no asset to be counted for in the case of Fairdeal so they just pay 80% of their pension.

The other elderly person who owns their house cant just give it to their adult child without in most cases the child incurring inheritance tax. Also if the property owner does the Fairdeal scheme then the value of the house is assessed for three years and this could run to thousands of euros. Why would anyone rent out their house when most of the rent will be taken by the hSE to fund the fairdeal, better to leave the house empty until the elderly person passes on, there is absolutely no point in selling it either because then the sale price is counted as income and this is assessed towards fairdeal costs for as long as the owner lies in a bed in a nursing home.

I know at least ten houses which are in great locations but lying totally empty and this situation wont change until the nursing home resident dies.

hmmm

I love this. Not only do you get handed a free house courtesy of the taxpayer, you then get to hold out for a bribe to move out of the house the taxpayer owns when it is way too big for your needs. Is there no end to the amount of our money that will be thrown at social housing recipients?

How about a letter - "Your current 3 bed house will be allocated to a family with greater needs within 12 months, we are providing you with a 1 bed apartment in your local area and will assist you with moving costs."

In contrast, I think offering a downsizing grant to elderly people who own their own house is a good use of my money.

Spanish Eyes

Electric Sheep wrote: »

My mother thought that too, until upkeep of the 4 bedroom house with large garden became too much for her. She lives in a small village though, and it took nearly 5 years before something suitable in that area. 15 years on she is VERY happy that she moved before she absolutely needed to, she can do without that hassle at her age.

There is a lack of suitable accommodation for seniors who wish to downsize.

There is a lack of suitable accommodation for some seniors alright.

But the issue really is do they WANT to move out? What are the advantages and disadvantages for them?

All very fine to say " there's a lovely place down the road", but many people, myself included are very happy touch wood where we are, nice neighbours, quiet, great transport links and so on.

The fear is that if you move all that stability may disappear. Just because you might be over 60 doesn't mean you are an angel either. But maybe house rules will sort that out. Another gamble that some people may not be prepared to take, if everything is A Okay where they are at present.

tretorn

Its not a free house, tenants pay rent but its a differential rent scheme which means if their income goes down the rent does too. They also get discounts for each child and I suspect the council houses stay in the family by putting adult children on the tenancy.

There is a huge problem with council tenants not paying any rent at all and some local authorities are owed millions. Doubt if any of these tenants are ever evicted.

Eric Cartman

hmmm wrote: »

I love this. Not only do you get handed a free house courtesy of the taxpayer, you then get to hold out for a bribe to move out of the house the taxpayer owns when it is way too big for your needs. Is there no end to the amount of our money that will be thrown at social housing recipients?

How about a letter - "Your current 3 bed house will be allocated to a family with greater needs within 12 months, we are providing you with a 1 bed apartment in your local area and will assist you with moving costs."

In contrast, I think offering a downsizing grant to elderly people who own their own house is a good use of my money.

social housing tenants should definitely be forced to move around to cater to size needs, its complete madness that you can have a singular elderly person in a 3 bedroom house. Also we're starting to get the first generations of lifelong welfare recipients now, people who have never contributed to society. If you want the state to take care of you cradle to grave you should have to do it within their requirements.

Spanish Eyes

hmmm wrote: »

I love this. Not only do you get handed a free house courtesy of the taxpayer, you then get to hold out for a bribe to move out of the house the taxpayer owns when it is way too big for your needs. Is there no end to the amount of our money that will be thrown at social housing recipients?

How about a letter - "Your current 3 bed house will be allocated to a family with greater needs within 12 months, we are providing you with a 1 bed apartment in your local area and will assist you with moving costs."

In contrast, I think offering a downsizing grant to elderly people who own their own house is a good use of my money.

I doubt very many who own their own properties would move unless the incentive is humungous and will not cost them any more than they pay already. Losing your long time neighbours and community friends can be difficult for anyone, but particularly for seniors I would imagine.

I agree about the social housing aspect though. Should have been worked out years ago.

hmmm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But the issue really is do they WANT to move out? What are the advantages and disadvantages for them?

This is what a lot of countries use property tax for, encouraging people to move out of properties which are too big for them and downsize.

For example, there is no incentive for someone to move out of their 5 bedroom house in Ranelagh which backs onto the LUAS, and every incentive to campaign against a Metro expansion which will mean more frequent noise and vibration. Instead, if you get your way, younger people and families will suffer a worse commute, but you will have your lovely quiet million euro house a stones throw from the city centre.

downtheroad

I think there is merit in this idea, and people have to remember that nobody is going to be forced to move house. It will be an incentive.

Bought a house last year in Dublin and during our search we came across several houses that had been occupied by 1 elderly person and majority of the house not used. And in many cases there was serious renovation to install a wet room downstairs for the elderly person, which then would be removed by a younger family buying the same house.

My brother in law bought a house in Wicklow that had a wet room installed by the kitchen which never got used by the previous occupant because they became ill during the construction, then the first thing my brother in law did after buying the house was pay a builder to demolish the wet room and renovate. The only winner in all of this was the builder!

Eric Cartman

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I doubt very many who own their own properties would move unless the incentive is humungous and will not cost them any more than they pay already. Losing your long time neighbours and community friends can be difficult for anyone, but particularly for seniors I would imagine.

I agree about the social housing aspect though. Should have been worked out years ago.

rehome them in a 1 bed for 'free' and offer them free nursing home / hospice care after they cant survive on their own. Scrap the fair deal and let them pass on their house tax free for giver and receiver to a family member while theyre in the new 1 bed. Its a massive incentive, family members would love it, and it may prove to be cheaper by freeing up housing stock and getting family members that may be on HAP etc... into a house that was paid for by family. When they pass on the 1 bed is just assigned to a new elderly person.

Spanish Eyes

Eric Cartman wrote: »

rehome them in a 1 bed for 'free' and offer them free nursing home / hospice care after they cant survive on their own. Scrap the fair deal and let them pass on their house tax free for giver and receiver to a family member while theyre in the new 1 bed. Its a massive incentive, family members would love it, and it may prove to be cheaper by freeing up housing stock and getting family members that may be on HAP etc... into a house that was paid for by family. When they pass on the 1 bed is just assigned to a new elderly person.

Far too complicated IMO. The pressure on a senior to move by family members would be immense also when you think about it.

The first phase should definitely be on social housing where one person is living in a three/four bed house alone. Work from there.

Eric Cartman

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Far too complicated IMO. The pressure on a senior to move by family members would be immense also when you think about it.

The first phase should definitely be on social housing where one person is living in a three/four bed house alone. Work from there.

surely thats the idea though, you need an incentive to get elderly people out of larger houses into small 1 beds, this incentivises the hell out of it from all sides.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Far too complicated IMO.

I think there's going to have to be some such approach. It's not just the social housing sector that has incredibly inefficient use of housing so the issue needs to be tackled from all sides.

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

I think there's going to have to be some such approach. It's not just the social housing sector that has incredibly inefficient use of housing so the issue needs to be tackled from all sides.

Fair enough, but private property owners can decide for themselves. That will never change really, and I doubt many will move outside their own community.

I personally will be taken out of my house in a box, such is my contentment with it. But I suppose if I become ill someone else will make the decisions for me (my enduring power of attorneys). I won't care then will I?

The incentives would have to be great for the compos mentis downsizer. Forget about the family for the moment.

Graham

And therein lies the problem.

Unless as a society we start to change attitudes and expectations we're going to push young working families further and further out. It's not like we can manufacture space for an infinite number of 3-bed semis in our major cities.

That's not meant to be a dig at you Spanish Eyes. If anything it's a reflection of the lack of realistic/palatable alternatives, that's probably the first thing that needs addressing.

utmbuilder

you know the only new builds having problems selling outside dublin is the 2 beds, so maybe a good idea.

as for dublin its pretty darn hard to downsize, people need to sell more apartments and start trading up.

1874

downtheroad wrote: »

I think there is merit in this idea, and people have to remember that nobody is going to be forced to move house. It will be an incentive.

Bought a house last year in Dublin and during our search we came across several houses that had been occupied by 1 elderly person and majority of the house not used. And in many cases there was serious renovation to install a wet room downstairs for the elderly person, which then would be removed by a younger family buying the same house.

My brother in law bought a house in Wicklow that had a wet room installed by the kitchen which never got used by the previous occupant because they became ill during the construction, then the first thing my brother in law did after buying the house was pay a builder to demolish the wet room and renovate. The only winner in all of this was the builder!

The Govt pays lip service to these ideas that people will move to help facilitate younger people moving to where it suits the Govt/State/where the demand is, with the hope that people will do it on their own bat, FFS they removed the home renovation scheme, possibly because there might actually be enough money in the economy for people to take it up. Are they going to introduce a scheme for this or just put feelers out for it? and do nothing.

On top of that, they either are clueless about the cost and hassle involved in moving anyway, and the circumstances in which many people live. In some cases, you can see houses for sale where it looks apparent that an elderly person has passed away, Im not saying its always the case, but many of these house are likely to be in a good need of overhaul, never mind the decor even, more likely wiring, plumbing and electrics. For any kind of complete overhaul could cost tens of thousands at the least, not something some people may have or want to spend as they'll never see the benefit of it.

Id love to move myself, but Id have to downgrade if I wanted to buy similar and Id likely have to move further away too, I wouldnt want the stress and hassle myself, I can imagine its not something older people want to put up with unless they want to move, which Id say is a low percent.


On top of that, the current lobsided regulatory system has scared many people from even considering short term rental as its so sown up in a tenants favour and no effort has been made to consider negligent, willfully destructive tenants or those that simply play the system and how to get them out, I wouldnt foist that stress on an older person, dont need that hassle, got out of renting myself and I recommended an elderly relative to stay clear a few years back as I knew the hassle involved.
There are ways to open up rental and purchasing options, but the Govt are so oblivious to whats actually going on and so insulated from the circumstances of many people that they dont know whats needed.

Graham

utmbuilder wrote: »

as for dublin its pretty darn hard to downsize, people need to sell more apartments and start trading up.

Or more apartments need to be built. Particularly the types of apartments that would appeal to downsizers in the locations they already live in.

AndrewJRenko

tretorn wrote: »

There is a huge problem with council tenants not paying any rent at all and some local authorities are owed millions. Doubt if any of these tenants are ever evicted.

The far bigger problem is businesses not paying their rates bills btw.

The Student

Graham wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.

Unless as a society we start to change attitudes and expectations we're going to push young working families further and further out. It's not like we can manufacture space for an infinite number of 3-bed semis in our major cities.

That's not meant to be a dig at you Spanish Eyes. If anything it's a reflection of the lack of realistic/palatable alternatives, that's probably the first thing that needs addressing.

Why not offer grants to elderly people and their family to build granny flats in their back gardens allowing the family of the property owner move into the three bed semi.

Its a win win as the elderly person gets to stay in their community they know and their family get the use of a much needed three bed semi.

I don't understand why this is not at a min being looked at. And the cycle can continue on whereby there will be a granny flat for the next generation to move into as the need arises.

ednwireland

Trampas wrote: »

Why should they be sold. How about allowing them to be rented out and that’s the only cost to the person so really they pay nothing bar renting their property

you'll find most houses people live in don't meet the standards required for renting. it could cost a lot of money to get them to that standard.

Ush1

The Student wrote: »

Why not offer grants to elderly people and their family to build granny flats in their back gardens allowing the family of the property owner move into the three bed semi.

Its a win win as the elderly person gets to stay in their community they know and their family get the use of a much needed three bed semi.

I don't understand why this is not at a min being looked at. And the cycle can continue on whereby there will be a granny flat for the next generation to move into as the need arises.

Would you want your mother in law living in your back garden?:pac: