This post follows on from my previous post and builds on the many comments I have had on this and earlier posts on the subject of Retirement Housing.   (You can find them all in the Topics List under the “Retirement Housing” heading)

A radically different approach is needed, which will require the post-war baby boomer generation of children to accept that their parents aspiration of free health care and decent housing for everyone is only possible if they use the wealth they have fortuitously accumulated in their houses as property prices have risen.    The legacy they had hoped to pass onto their children and grand-children must first be called on to pay for their own health.    The added years of increased longevity  requires much more money than most have saved in their pensions.

The two big uncertainties older people face are about their health and their wealth.    Will they need more support/ health care as they grow older and put bluntly –  will their money run out  before they die?    The problem is that nobody knows.

“Head in the sand” is the most common individual reaction.   Most people hope to die a sudden death, but the evidence is that only 10% do.   The majority have a period of chronic illness before they die.   Long term  health care could be the answer, but it is expensive and people are reluctant to pay for an uncertain risk.

“Head in the sand” is also the Governments’ response, as all politicians are reluctant to honestly tell older people they are going to have to pay for their own care in later life.   Meanwhile, pressure continues to build up on the NHS and Social Services and the quality of care reduces.  Around this a blame culture developes and nobody looks for strategic solutions.

The answer is buried in the equity most older people (80%) have tied up in their houses.   The problem is that it is difficult and expensive to unlock.

Equity release has justifiably earned itself a bad name.  It is expensive because of the unpredictability of lifespans and the fluctuations of housing values.   So there needs to be a new, cheaper and more flexible answer to releasing equity in your home.

Retirement housing is in short supply and is holding its value, reinforced by a market where many purchasers are downsizing from larger more valuable houses and consequently are not so price sensitive  when buying a smaller home.   The market is primarily driven by quality of accommodation and lifestyle.    There is no point in moving unless your new home offers a better life.   Down-sizing on its own is only part of the answer — it solves wealth but not health.

Some people will have  money left  after down-sizing but for others they may need to continue to release more equity  to pay for health care and support.   Many people will have lived in lower value homes which only allow for part purchase of a new retirement home.   In both cases flexible shared ownership housing and the ability to continue to sell back further shares over time is an answer.

Traditionally shared ownership allows young people to  get a step on the housing ladder and then buy additional shares until they own their new home outright.     We need to completely reverse that thinking for retirement housing and allow older people to gradually release their equity share if they need resources to pay for care.

Retirement housing provided by charitable Housing Associations, which has a significant element of shared-ownership can appeal to a lot of asset rich and income poor older people.    Add to this the option of stair-casing down to release funds for health care  and you have facilitated the answers to future health and wealth.

This is not new thinking just a new mindset.   The caveat is that it must be simple and easy to do – no conveyance lawyers, just an open and transparent exchange of letters providing a release of capital  in exchange for shares given back to the Housing Association, underwritten by a charge on the property.

Governments won’t do it, because they do not think holistically about housing and health, nor are they prepared to face up to the truth about who pays for the cost of health care for older people.    Only forward thinking Housing Associations prepared to break the moulds of past housing models can create new opportunities for older people to look after themselves in later life.

In the latter half of the last century Housing Associations changed the lives of many older people with their provision of sheltered housing.   The question is will they again have the courage and passion to be :-

This follows on from the previous blog on my market overview of retirement housing.

The current Government only has housing for new starters on the housing ladder in it’s sights.    They see retirement housing as a luxury only to be made available to those who can afford to buy.  What’s more this may well become a self-fulfilling prophesy if left to the private sector housing developers.

From a narrow and historical perspective the Government may be right.   In the past publicly funded social housing for older people required  huge capital grants, which remain tied up in those houses to this day.   In addition, the majority of the tenants are dependant on housing benefit to pay some or all of the rent and service charges.

The days of large capital grants have long disappeared, along with any significant supply of new social housing.   More recently the treasury has turned it’s cost cutting eye to reducing the level of housing benefit.    These two austerity measures have  all but eliminated the financial viability of new retirement housing schemes for social rent.

This one-eyed view ignores the social and health benefits of retirement housing.   Furthermore, there are proven savings to health and social care.

You have to have an holistic approach and wide horizons to find a way ahead for social housing for older people.   It needs to make real and transparent the savings to the NHS  and to Social Services, as well as selling itself to older people themselves as a positive improvement in lifestyle.

Lets hope the Housing  Association movement can rise to this new challenge.

I have written a lot about the current state of the retirement housing market in the last twelve months,though it mainly reflects the relative inactivity in a stalled housing economy.    ( You can see my earlier posts by clicking on “Retirement Housing” in the topics list)

At a time when more and more of the baby boomer generation are entering retirement age and looking for new options in later life, there is a massive mismatch between demand and supply.   Or, perhaps more accurately between aspirations and opportunities.  There are simply not enough houses on the supply side, however, the demand is skewed by a host of factors related to both affordability and suitability.

There are expected to be an extra 3.5 million older households in England by 2033.   A 60% increase, which will mean that a third of all households will be occupied by people aged over 65.

Currently only 2% of older people live in specialist age related housing.  This has the potential to rise to 5% in the next decade, but only if the supply of new retirement housing increases dramatically.

It is a great opportunity, if we take it, or leads to a big problem, if we don’t.

I will expand on this theme in the days ahead.

I have never had a conflation before, but it is a trendy word to use, which is in the news a lot recently, so hear goes.   My last two blogs have been about the planners restrictions on building houses and the desire of many older people to retire to a bungalow.    Let’s try and conflate these two ideas.   The planners want higher density housing to limit the need for building on green field sites, which directly conflicts with the demand from older people for more bungalows.    Indeed the last thing the planners would want is lots of bungalows dotted all over the place😟     How about we turn the bungalow aspirations into large specially designed retirement flats, with level access throughout and lifts to all other floors.    Then add a range of facilities on your doorstep, including a shop, a coffee bar and some activity spaces.   That way you will have plenty to do, rather than being isolated in the country.   Let’s call it a retirement village !   Better still locate it in the town where you already live.    That way you will still be close to your family and friends and the planners will be able to keep their green belt.    So everyone will be happy 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄 and heave a lot more fun in retirement !

Conflation is not a bad idea !