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?

If they are market rents, then why is the OP paying half what she would for a private rent in the same area

Because she is currently in a council house and they do have lower rents.

The house that backs on to me has three bedrooms, two living rooms, two bathrooms and a huge garden. It is council. In band A for council tax and rent of under £60 a week and right to buy (even though the rent is paid via housing benefit)

I have a small garden, a single living room, two bedrooms and one bathroom. Council tax band B. I pay £100 a week. I have no right to buy.

pariah henry, there is no point in comparing prices in another part of the country. compare the prices in your local area. if it is cheaper to live in another area, why not move there rather than complain?

rents are being equalised between council and housing association properties.

there are different rental schemes where some people who are earning are expected to pay a rent closer to the local private market. it is not fair that a family that earns £60k+ should only pay the lowest rent for their home i.e. £120 rather than £200 a week. the lowest rents are reserved for the poorest residents. with a housing association tenancy you normally get some security of tenure whereas in the private market you can be given notice a few months into a contract.

you all need to check the policies and schemes in your local area.

Still disgusted with many of you.

With regard to the Apartheid remark. Using a word in a different context does not take away its value.
Continuing the argument when it isn't relevant to the current argument is pointless.

As an aside, I think the discounts vary greatly between different LAs. My other neighbour was inquiring about buying her property, at a discount. The discount was only 10%, and the council told her they valued her house at 500.000, which is much more than similar ex council houses sell for in this area, even with the discount applied. We are talking about a small mid terraced 3 bed cottage. (well 2 bed, 1 box room) Judging by this, the council around here is not that keen to sell now, although most houses around us are on private hands now.

The previous owners of our house bought it for £14000 from the council less than 20 years ago. It is shocking how one house can be sold for 14000, and 20 years later a neighbouring house demands 450,000 with the discount. I cant get my head around such a massive increase over 20 years. It is not natural.

Oh, and as for buying to leave to the children etc. That was the argument that Thatcher used. So, so many had their houses repossessed during the 90s recession. Yet they still had to be sold on instead of being returned to the council. And of course, there are those now who are paying for care.

it is not fair that a family that earns £60k+ should only pay the lowest rent for their home i.e. £120 rather than £200 a week. the lowest rents are reserved for the poorest residents. CREIGHTON

Do you not think charging people more rent as they earn more will encourage some people to just work part time and be financially better off as their rent will be less? It's the same issue with re assessing people's need for social housing once they already have the tenancy, some people would deliberately not work in order to keep the tenancy - that is what would breed generations of work shy children, not being raised in social housing with working parents (as another poster said).

Our household income is less than 60k by the way, although I'm not sure if you thought that's what I had said or were just using an example.

My partner and I have discussed this, and we have agreed that we are going to accept the house if the other couple view this morning and definitely like ours. For the people directly involved (ie my family and the old couple) it will mean a life changing improvement to our living situations and massive positives for us all. We get the space we need/want and they get their adapted house near their family. Our initial "guilt/moral questioning ourselves" has changed as we have no discovered that the older couple will not be required to vacate their property or pay "bedroom tax" for empty rooms as they are exempt due to their age. We also know that they have been listed for an exchange for 2 years but ours is the first home they have liked. So it is very likely if we do not exchange with them that they will stay in a 4 bed house for many years using only the downstairs and it's not that we are taking a property from a more deserving family.

Whilst I appreciate that the system seemed flawed, the HA / council make the rules and we are doing nothing to break those rules by accepting this exchange, so we have decided to go ahead and are really looking forward to it.

isthis I hope you and your family really enjoy your new home, despite some of the bitterness and spite on here.

I truly don't understand the casual nastiness and bitterness on this thread-some directed at OP who only wants what,I assume ,all of you want-a pleasant and appropriate place for her family to live. She is fortunate in being able to move to such a place.
Apartheid-however you try to dress it up was an evil system directed against black people. When it broke down in Zimbabwe ( formerly Rhodesia) white people were caught in the backlash which was often brutal and violent-reprisals for generations of oppression. It has nothing to do with this thread at all.
When I was 6 in 1950 we moved into a council house which was considered a step up. My parents stayed there until they moved into sheltered housing.
I have been lucky to own my own home all my married life but I could not begrudge or criticise those like OP who can't. They should take the best they are offered as would every one of you.

as i said each person needs to find out what the rehousing policy is in their own area.

i still maintain that the greed shown by some on this thread is appallling.

apartheid had nothing to do with this thread but i answered a point that was made in ignorance. zimbabwe is a different country from south africa so i don't know why this country has been mentioned.

i will say however, that white people moved to south africa and zimbabwe/rhodesia to get an easy life at the expense of the africans who they wished to use as cheap labour so for white people to complain that they experienced a backlash when the system changed, tough luck! you were happy to passively/actively hand shit to the blacks when it suited you, you got some shit back.

it's amazing how southern african whites are victims now. as dizzy whatsit said educate yourself.

I don't see people being nasty and bitter, I see people questioning a skewed system.

A couple I know were in a similar situation, years ago the mother needed a council property for her 3 children and was given a 3 bedroomed home, in a very desirable location. Despite meeting her now DH 15 years ago, all children bar the 28 year old daughter living at home and all three of them now working bringing in approximately £60k per annum, they are allowed to stay there paying less than market rent - if someone can justify the fairness in this situation please go ahead.

The assumption that everyone who "owns" their own home is going to end up with a nice little nest egg and "at least they have something at the end of it" is also simply not true. Hundreds and thousands of people are on interest only mortgages with no idea of how they are going to pay the actual debt at the end of it. Hundreds of people in this country are being re-possessed as their situations have changed in the recession and they can't afford to pay their mortgages, let alone the luxury of more children, hundreds of people are in negative equity, hundreds of people are in situations whereby both parties have to work full time in order to make ends meet and go without a lot in order to pay huge rents or huge mortgages on what is usually a simple family home. If the BOE interest rate goes up (which you can be sure it will) then a lot of people will suddenly have to find more money to pay extra and it is these people who will become homeless and need help, but there won't be any help there as a good percentage of available housing is being left with people who don't necessarily need it anymore. Things change, circumstances change for ALL in this country and that's why when things are looking up for you, you should accept what you were given when you needed it and allow someone else to benefit from it who is now more deserving.

It is the young in this country who really need the help, they haven't a chance of getting a mortgage in the current circumstances, wages do not in any way correlate to house prices and if there isn't more available social housing opened up to them what chance do they have?

It is a dire situation, not caused by the OP or anyone on this thread but surely some of you can see how unfair it is without throwing out the "bitterness" "nasty" "jealousy" lines.

Council houses were designed to provide affordable housing for all, they should never have been sold off in the first place because they can never revert back to the council. I can count on 1 hand the amount in the street I grew up on are still council as most are bought. Spam as long as they are paying their rent - set at a rate by the owners of the property i.e the council I dont see the issue. Its not their fault private rents are so high.

Histrocially it wasn't just the council who built homes for the working poor, large companies used to do it too like the electric and water boards, brickworks etc

we live in a greedy capitalist society whereby the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer

Why wouldn't you see the issue? I am struggling to understand how ANYONE would believe this is fair for ALL.

Just try and put the boot on the other foot for one moment. In the same town and often in the same road there will be a family with 2 young children who earn £35K per annum but have to pay £1,000 per month for a 2 bedroomed flat in private rent. Wife cannot work as childcare is prohibitive to her earning power. They are not deemed worthy enough to get on the council house listing or maybe on it but not likely to get anything for 10 years.

Versus

A family of 3 adults in a 3 bedroomed house bringing in £60k but only paying £380 per month in rent to the council.

No issue??? Really???

isthisunreasonable - Good Luck. I wish you the best for your exchange and your new home. I hope the move will be happy for all involved, and thank you for an interesting debate.

I think the flaws are so many, and the issues involved so complex that it is really difficult to get ones head around all the consequences of the various changes involved.

In the last 5 years I have been a home owner, I have been a landlord, and I have been a tenant in a private rental. Neither is a bed of roses.

When you consider the high house prices (extortionate in some areas), the high mortgage rates many are stuck with, and the difficulties in getting mortgages for "normal folks" right now, it is easy to see how private rent is so high.

In order to make any profit on rent, landlords need to either have a very small mortgage or paid a deposit of more than 50% of the house value. Without the profit, there is no incentive to be a landlord, no value in it, only hard work, and lots of accounting. I reckon there is also a group of landlords who are letting property they have inherited, so no mortgage involved, just profit. For landlords such as myself, there was no profit involved, only hard work, the bonus to us was that we did not have to sell our house whilst overseas.

When you consider that most landlords are either small time home owners like myself, people with a second home, or large developers, you can see that the biggest culprit in the private rental market are the developers and to a certain degree those with a second home, together with the banks. The combination of mortgage rates, high house prices, and profit driven developers/landlords, make it very difficult for normal people to either buy property or rent privately.

This creates an enormous gap in some areas between the rent you pay as a private tenant and one in social housing. How can this gap be closed?

Force house prices down?
Introduce Rent Bands that landlords need to stick to?

If private rent came down to an acceptable level that social housing would perhaps be no more than an insurance that people who need a home get one, and for as long as they want, rather than just cheaper than market value. Maybe it is utopia, but my idea is that social housing should be a temporary measure until you get on your feet, however long that takes.

Less people would need social housing if rents were affordable. I dont think that the solution is to build more social housing, this is not decreasing the gap between "the rich" and "the poor".

I think in order to make these changes the rich has to become less rich. (I know, flame me. Now all sections of MN will hate me, not only those in social housing! )The wealthy need to "fund" these changes, through higher taxation, higher tax on bonuses (or even less bonuses - maybe the banks can pool some bonuses back to their customers!) "wealth tax" on second homes and luxury cars. Higher Vat rate on Luxury holidays and alcohol! Only by making the rich less wealthy will the poor become less poor.

Cameron says "we are in this together" We are, but only to the extent that the wealthy need the poor to increase their wealth, we need it to be the other way around.

Bear in mind that I came from a society where 75% of people are middle class and home owners, where there is very little social housing, but which is means tested and temporary, and I have seen how well this works. But it can only work in a society where house prices dont vary so much, and where house prices are pretty stable and not extortionate. And where there are enough jobs, jobs that pay well, and banks are keen to lend at decent mortgage rates.

Well, I have rambled on enough with my Utopian dreams. Enough already.

I'm still trying to work out how Pures mum is paying £1000 per month as she is charges 75% of her pension for her care home....

Makes me a bit about some of the other bullshit & myths facts being presented by those who do not understand how or why social housing exists.

Pure jealousy by some posters on here. Everyone can put their name down on a housing list at 16.

Calling it 'less than market rent' is misleading, because the market is all fucked up. It's a fair rent, that's all, and as I said receipts of rent are actually more than councils pay out each year, with the surplus handed over to the Treasury. Council tenants are not being subsidised - the investment in the property pays for itself, many times over. It's an excellent system and it works, which is why it's a travesty that it has become so limited now.

Agreed, it's not fair.

However the solution is to build more social housing, which will benefit everyone (well except the landlords) not kick people out of their homes!

"Council tenants are not being subsidised - the investment in the property"

Exactly! Which it's why it's nonsensical to argue that people who can afford it should be paying private LLs rather than putting money back into the system via their rent!

Oops, only copied half your sentence! Should be

"Council tenants are not being subsidised - the investment in the property pays for itself"

Excellent point well made (and badly copied!)

A family of 3 adults in a 3 bedroomed house bringing in £60k but only paying £380 per month in rent to the council. No issue??? Really???

No, because its not their fault others are paying too high rents, they are paying their own rate as I said thats set by the council. Their income has nothing to do with it.

Thanks aufaniae, and I agree with your point about private landlords - nobody, however much they are earning, should be forced into paying off some greasy-faced spiv's mortgage.

Pure, the problem with social housing only being for those in the most need, is that it makes it a less profitable scheme for the tax payer.

Social housing stock is an investment for the tax payer. The properties are an investment in themselves, the money to build them is made back in rent several times over. If that rent comes from housing benefit, then the government is saving money by not losing it to private LLs. If it's paid for out of someone's wages, then it's profit for the tax payer.

As tax payees, we should be delighted that the OP is paying the rent out of wages, and they will be paying more that the elderly couple, so the profit is increased.

Where the problem lies is that there is currently no large scheme to invest in building new homes. If there was, not only would more people have access to affordable tents via social housing, it would also bring private rents down (simple supply and demand) so benefit everyone (except LLs).

When Thatcher introduced right to buy, councils were forbidden from reinvesting the money in new housing stock. This is one of the reasons why we're in the situation we are now.

I can see the logic in thinking council houses should just be for the most needy, but this is just a problem of numbers. There is not enough to go round. So let's build more (it will make us money too!)

Makes sense, no?

The amount of incorrect facts on this thread is frustrating to say the least.. It's annoying for people in desperate situations to be told things like 'oh well just get on the list and you'll get a property' as some appear to be saying. What tosh.

Please can people read up on how rents are set within Local Authorities and Housing Associations before spouting drivel. There is no comparison between private rents that landlords can charge and what HA's and LA's charge.

There is a huge government led agenda too at the moment about rent restructuring and the affordable housing sector - the key thing is that these are all monitored. Plus, there is huge amounts of work being done on making sure people do not suffer under the 'Welfare Reform' due in April and the Universal Benefit cap. Most HA's and LA's do huge amounts of work to manage properties so that they are still going to be affordable to those on low incomes.

I don't believe the OP really did have much guilt or moral dilemma about whether she was going to take the property or not and I feel most of the comments about her being unreasonable are justified as in some sense I do think as someone as commented this thread has said, if this was someone saying - ohh my diamond shoes hurt my feet!