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?

'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. '

The real question is why so many in the private-rented sector accept the complete crap that is short-assured tenancies.

because we don't have any choice.

duh

i dont think it is

so you can only be "dirt poor" for social housing

great,pigeon hole the worst of

whats the point of someboy working hard etc for them to lose it based on income

and actually I'd be very happy if private tenants were given stronger rights, as I believe is the case in Germany and other countries, more freedom, but at the moment clearly the imbalance is not only grossly unfair, but socially damaging.

I think the OP has stated that they are doing well in part due to the low housing cost.

They are considering a 4th or 5th child ffs! Forgive me if I'm being daft, but I'm confused.

JoanByers said it more eloquently.

"whats the point of someboy working hard etc for them to lose it based on income"

Because at the moment social housing is rationed to the most desperate cases, there is a severe shortage in my area, so it is clearly unreasonable that people with no special circumstances can be occupying houses for ten, twenty years when there are people in need on the waiting list.

I believe the point of working hard is to make a living to pay for your everyday requirements - as I understand it now, the jobcentre etc. are very strict on work shirkers, it's not that easy to say 'I won't work', because they won't pay you any JSA if you are not genuinely available for work.

But if you make it clear that rentals are for one year, as they are in private, then that's clear upfront and people are prepared to move on.

'The uninhabitable Highlands of Scotland'

I live in the Highlands, we have houses here, and electricity and cars and all sorts JoanByers.

I was being only slightly facetious.

and we wouldn't have to move again when we have more children (planning another 1 or 2 in next 5 years perhaps).

Why are you planning on having one or two more children? Why are you entitled to council housing in the first place.

It would actually be much better if we had a massive social housing building scheme that resulted in the majority of renters living in HA housing. All four of my grandparents lived in council housing post war and up to the 80s. They all of worked all their lives up to retirement (including one as a nurse and one as an engineer). as did most of the other tenants . Until the advent of Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme (and subsequent demonisation of anyone on benefits which somehow became extended to include anyone living in council housing), this was normal and held no shame. I think we should return to it, because typical rents in the UK are far and above typical incomes.

@dahlen but we don't. So this ndividuals good fortune needs to be questioned.

Why shouldn't she have more children?
Or have a council house? According to this the working poor aren't entitled and as on many other threads, nor are those on benefits or immigrants.
So maybe we should just get rid of all social housing, put it all into the hands of property developers and BTL landlords, eh?
Would that make all the bitter private renters feel better then, at least we'd all be in it together.

Go for it OP. I would.

Ignore all the faces. I mean why should a poor person have something they haven't got.

She's already explained - she was allocated a house when she needed one, and has remained there since. It's all well and good saying she should give it up now her need is so great, but you can hardly blame someone for hanging on to a property that allows her family a better quality of life due to its affordability when she has every legal right to do just that. The problem is property speculation that has inflated the value of houses beyond their true worth, not people like the OP.

I also think forcing people to move out or downsize fails to take communities into account. Communities with a high turnover have significantly increased crime and decreasing social cohesion. Children suffer from disrupted schooling. The elderly lose their support network.

What's needed is more housing, not more moralising and judgement. And a massive housing scheme could do wonders to create employment and boost the economy, and could even be done in partnership with the private sector as the Conservatives desire.

Thaks usualsuspect. Expat too. We are not "poor" but we are working class. DP and I both work for the NHS and both work long hard shift hours for not a hge salary, I am only P/T. I know lots of people work hard, I'm not implying we work harder, we are just fortunate to be in social housing with low rent. We could afford a private rented 2 bed, maybe a 3 bed in a less nice area but would mean all changing schools. Quite frankly though, why would we change to private rental and give up our secured tenancy when the council do not expect us to and we are not obligated to? I'm actually surprised people have said that (quite a few too). I was expecting a debate about the rights and wrongs (morally) of taking a house with a bedroom more than we need, not a debate as to whether we are poor enough to keep our social housing tenancy.

To the poster that said social housing encourages children to not work. Why? Our children will grow up seeing mum and dad working hard and making ends meet, and hopefully will work hard when they are older too. Our children are not aware that we are in social housing or that we have cheaper than average rent.

I know you are not poor, but you know what I mean.

The envy and bitterness towards social housing tenants on MN makes me sick TBH.

Half of the moaners wouldn't live in a council house if you paid them.

OP, I think a lot of the concern is that many people on this thread may also be NHS workers who work long, hard, shifts and are struggling to afford housing/having children as they don't have access to Housign Associaiton housing.

Just because your council thinks it is right that you should be supported to this degree doesn't mean there isn't a question mark about the morality of the fact that you have essentially won a lottery at the exclusion of other who may have higher needs than yours.

Yes.Put your family first.

"The envy and bitterness towards social housing tenants on MN makes me sick TBH."

But why can't people who are completely having to rejig their life plans due to the cost of housing point out that they are subsiding a deeply, deeply unfair system that some (yes like the OP) are benefiting massivly from?

Won the lottery? don't make me laugh. OP has an affordable house, not a bloody mansion.

an affordable house would mean I wouldn't have to win the lottery. Why are you so appalled