To take a bigger council house than we need?

[isthisunreasonable]

Have namechanged for this as it's pretty obvious who I am if you know me...

We currently have a two bedroom house (3 children) and we can fir just about but it's a squeeze. We are "entitled" (cringe) to a 3 bed house but it's likely to be 4-5 yrs by the time we would be offered one so placed our details on the Housing Association's "mutual exchange" site. We have also said we are happy to take a 2 bedroom house with separate dining room to use as the 3rd bedroom.

Have been contact by someone via our housing association's "mutual exchange" list. They have a large 4 bed house with a dining room and massive garden and they want to downsize (older couple all kids left home) and would like our house.

Given that is is bigger than we actually need . Part of me thinks it should go to a family with 5/6 kids but part of me thinks this couple are looking for a mutual exchange to downsize to a 2 bed house, what's the chance of them fining such a large family in a 2 bed house that they want.

It would be fabulous for us of course, lots of space for everyone, kids could have their own bedrooms and a nice big garden to play and we wouldn't have to move again when we have more children (planning another 1 or 2 in next 5 years perhaps).

Would we be unreasonable to accept it?

Could you take it and then go on the list again for a 3 bedroom which you could then swap into if a bigger family wanted to swap out? Like a stepping stone, but getting the other couple what they want and you more space on the way?

Because it's highly bloody unfair. If they can afford a huge family then they can afford to move on and let a genuinely hard up family take on the accommodation.

creighton what makes you any more an expert on social housing than expat?

but higgs it doesn't work that way.

op is allowed to have more kids.

We were a "genuinely hard up" I still think how things work in the social sector are fine. Its the private side of things that needs fixing!

Life isn't fair. I'm sure you have had good fortune in others ways haven't you?

I love it when people tell you to get a grip and reel it in just because someone doesn't agree with them :o. It gives them so much credibility.

I live in a HA home. Have lived in others, too, and a council one.

'as i said before the council should be approaching people to entice them out of bigger homes into appropriate sized homes so that the local authority can allocate the larger homes to those that need them. they then keep a control on their housing stock. they should also veto the move then approach the older couple directly to give them what they want.

the bad planning is poor rehousing/exchange policy, they should not allow people to swap and get extra bedrooms.'

Some HAs are, and some councils are. Others, depending on their resources or stock, simply tell tenants to try to find a swap. That's what ours does (no council housing anymore, only HA).

Many HAs have limited stock, too, so may not be able to offer a 3-bed to the OP, but it's better to have the couple in the two-bed (their entitlement is actually only a one-bed) and the family in the house, so they approve swaps like this, because they don't have a one-bed for the couple or a 3-bed for the family - this is what they've got.

But hey, keep it coming with the personal insults, as I said, they always lend so much credence to a person's posts.

Higsbosom - Do you mean us "move on"? We are currently in a small 2 bed house with 3 kids, one of whom is a teenager, we don't actually have this 4 bed house yet remember and we can't seem to find a mutual exchange with a 3 bed house either.

If we have to stay here then so be it, we certainly wouldn't have any more children. if we had a bigger house then we would love to have 1 or 2 more and we could, if we had the larger house, I'm not saying we "need" a bigger house so we can have more.

Oh and yes, if we have the larger house we can afford another child as we both work and we have very low social housing rent to pay. We are very fortunate as I have said many times and we are very lucky to have a social housing tenancy. We do see that, especially from what others have said on this thread, we are in the minority in that we work and have social housing.

ladybeagle i have worked in social housing for almost 20 years

kormachameleon, if you pay for your house you can have 3 people in 10 bedrooms if you like. people who approach the local authority to provide them with housing need to accept that the pressure for housing is such that children need to share rooms. if your children are too good to share buy your own house. it is only recently that children developed a 'need' for their own rooms. until recently 3 or 4 children in a room was tolerable.

as i said, the local authority is supposed to work for the benefit of as many residents as possible, not to indulge a lucky few.

how hard is that to understand?

Yikes! This isn't going to read very well to those paying private rents and mortgages with both adults working who are having to stop at ONE child for financial reasons :(

expat, i did not insult you, i gave you an instruction. there is a difference

You could do a 3 way exchange.

There are more people with a 3 bed looking for a 4 than there are 3 beds looking for 2.

The 4 bed couple would move to yours, you would move to a 3 bed and the 3 bed would move to the 4. You may even find you can get a 3 bed in a better condition than the the 4 as there will be more choice.

I have been watchinn the exchange websites etc for a couple of years while trying to find myself a swap.

I understand that higgs but that is nothing to do with op she is dealing with the cards she has.

You must have had good fortune in other areas of your life?

Not really Feminine, but I deal with it.

Many OPs, not just this one, need to be mindful of the times we are in and exercise some flippin' tact.

...but then I guess MN would be less entertaining :)

op go for it its a once in a lifetime opportunity by the sounds

it dosent matter what mner's think

this will run for a day or two then all forgotten

we all do what we think is right for our families,and this is right for yours

seriously maybe the sytem is strange but i dont know of anybody that would
turn it down on principle if it was them

good luck

You are being ridiculous Higgs! I can't mention getting a council house because of the times we are in and because it is tactless! The title says it all so if you are particularly offended by the subject you could have chosen not to read it.

It's like people finding it hard to conceive complaining about the tactlessness of those woman daring to be happy about their pregnancy! Or those who can't afford a holiday complaining about someone happy to have booked a week camping in Devon for not "exercising some flippin' tact"

I'm probably being oversensitive. It was the 4 or 5 kids bit that did it for me.

another way

when im lurking in the reduced isle and see a bargain just because i could afford to pay full price should i leave it for somebody less well of

NO i dont,and very very few would also

mad example i know

I have tried (not for myself) to get social housing.

It essentially is a lottery, there's a low chance of winning, but you hit the jackpot when you do.

I think it has a lot of negative effects, one guy when I was there said his daughter (single mother, natch) had been waiting for a house for a number of years; apparently she wasn't priority because she was living with him.

Basically you get in a shitty situation, they give you a house, which is all right and proper in caring society, but then you are set for the rest of your life, no matter how your circumstances change. And then your children in turn see that you are paying £400 PCM for a house instead of £1000, and think 'hmm, does work really pay?'. The answer, unless you are a banker or a barrister or something is 'No, not really'. So they put their name down for a house too. And they are told when doing so 'Sorry you are not in the highest priority group, you have to be a homeless single mother for that'.

So basically the state rewards destructive behaviour that fucks up successive generations with 'free' houses (they aren't free, but with Right to Buy meaning a large windfall (not sure how true this is anymore), below market rate rents, secure tenure pretty much for life, a maintenance/refurbishment programme, and Housing Benefit covering the rent in most cases initially, even if not, as in the OP's case, years later, when they would no longer qualify for social housing but are still bed blocking).

Anyone who thinks council housing isn't heavily subsidised is utterly deluded. Clearly if it wasn't, there would be no demand for it, but in fact it's rationed and restricted in most areas to only the most desperate cases. Hell, we've just opened the borders to 19 million Romanians, many of whom will make their way to the UK and will need housing; a Romanian shop has just opened directly opposite one of the local Polish shops, so clearly it's happening.

Excluding the uninhabitable highlands of Scotland and such places the country is grossly overpopulated and housing naturally extremely expensive.

I pay £1550 PCM for a 4-bed rented house, which is very cheap for private, and I can't keep a pet (we'd love a dog), we could get turfed out at any time - only plan in 12 month cycles, and to buy a family house around here costs £500k+.

I've never contemplated social housing, frankly, because I'm middle class and I like to live in a middle class area. Crime and disorder is associated with social housing - we have friends who live in a council house, very nice in a village in Bucks, backing onto fields, except that the council moved a family of Pakistani drug dealers in next door, who smashed their car when they complained about them parking on their drive. Because of this association, and the fact that the country's worst schools serve areas of social housing, it's much easier to fit in in certain areas of social housing if you are an antisocial scumbag, than a middle class parent who tries to raise 'respectable' children.

The effect of this is that social housing is further ghettoized in many areas, with some people desperate to avoid the problems and pay the £££ extra for private housing, others who have no choice/money getting drawn into the antisocial web of disorder, and a third group, who just don't give a shit, forming a hardcore of social housing cases - the government is obliged to clothe, feed, and provide them with shelter, no matter how poor their behaviour. Again, the state rewards and reinforces destructive behaviour and creates an apartheid between social and private housing.

Silly analogy there - HA properties should go to those in NEED. Once people have reached a certain level of income they should be encouraged to move on.

Realise that's not under the OP's control.

'expat, i did not insult you, i gave you an instruction. there is a difference '

Oh, yessir! Issuing dictats to people on net forums, right up there with personal insults for giving your credibility in a discussion.

You're not my boss, creighton, and given your previous post and that you state you work in social housing, I'm very grateful for that.

It's entirely possible their HA does not have either the one-bed flat the elderly couple is entitled to (no one is slating them for taking a bedroom more than they need ) or a 3-bed the OP is entitled to.

She may not be able to move to another HA or council due to work commitments, we wouldn't want these two to become dole scroungers on top of the entitled scroungers they are already now, would we?

And btw, don't be ridiculous about the OP - if she can get a 4 bed house for a tuppence-hapenny a week, then good for her, she'd be bonkers not to grab it with both hands.

Any anger should be directed at the government.

Why is it that I can be turfed out at the end of each twelve month period from my private rented house, but social tenants cannot? Eligibility should be reviewed annually, and people evicted if they no longer confirm, the houses are being rented out well below market rate and they should only go to those with a continued need.

'Silly analogy there - HA properties should go to those in NEED. Once people have reached a certain level of income they should be encouraged to move on.'

And, as this OP has stated that, despite working and her husband working, they are low-income, it is entirely possible their family, too, is in need.

conform, not confirm