To keep our council property when we can technically buy?

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.

Who pays for them to be built in the first place?

60 isn't even old these days. A lot of 60 year olds are at the height of their careers, earning plenty and living full active lives.

My mum is about to turn 70 and I don't even consider her "old" yet.

I have nothing to say about the council house but re accident at work: I would urge your partner to get a life insurance/critical illness policy if you can afford it. This means that his income is covered for a period of time in the event of him being unable to work due to injury or illness.

I would also suggest getting married or having a civil partnership- doesn’t mean you have to have a wedding, but does mean you and any future children would be better protected in the event of separation or your partner dying.

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

I’ve honestly done the wrong thing in life saving up and getting on to the property ladder. I should’ve had kids at 18 and got a council property……

So you only pay £5,760 a year in rent but you earn £61k a year between you… I don’t see why you don’t have a lot more than 16k saved tbh. What are you spending the extra 47,000 after tax on?

People who earn too much, or are under-occupied should be kicked out ASAP.
That just disincentivises people, so they choose to live on benefits longer or work fewer hours so they don't fall foul of an eviction order!
Councils do need to get tougher on under occupation though. They won't touch the homes of people over sixty, which is extremely unfair to young families on the waiting list.

So your joint income is currently £61k? I can’t believe you’re considering staying and stopping someone else far worse off than you getting the property. That’s the issue. Yes, technically you’re allowed to, but IMO morally it’s wrong. It’s not even like you’re borderline struggling. Council houses are for people in need. Move on and let someone worse off than you have it, eg a single parent stuck in emergency accommodation.

And why do you need a 3 bed house? Get on the property ladder with a 2 bed and you’ll be fine.

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.

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.

I think it’s more that they can afford not to live where they do but he is quite money savvy and doesn’t see any reason to leave just for appearances.

I don't necessarily think they should be temporary.

I just think they should be there for people that need them. If you need one your whole life then fine.
But the second you don't you should be given your notice.

You wouldn't be allowed to stay on benefits and earn £85k, so why was my MIL allowed to rent a home from a council at £50% below market rate when she didn't need it, and struggling families that could have had her huge house were left paying twice what she did for 1 or 2 bed flats?

Why do people think council house rent is subsidised? Is it because it’s lower than private rental? If so, it SHOULD be lower.

As an example, my cousin moved recently into a council house, and my sister into a private rental, about £200 per month difference in rent. The council house was a total shell, no appliances, no carpets or flooring, filthy bare walls, radiators with pain peeling off, garden a disgusting mess…. The private rental is lovely, fully carpeted, walls freshly painted in neutral colours (and will be refreshed every 3 years), some kitchen appliances built in, garden neat and tidy and easily maintained. Over a 3 year period, it will cost my cousin a lot more in her council house with everything taken into account

I agree. I think councils ought to be vetting their tenants a bit more frequently and throughly. You are taking away a property for those in need.

This!

We need a system that reviews the need for a council house on an annual basis. They should be a temporary solution to bail people out when they need it not a life choice.

Literally anyone could have an accident on benefits. If we housed everyone who 'might' have an accident the entire working population would be in council housing. And yes, there are many people who could buy but instead choose to sponge off the tax payers. Do you want sink to their level? You're making excuses. Just do the right thing.

Oh how embarrassing for her, being assumed to rent when she owns 🙄

Does she think she's better than renters because her husband got sold a cheap house?

Your incomes aren't huge compared to your savings and rent.
If you could afford to pay for a deposit + have some savings (5-10k), + keep your mortgage to about the same as your current rent, then it would be unreasonable to stay but right now I don't think you're really in a position to buy.

You might be technically able to, but it doesn't mean it's the reasonable and responsible thing to do.

I don't blame you for staying but you absolutely shouldn't be allowed to.

Council houses should be for people that need one. There's a housing crisis and families in temporary bedsits (have you ever been in one of those places? the ones near us are full of drug users and they leave their needles in the communal toilets, imagine having to check for needles every time your child needs a wee).

People who earn too much, or are under-occupied should be kicked out ASAP.

My MIL was earning £85k a year and lived alone in a beautiful three bed council home with a large garden and conservatory she got when her kids were small which she paid about a quarter of what we paid privately for our poking two-bed flat. It makes me sick, frankly.

But as I said, can't really blame you (it's selfish, but people often do selfish things for their families), but I do blame the rules. I think the choice should be taken off you.

He didn’t inherit it’s called succession of tenancy. And yes. Of course you should move out

She does need it. They cant afford to buy on the figures she has quoted and would (again based on those figures and the fact that for a similar sized house in rent it would probably cost more than a mortgage) struggle to privately rent. They would lose the secure home that they pay full rent for, thus increasing money going into the pot for the LA to plough into more homes. Housing Benefit is taking money from one pot and putting into another, nothing more is going in.

Working tenants like @HungaryForLove and her DP who pay full rent are actually subsidising everyone else!

It’s up to you guys, I think you’d be sensible to stay and save if you can. I know a couple in a similar position, the house was his mother’s which he bought from the council v cheaply and whereas he knows he is onto a good thing and is keen to stay, she hates raising their dc on a council estate and people assuming they rent when they’ve bought and is desperate to get out of there.

Do you not realise how many people in desperate situations are on years long waiting lists for council housing? And to make things worse there are two of you in a bloody 3 bed.

😡