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:
mindutopia · 26/11/2025 22:15

I would stay for now and reassess in a few years. In our 20s/30s, we earned a similar amount to you, though we privately rented (no council house). We saved for a decade and finally bought a beautiful house at 40.

I would want to buy, yes. Because I wouldn’t want to be in a position of having to pay rent in retirement. My mortgage will long be paid off by then and my children will have a nice inheritance. But there is no rush. Get yourself on your feet first and save.

HalzTangz · 26/11/2025 22:14

HungaryForLove · 26/11/2025 17:28

His mum was disabled and on a very low-income and he joined the tenancy as soon as he was old enough and paid the majority of the rent. When she moved home to Eastern Europe he told the council and expected to be kicked out but they let him stay so long as he continued to pay the rent.

Edited

Any reason for not applying for the right to buy before it ended last November..I bought my house on a single income with a £3k deposit, mortgage is a manageable amount and I am still able to save. I earn the same as your partner

Bushmillsbabe · 26/11/2025 22:06

OP I would stay until oldest children turns 3, save more, and then buy a property in a nicer area. I agree with those who say you shouldn't really stay there long term, but staying for a couple years to get through first 'childcare chunk' seems sensible. You are a hardworking family paying into tax pot, paying rent and looking after property.

Alpacajigsaw · 26/11/2025 21:52

BreatheAndFocus · 26/11/2025 21:26

I’d move out in the OP’s situation and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one on this thread who would 🤷‍♀️ And it’s not to do with MNers deeming people worthy. Clearly a couple on £61k shouldn’t be in a council house while there are people far, far worse off financially with children stuck in emergency accommodation. It’s selfish. Just because something’s allowed doesn’t mean you should do it.

Why are the people in emergency accommodation the OP’s problem?

Bollocks would you, I, OP or anyone else make ourselves worse off to house a stranger. Come off it.

Fundays12 · 26/11/2025 21:42

Keep the council house. Hard working tax payers should have some benefits. I own a house but most of the houses around me are housing associations and the tenants all working families. I am delighted to see them have nice affordable homes.

berlinbaby2025 · 26/11/2025 21:37

Morally it’s wrong. There are people who need that house, you don’t need it, it’s just comfortable for you and your family. So you’re comfortable that you’re disadvantaging someone else - maybe a family - who need to be in that house?

Lovetosurf · 26/11/2025 21:36

breezyyy · 26/11/2025 17:51

But they get free kitchens and stuff!

FFS of course councils and housing associations have to keep their housing stock up to a reasonable standard! Such a sad ignorant comment.
I believe it's usually every 15 years or so that bathrooms/kitchens are upgraded.
Tenants would get some limited choice from a simple/basic range of options for kitchens.

Edited for a typo.

BreatheAndFocus · 26/11/2025 21:26

Alpacajigsaw · 26/11/2025 20:28

Stay put.

its not down to you to make life harder for yourself so someone random MNers deem more “deserving” can live in your home. It’s hardly your fault the housing market in this country is a shitshow. No one else on this thread who is criticising you would actually move out either, they’re at the wind up.

I’d move out in the OP’s situation and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one on this thread who would 🤷‍♀️ And it’s not to do with MNers deeming people worthy. Clearly a couple on £61k shouldn’t be in a council house while there are people far, far worse off financially with children stuck in emergency accommodation. It’s selfish. Just because something’s allowed doesn’t mean you should do it.

whynotwhatknot · 26/11/2025 21:21

that late union rmt leader stayed in his council house when he earned 400k

stay and save up few more years-im not even sure you can just put a 10 percent deposit anymore

Pricelessadvice · 26/11/2025 21:16

I can see why you would stay, but you shouldn’t be allowed to.

Goldwren1923 · 26/11/2025 21:09

Unbelievable. And his mom moved back to Eastern Europe! She wasn’t even British!

that’s just shocking that the council hasn’t taken the property back

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 21:02

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:57

If she's genuinely no better off because she's going to pay for the stuff you're claiming, why does she not go private?

I don’t know the full circumstances, but I would assume it’s because she has a poor credit rating so can’t get a tenancy. Her partner upped and left and she lost her house as she couldn’t pay the mortgage, she was in temporary accommodation. She’ll probably have to live without carpets and flooring if I’m being honest, but that was the quote she was given

Fizbosshoes · 26/11/2025 21:01

I have read on another thread that in Australia and USA, social housing is seen as temporary and it is expected that families will only live in it for a set number of years, so presumably there is a much higher turnover of property.
Im intrigued how that works - because obviously its completely different to here, where the tenancy is secure - potentially for life.

It guess its easy to be judgy about supposedly working the system but that happens in lots of areas (eg people moving/renting in school catchment areas, or attending church for 6 months to get into c of e school etc) and while it might not seem fair, its not breaking any rules. Lots of people would and do, do things that are beneficial to their own family.
I disagree with rtb though as that just takes away the house as a council.house altogether

Rituelec · 26/11/2025 20:59

I wouldnt feel secure. They could take it back at any time.

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:57

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:53

It isn’t a saving though, is it? Just to fund carpets and flooring will cost her 2 years of her £200 per month ‘saving’. That’s before considering sorting the garden out, painting, buying appliances

I was just pointing out, that the rent may be lower, but with good reason, not because it is subsidised

If she's genuinely no better off because she's going to pay for the stuff you're claiming, why does she not go private?

Witchcraftandhokum · 26/11/2025 20:54

I'm 98% sure this is ragebait. The other 2% wants me to say thay when my abusive partner kicked me out of his house the council wouldn't house me because they was a shortage of.council houses and I "didn't have kids". They'd rather I lived on the streets than give me a house.

Somersetbaker · 26/11/2025 20:54

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 26/11/2025 17:48

I dare say private rents locally are considerably more, so that’s what posters mean by being ‘subsidised’.

You mean they're not increasing the wealth of a private landlord!

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:53

comeandhaveteawithme · 26/11/2025 20:17

The difference isn't just the rent (and £200 is actually a decent amount and saving that monthly can make a big difference to someone's life), it's the security.

Your sister could lose her home at the whim of her landlord in two months flat.

Your cousin - not so much.

It isn’t a saving though, is it? Just to fund carpets and flooring will cost her 2 years of her £200 per month ‘saving’. That’s before considering sorting the garden out, painting, buying appliances

I was just pointing out, that the rent may be lower, but with good reason, not because it is subsidised

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:50

PeonyPatch · 26/11/2025 20:17

that is because benefits and council housing are for people who NEED it.

Why should tax payers be paying for luxury homes for people when they themselves are propping up the country? I’ve no issue supporting my local community but when we are scrimping and saving and drowning in bills and wages that are stagnant, why do others get to exploit the system? Too many takers in this country.

Think you’ve misunderstood my question, you haven’t explained how it is subsidised

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:48

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:25

Council houses are not subsidised by the tax payer. So op should stay put.

Council houses are owned by local government which is partly tax payer funded.

Social housing is owned by non-profit organisations which are part funded by government grants (and therefore tax payer funded).

It is a complete myth to say they are not supported by tax payers.

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 26/11/2025 20:43

Buy the council house?

Alpacajigsaw · 26/11/2025 20:38

Also, if OP bought a house and had to work full time when she had a baby, she’d be getting taxpayer subsidised childcare. So how come that is ok but not living in a council house?

u3ername · 26/11/2025 20:38

Poms · 26/11/2025 17:32

Rage bait bullshit

I don’t think it is. I know at least three families who are not worse off than us but somehow secured a council house and live cheaply. They often work part time to keep savings under a certain threshold etc too.
I think it’s area dependent and a bit of a lottery as to whether you qualify, although of course, I have no idea what they’ve put on the papers (single parent, disabilities, etc) to qualify.

Cosyblankets · 26/11/2025 20:34

titchy · 26/11/2025 17:35

How is the tax payer subsiding? Councils charge market rent which they are paying and they’re not claiming benefits. Confused

Market rent? Did you read what she's paying for a 3 bed? You find one for that price.

I live in the north West. A 3 bed in am average to rough area is about 800 to 900

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:29

AutumnLeavesandKnittedJumpers · 26/11/2025 17:34

No doubt below market rent.

they expect the taxpayer to subsidise their savings.

Did you run out of twatty things to say on the budget thread?
First pensioners. Now council tenants who's next on on your shit list?