Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To keep our council property when we can technically buy?

236 replies

HungaryForLove · 26/11/2025 17:25

Hi all,

My partner and I are TTC and thinking about our future. Ideally, after I have a baby I only want to work maximum 2 days weekly so I can be around for our kids, and also save on childcare costs. Partner earns about £35k/year before tax/pension, and we have around £16k in savings. We wouldn’t be claiming UC, just child benefit.

We currently live in a council house that my partner grew up in — he inherited it when his mum moved abroad. It’s a 3-bedroom house. Rent is £480/month. The estate is fine, some people are bit rough around the edges but they never give us any trouble and there’s actually a nice community. I regularly walk to the local shop at night and never feel unsafe. It’s full of young families.

The alternative is buying a 3-bedroom house (we need 3 bed as want 2 DC and I often WFH), which seems to start around £160,000 here and with the 10% deposit of £16,000 our savings would go back down to £0 with no buffer for house maintenance, car issues, maternity leave etc. Also with a 30-year mortgage (we’d need 30 years to be able to afford the monthly payments) at 4.35% interest, I’d realistically need to work 4–5 days a week just to cover costs. I am currently only earning £26,000 full-time. Working so many days would mean barely seeing our kids and only taking home less than £1000 anyway after childcare, and that’s with taking into account the 30 free hours as you still end up paying hundreds a month anyway (I know this from my sister who uses our local nursery 4 days a week for her son who is soon changing to 2 days as she will pay nothing then).

If we stay in the council house, we could comfortably manage on one full-time income and one very part-time income and retain over £10,000 in savings (that would otherwise go on house deposit) to get us through maternity leaves etc, and the a portion of the money we’d otherwise spend on mortgage interest we would invest. Even considering rent going up a few percent per year, we’d still be much more comfortable.

So, AIBU for wanting to stay put in our inherited council house for now, even though we could technically afford to buy? I’m not saying we would stay forever but at least until the expensive childcare years are over, and maybe by then mortgage rates will have become more reasonable and I could go back to working full-time and we’d only be paying wrap-around care.

I do appreciate we are in a fortunate position to be even able to make this choice. Me and DP did grow up in severe poverty, I had alcoholic gambling addict parents and DP is originally from a very deprived country which his DM has moved back to and neither of us will inherit anything. Just to add context.

OP posts:
AInightingale · 29/11/2025 13:13

Thechaseison71 · 29/11/2025 12:59

Out of interest just WHY is it better to buy? So you then have to pay for the upkeep? What does owning a house give you that renting one does especially in the case where the OP is in social housing so can decorate etc

Well certainly the govt would prefer us to buy, as we have less chance of needing help with private rent/ there is less need for social housing which they have to provide, and also because it's a handy asset to sell once someone becomes old and incapacitated. I don't know how the state would pay for care otherwise. Call me cynical, but the right to buy has saved the state's bacon - most of the people who bought in the 80s are now elderly. If they'd continued to rent, they would have required housing benefit into old age, and many would have been eligible for funding for very costly care placements.

Thechaseison71 · 29/11/2025 12:59

Vivi0 · 29/11/2025 12:52

My view is that if you can, it is preferable to buy, rather than to remain renting.

I have no view on the social housing aspect of your post, but believe it would be in your interests in the long term to buy a property for you and your family.

Don’t put home ownership off unnecessarily.

Out of interest just WHY is it better to buy? So you then have to pay for the upkeep? What does owning a house give you that renting one does especially in the case where the OP is in social housing so can decorate etc

Vivi0 · 29/11/2025 12:52

My view is that if you can, it is preferable to buy, rather than to remain renting.

I have no view on the social housing aspect of your post, but believe it would be in your interests in the long term to buy a property for you and your family.

Don’t put home ownership off unnecessarily.

Thechaseison71 · 29/11/2025 12:00

PeonyPatch · 29/11/2025 11:01

Neither is the tax payer.

Tax payer isn't paying her rent

x2boys · 29/11/2025 11:46

gamerchick · 29/11/2025 11:41

Heh I love it when people are so confidently repeatedly ignorant. Have no clues what they're going on about but do it anyway. Especially on SH threads.

warms me cockles it does Grin

This and disability threads
Posters make their own rules up and then get upset by the fact they are wrong .

WiggyWiggyImGettingJiggy · 29/11/2025 11:44

gamerchick · 29/11/2025 11:41

Heh I love it when people are so confidently repeatedly ignorant. Have no clues what they're going on about but do it anyway. Especially on SH threads.

warms me cockles it does Grin

I think they just get excited because they can't use the word 'subsidised' much in real life.

gamerchick · 29/11/2025 11:41

Heh I love it when people are so confidently repeatedly ignorant. Have no clues what they're going on about but do it anyway. Especially on SH threads.

warms me cockles it does Grin

PeonyPatch · 29/11/2025 11:01

Alpacajigsaw · 29/11/2025 10:26

Don’t be ridiculous. The OP isn’t a charity and isn’t under any kind of moral obligation to procure housing for those deemed more “in need”.

Neither is the tax payer.

Alpacajigsaw · 29/11/2025 10:26

PeonyPatch · 27/11/2025 10:04

It’s morally wrong though isn’t it. You are no longer in need of subsidised housing. In fact, you’ve made money from it if there’s £16k of savings there. Your home should be going towards a family who needs it. It’s not a level playing field, and you know deep down you’re exploiting the system.

Edited

Don’t be ridiculous. The OP isn’t a charity and isn’t under any kind of moral obligation to procure housing for those deemed more “in need”.

HungaryForLove · 29/11/2025 10:19

I’m not sure why it became a debate on RTB when I never mentioned that

we’d only get a £9000 discount from market rate anyway so when the time comes to buy we’d rather see what’s on the market

OP posts:
Thechaseison71 · 28/11/2025 21:44

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 21:18

It does, as pp have suggested the OP stay, buy the council property and later sell.

But the post stating about RTB quoted mine on saying about its not subsided. Hence irrelevant

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 21:18

BIossomtoes · 28/11/2025 11:26

Couldn’t agree more but that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

It does, as pp have suggested the OP stay, buy the council property and later sell.

SparkyBlue · 28/11/2025 14:01

Of course it’s fine to stay there . I’m from a council estate and my parents moved in when the estate was built and had very little money and most of the neighbours were in the same situation. As years go by this situation changes and many people do end up quite comfortably off but are happy and settled and very importantly are part of the community they live in and often contribute to. Many people would help coach a local sports team and are involved in the local community. It’s only on MN that I hear this maddness that as soon as people earn x or y they need to leave their house. It’s also because I feel many people have strange ideas about council estates.

caringcarer · 28/11/2025 12:55

I'd stay where you are until your DC are in school. That way you are not blocking the house away from a struggling family permanently only temporary and it gives you time to build up a bit more savings. Once your DC are at school you'd probably want to go back to work more anyway. Are the moment you need the house so don't feel bad about it.

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 12:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Wow

Winteriscoming80 · 28/11/2025 12:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BIossomtoes · 28/11/2025 11:26

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 10:48

But right to buy imo is wrong - it was built for people who need housing and there are people out there who need housing. I think social housing shouldn’t be bought at sub market rate.

Couldn’t agree more but that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Thechaseison71 · 28/11/2025 11:07

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 10:48

But right to buy imo is wrong - it was built for people who need housing and there are people out there who need housing. I think social housing shouldn’t be bought at sub market rate.

I fully agree that right to buy shouldn't exist. That's irrelevant to the topic though

PeonyPatch · 28/11/2025 10:48

Thechaseison71 · 28/11/2025 08:57

So all the council housing built in the 50s 60s and 70s ( which was when loads built( certainly hasn't been subsided by any of today's workers has it? And the grants that " may" have be given at the time will have long ago been paid off in the 60/70 years of rent already paid on these properties

So how then are today's taxpayers subsidizing the current council tenants

Edited

But right to buy imo is wrong - it was built for people who need housing and there are people out there who need housing. I think social housing shouldn’t be bought at sub market rate.

BIossomtoes · 28/11/2025 10:07

berlinbaby2025 · 28/11/2025 09:28

That’s laughable. Because you’re wrong.

I’m right. Who do you think social housing was intended for?

Seymour5 · 28/11/2025 09:53

Posted twice in error.

Seymour5 · 28/11/2025 09:52

berlinbaby2025 · 28/11/2025 09:28

That’s laughable. Because you’re wrong.

She's right. When I was young in the 50s some of my teachers and other white collar workers lived in council housing. When DH and I got a flat in the late 60s, we had to prove we were married to get a tenancy.

Housing policy changed in the 70s and 80s prioritising the most in need. The Ken Loach film Cathy Come Home was a catalyst. Right to buy was most attractive to better off tenants, and so dwindling numbers of council estates are now much more likely to see concentrated rates of poverty and deprivation than used to be the norm.

HopSpringsEternal · 28/11/2025 09:32

AutumnLeavesandKnittedJumpers · 26/11/2025 17:29

Of course you are. Why should taxpayers subsidise your family?

How is the tax payer subsidising this ? The price of the council house will have been paid off more than once through rent.
Just because government has been too stupid to build more social housing that isn't the OPs fault.

berlinbaby2025 · 28/11/2025 09:28

BIossomtoes · 28/11/2025 09:21

Your family is exactly the kind of family that social housing was intended for @HungaryForLove. Stay there.

That’s laughable. Because you’re wrong.

BIossomtoes · 28/11/2025 09:21

Your family is exactly the kind of family that social housing was intended for @HungaryForLove. Stay there.