To keep our council property when we can technically buy?

Something being cheaper than what a private landlord charges does not make it subsidised FFS! It just means that they are not having to service mortgages on the properties AND trying to make a profit on top as the BTL lot do. They are charging what they can charge and still keep the properties maintained etc. They are non profit making, so as a result can afford to charge lower rent.

That people pay more in the private rental market is not the fault of the OP and you and other tax payers are not paying a penny towards her rent!

I can’t believe OP even had the audacity to ask this question. Social housing ought to be for those who truly need it. It shouldn’t be inherited either. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who don’t have £16k in the bank who could do with somewhere to live. Meanwhile, the rest of us working population have to pay proper rent and mortgage. You pay subsidised rent, it’s not the same.

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

I have considered this. The way I see it though is that the reduced rent is what allows many people to otherwise support themselves and stay off needing further benefits. There’s loads of people in council housing who can technically afford to buy or private rent but if you kick them out of the council housing they will end up needing support in other ways in the future as they could only afford mortgage/private rent by the skin of their teeth. If we were to buy now we’d end up with no savings or safety buffer, all it would take is for DP to have an accident at work and become disabled for us to be thrown back under the poverty line and needing UC, or would only take the car or boiler breaking down for us to end up needing a £5000 loan which would then spiral.

we have no intention of ever claiming housing benefit.

So do people who privately rent?

Council Housing was never intended to be just for poor people on benefits. The idea was to provide good quality housing stock for the population.

It's actually really important that there are a mix of income levels and societal groups in council/social housing.

The OP is a very long post so I'll summarise. Despite being able to afford to be independent of the state, you would like to live in a tax payer supported house that you don't need so that you can give up work whilst blocking the use of the property for someone who actually needs it.

Yes, thats unreasonable and immoral. You know that otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Do the right thing.

(And if you won't do it for someone who needs it, do it for yourself. There is nothing that is economically sensible about renting instead of buying).

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.

So do people who privately rent?

Council Housing was never intended to be just for poor people on benefits. The idea was to provide good quality housing stock for the population.

It's actually really important that there are a mix of income levels and societal groups in council/social housing.

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.

But they get free kitchens and stuff!

Wow 160k is nothing, I wish I could get a 3 bed house for that.

The OP is a very long post so I'll summarise. Despite being able to afford to be independent of the state, you would like to live in a tax payer supported house that you don't need so that you can give up work whilst blocking the use of the property for someone who actually needs it.

Yes, thats unreasonable and immoral. You know that otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Do the right thing.

(And if you won't do it for someone who needs it, do it for yourself. There is nothing that is economically sensible about renting instead of buying).