Our Council Housing Tenants are being consulted on changes to their Tenancy Agreements. It is great that the language and content are revised and updated to make their language more accessible and current to new legislation.

However, I have grave concerns over the poorly worded proposal (section 7) to remove property from persons who are in properties too large for their needs. This concerns many residents who have contacted me, too.

When estates were originally built, there was much more freedom of movement as families needed larger accommodation or towards sheltered housing for vulnerable and aged residents. If you look at the Bent Lane estate as an example, over half are now privately owned. The stock availability for freedom of movement of tenants between properties, is no longer there.

To expect an elderly or vulnerable person to be re-housed, forcibly, outside their area where they are familiar and where they have support networks and friendships is, I feel, possibly detrimental to health, causes unnecessary stress and is immoral.

If property as an alternative was offered, newly repaired with perhaps a new kitchen and tidy garden – with free removal and a redecorating grant - as an incentive for people to free-up larger properties, than that is different. As it gives people choice and support to down-size. Building more social housing an answer to reduced waiting lists not forcible re-housing of residents to smaller properties.

I contacted the Equality and Human rights Commission and they replied straight away – I am impressed but not with much good news – apparently public bodies can override the needs of an individual where there will be greater good for all ie building a road extensions and knocking down homes. At least that’s what I think they said as the reply was in legal terms. However, they advised me to seek legal advice re tenancy laws – so I’m onto that next.