Where to put all these kids?! Wwyd?

[MissMooley]

Wasn't sure where to post this to get the most advice.
Basically I'm in a 3 bed house. Me, dds 14 & 19, and ds 11&8.
Currently, dd 14 & 19 have their own rooms, and the boys share. I have a bed in the living room.
It's worked for us nicely, but now I'm due twins in 10 weeks 😂🙈
I have no idea where they're going lol
My options so far are:

1- Scrap having a living room and just make it a full bedroom for me and the twins.

2- make the living room a full bedroom, and move the sofa etc into the outshed, but not sure how that will go in winter, it gets pretty cold and I don't have the money to fully convert it (also a council house, so would need permission I assume?)

That's it. I don't like the idea of having no living room but there's literally no space to have the cots and all the baby stuff in there with my bed and the sofa etc too.

I've considered the girls sharing, but eldest has asd and several mh disorders so can't see that working for her.

Just feel a bit stuck and hoping someone has a magic solution I haven't thought of!

@FlyingWormsAndSubterraneanBirds

It's not subsidised. My rent is still over a third of my income, I work full time and pay it myself. No one is paying it for me, it's just affordable in comparison to private renting where people can pretty much ask what they want.

If it’s not subsidised then how is it so much cheaper than private rental / mortgage / below market rate? Ffs come on now, let’s try and apply some critical thinking!

It is not subsidised. No one is “paying the difference.” The rent is simply set at an affordable level. The properties are owned by housing associations or the council, and they charge a reasonable rent. They’re not out looking to make big profits.

Privately owned rentals can charge what they like, usually 2 or 3 times what the council charge, because they want to make profit from it as well as run the property.

I do wish people would stop saying SH is subsidised. Also the OP would put her children in a much less stable position by moving into a private let. So all the arguments about the impact on her children don't stack up if you think moving out of secure housing is a solution.

@berksandbeyond the council do not have to make a profit off the rent like a private landlord. The rent is set at an affordable level. It is not subsidised. Private rents are inflated in order to drive profit.

The council or housing associations own the properties and are not out to make huge profits. They provide affordable housing by charging what they need to in order to cover maintenance and salaries of those involved etc. They are not trying to cover mortgage repayments plus maintenance plus profit and they don’t take advantage of good area/bad area price gouging.

The council and housing associations are not losing any money. They aren’t subsiding the rents. They’re just not charging “market rate” because market rates are inflated by private landlords with more costs to cover, fewer properties to spread the costs between, interest and mortgages to repay and profits.

The rent isn't much cheaper however they can be asked to move, have repairs and maintenance done and no deposits.

It is not subsidised. No one is “paying the difference.” The rent is simply set at an affordable level.

That is subsidy though. A public asset being utilised at less than market rate means that person is getting a huge discount on the use of the public capital tied up to provide the asset, compared to the market rate of return on that capital (which is low anyway for property given many private landlords are selling up). I don't understand how anybody could argue that's anything but a subsidy, by definition. But obviously very off topic from the thread so best not to discuss here.

"If a tenant of either a local authority or a housing association receives
Housing Benefit or Universal Credit towards their rent, then effectively
their rent is subsidised by public funds.
If the tenant pays their own rent in full, as a tenant of a local
authority, they are paying the full rent charged by the local authority
for the occupation of the dwelling. Social housing rents are well below
market rents, but are not subsidised rents. The Housing Revenue Account
(HRA), which is where all of the properties are accounted for if they are
owned by a local authority, is what is known as 'ring fenced', which means
all of the costs of providing the social housing need to be met from the
rental income received from them. The housing fund cannot be subsidised
from other areas of Council activity i.e.; Council Tax, planning fees,
parking income etc. Under the same rules, the HRA cannot use its funds to
subsidise the rest of the Council's services."

They are not trying to cover mortgage repayments plus maintenance plus profit and they don’t take advantage of good area/bad area price gouging.

This is a mad comment. The capital to build the houses and cost to maintain them is invested in them regardless of whether it is borrowed privately through a mortgage or publicly by Councils. The amount required to buy the land to build it on will vary by area and be higher or lower based on area regardless of who is buying it. That is not "price gouging", that is economics. I don't get the argument. Do you think it costs a private landlord the same to buy a house in Newcastle as it costs them to buy a similar house in London, and they just charge more for the London one to make more profit and rip people off? Anyway massive sidetrack but I can't see how anybody could argue public assets being provided at below value is not subsidy.

It is not below value.

The rent paid on these properties fully covers the costs. Social housing is not there to provide a nice profit earning for the council.

It is there to ensure affordable housing, but the rents must and do cover the costs of providing the housing. They don’t need to charge anymore as we don’t need to earn profit from these.

Market rates have absolutely nothing to do with it. These “assets” are not there for profit. The public doesn’t lose anything. Thank god money grabbers like you aren’t in charge of it.

Social housing rents are well below market rents, but are not subsidised rents.

Ah I see. They are trying to circumvent through a technicality and say it isn't a subsidy because there is no actual cash transfer for the discount between the parties.

Try that kind of offsetting in accounting to deny you've provided a financial benefit and look forward to getting hauled up in court!

That's a ridiculous manipulation of semantics. I was really confused when people were saying it wasn't subsidised because then it couldn't possibly be cheaper than private rent! The fact actual money isn't transferred as a grant to offset a full payment of market rate from tenant to owner and discounted net payment is made instead doesn't change the financial situation at all. That quote is just word salad to try to deny reality. How pointless.

Personally I think it's good that social housing exists and that it is subsidised so I don't understand the motivation for the attempt to pretend it isn't.

The rent paid on these properties fully covers the costs.

Cost and value are not the same!!

Market rates have absolutely nothing to do with it. These “assets” are not there for profit. The public doesn’t lose anything.

Of course they do. Public capital is tied up in the asset that could earn a higher return elsewhere, so by definition it is costing the public money to own it and rent it out at less than market rate, it's opportunity cost.

As I said I think it's a worthwhile use of public funds but to pretend it's not a subsidy is ludicrous.

@FlyingWormsAndSubterraneanBirds

There many many sources out there that state that council housing is not subsidised. Its not a manipulation, Rent covers the cost of the housing maintenance repairs and management. Private rents are inflated for many reasons, but that doesnt make social housing subsidised.

By saying it is subsidised, is an insult to people who do pay full rent, and work hard for their money. I work as a nurse, i cant afford private renting in my area anymore, and would require government assistance if i was made to go down the route.

Rather than social housing being looked down upon as being the norm, maybe, housing should be affordable to all and private renting should be capped?

So the council uses taxes to buy X house.

X house market value is £1200 a month.
however council rents it out for £700 a month instead - that’s enough to cover their cost but not make any profit.

So that’s subsidised to the tune of £500 a month. If it was rented out at market value in a commercial arrangement it would make £500 a month profit. That money could then be used to buy more properties, so more people could benefit from the secure tenancy etc.

but tell me again how it’s not subsidised? Whatever helps you sleep at night. Forever seeing ‘I pay full rent’ - well you don’t do you? Because if you were paying full rental value you’d be happy to rent privately, but funnily enough no one ever is.

@FlyingWormsAndSubterraneanBirds
Council / social housing isn't subsidised just nobody is making a crazy profit from it.
Its called affordable for a reason.

Her eldest 'child' is really an adult so possibly out working or studying.

She is receiving money from the 3 Dads. None of us know the detail of Ops circumstances but she does say she is in work. And nobody plans twins.

X house market value is £1200 a month.

Because if you were paying full rental value you’d be happy to rent privately, but funnily enough no one ever is.

When i earn £1800 a month full time with 3 children to support, you're damn right im not happy to pay £1200 a month in rent. Thats not affordable. The problem here isnt the cost of social housing, its the inflated costs of private renting.

Surely some people do get subsidised council/social rent, though?

Members of our extended family had arrears a few years back (we found out through somebody else in the family who'd been called on to help and moaned about it to us) and it turned out that the rent that they should have been paying (but hadn't) was £16 a week - and for a bigger than average family house (more kids than average) too.

That's not just 'realistic value but not boosted by private landlord premium' - that's fractionally more than you pay the council to rent a concrete garage that won't even fit a modern car in it.

That would be someone claiming benefits and having to top up service charges themselves, not someone paying rent from working and not claiming anything. 2 very different situations. No one paying rent without government support is paying £16 a week in rent. Not even close.

By saying it is subsidised, is an insult to people who do pay full rent, and work hard for their money

If it's rented below market rate then it is subsidised, because the public body renting it out is forgoing the difference between the reduced amount paid and its actual monthly rental value, and giving this as a discount to the tenant. If it didn't, that money could be used for other services. It is by definition discounted. I don't know what you mean by "full rent"? If it's discounted, it isn't the full rent, it's a discounted amount and there is an opportunity cost to that.

Like I said I think social housing is a good thing but I'm confused why people would want to claim it's not subsidised/ discounted when surely that's the whole point of it?

Because it's not discounted. It's set at an affordable rate to ensure all costings are covered. I have rent increases yearly. Private rents are inflated. Social rent isn't. That's not a subsidy. Subsidy implies some other government departed is “topping up” what I pay to market rates or being offset with other money. That isn't happening. It's a “fair rent” that is protected and a secured tenancy, private rented is not protected nor is it secure.

How could it be used for other services?
Do you understand social housing at all?

It is purely functional. It is to provide affordable housing. They cannot use money made from housing on other services. If they started wanting profit to pay for other services then it is no longer social housing.

Private rents are inflated due to all sorts of factors which do not affect social housing. Increasing interest on BTL mortgages for a start.

it is private rent which is at the wrong price point, which many other countries don’t actually allow to get out of hand like we do. Social housing is set at the correct level, as it should be, and covers the costs it needs to cover. The public loses nothing. It is status quo situation; not a profit making enterprise.

It's not subsidised it's just not lining someone else's pocket.

It's like getting something from a club or not for profit organisation.

The issue in the private sector rents is everyone taking their profit
The Tennant pays rent often via an estate agent. - they want their profit
The landlord needs to pay his mortgage, the mortgage isn't cheap and interest is effectively the banks profit
The landlord wants his profit

Social housing is cutting out everyone getting their profit.