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?

*tax payers, not tax payees!

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 But everyone is in the same boat, as long as they stay on the list they will eventually move up it

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 how long were they on the list? They applied for and were given a 3 bed for 4 people, then 5 people, so in the same boat as the other couple. Sounds like the same rules for both families so I don't see the issue

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)

Where on earth is this? That is what I was paying over 10 years ago for a tiny 3 bed house and even smaller garden. Band C council tax. And I am not in an expensive metropolitan area but in Scotland.

since the tories got into power there seems to be this obsession with who is the taxpayer and who that money is going to

working people who live in social housing are taxpayers too

the vast majority of people with children are taxpayers

Build more houses with what exactly? Where is this next pot of money going to come from?

Those that still can't see the issue well surely all those that are still wallowing in council properties that no longer need them are ensuring that those who do really need them are going to stay on the list for a hell of a long time.

Its the sense of entitlement I find most staggering, how on earth people can justify this to themselves is beyond me, why people don't see that by them receiving a "benefit" (which this is) is denying someone else who could be way more in need. It's so selfish and leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Any benefit system should be for all those who need it, when you no longer need it it should be taken back. It appears that all other benefits work in this manner apart from housing.

ThingummyBob
"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"

Gosh, I did not think I needed to work out the maths exactly, it is roughly. It is not £1000. 75% of £1500 is in actual fact £1125, so she keeps only £375 for hairdressers etc. She has no other expenses, her care home supplies food and drink, you know.
Do you need me to do the exact currency conversion from Norwegian Krone to GBP too? Nok 15000 pension is actually £1,678.21, which means she is charged 1258.70 for her nursing home, and keep the difference for her hairdressing apts,etc . A surplus has built in her account the last year, suffice to say.

But why do you nitpick? Why does this matter?
Why do you say that this means I am spouting crap?

Spam, council housing is not a benefit. It was never intended to be only for those who are really struggling.

If those who are working are kicked out of council housing, then that's less money coming back to us, the tax payer. It doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

Where should the money come from? Well, any sales of existing council stock would be a good start. And then I'm sure money could be found for something which is a sure cert investment!

We're in recession, we need people to start spending to get us out of it. continued belt tightening and making the poor poorer (as this government seems hell bent on doing) does not help the economy in the way that kickstarting the economy would. However they seem sadly lacking in ideas in that direction!

And please, less ridiculous talk of entitlement! And wage earners in council housing are paying directly into the system, they are doing us all a favour!

The problem is not enough housing, not too many people in council housing getting jobs!

Sorry, meant to say, the problem is not enough affordable housing!

Of course council housing is a benefit - to suggest it is not is ridiculous

If someone doesn't need it because they have now found themselves in a different position and can afford to rent privately or buy why on earth should they keep a benefit of cheaper than private market rent? Why because they feel entitled to it and of course less money spent on rent is going to mean you can afford more children, more treats etc who would not want that?

How can it be less money coming back to "us" the Taxpayer??? Makes no sense at all. The house is still going to be rented at the same price but to someone who has less money NOW than the person who needed the assistance some time ago.

People are taxed at source, they are not taxed with what money they have left after their monthly bills. The amount coming in tax is the same.

And EVERYONE in the UK is a taxpayer in some form or another but just because you pay tax doesn't mean you are entitled to a benefit. If you really don't need it give it to someone who does, if you don't their situation is going to be much harder for years - but hey that's okay because you are "entitled" as a taxpayer.

I wonder how some of you will be posting in a few years time when your young children can't get properties, can't afford market rents, can never afford to buy and yet there are hundreds of council properties being taken up by people who were given a tenancy years ago but don't really need it now because their circumstances have changed.

And anyway, let's think this through. Council housing is often in estates (flats or houses). What makes for a better society?

A.) Communities where many people are working, some are on HB, orhers are owner occupiers. A place where many people have lived in the same place for a long time. Some neighbours know each other, help look after each other's kids, check in elderly neighbours, etc,

Or B.) if people lose entitlement to a council house if better off, estates will become places where the population is always transient - only those in dire circumstances live there - once you got a job you'd be shipped out. Many wouldn't be there long enough to build up community ties - harder to be a new mum or old person there. With no people in well paid jobs, the children would have fewer positive role models as they'd know few people who actually worked. what a bleak place areas with council housing would be! They could quickly become ghettos, with a stigma attached to living there, making it harder to get a job.

Big society? You can't expect communities to take up the slack where services are being cut if you actively destroy communities!

Spam I would feel as I do now, that something needs to be done about high rents and house prices, and that there are many better solutions than kicking people out of their homes!

You can't work out how someone who works and pays rent brings in more money for the taxpayer than someone who gets HB? Really?

OK, let me give you a clue. Where does the housing benefit come from?

As I said aaaages ago, my DM firmly believed her council house was for life (before right to buy came along). This notion that council or social housing is only a temporary leg up until you can afford to rent privately or buy is making a massive assumption that buying or renting privately is a reasonable aspiration - for some people it quite simply is not. And actually, why should it be? Why should paying a private LL's mortgage be 'a good thing'? Why is buying a house intrinsically 'a good thing' - many countries don't view home ownership like the UK does and they seem to get along fine.

My DM is only 62 btw. I'm not talking about olden times or anything like that.

spam you are spouting nonsense now, believe what you like of course but council housing is not a benefit. It was never designed for the poor and needy and anyone can live in one, regardless of their circumstances. Waiting lists are high in certain areas because of Margaret Thatcher selling off houses that will never be council houses again. As it happens houses do become available in my town, where there are streets and schemes of council houses rather than sprawling estates, so less social problems that estates seem to attract. You might have to wait a year or so but nowhere near the 10 years Ive seen quoted for some councils here.

Spam you're totally wrong that council housing is a "benefit". That was never the intention of the scheme.

It was originally intended to provide decent housing for the working class. Then in the period of rebuilding after WW2, it was broadened out to be for everybody, based on need, with Nye Bevan promoting the new estates as places where "the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other".

It was never intended only to be for those in dire circumstances. The problems today are because of a lack of council housing, and this has happened largely because the Thatcher government prevented councils from investing in new housing, while at the same time bringing in right to buy. And that no government has addressed the issue since.

This is exactly the kind of thing government is there for IMO: to tackle the big problems facing society by coming up with creative, positive solutions. This one is failing us miserably on that score! What it is very good at is turning us against each other, popularising words like "entitlement", so that many people fall into the trap of thinking that the answer to problems like not enough social housing, is to point the finger individuals, such as those with jobs who live in social housing, rather than laying the responsibility squarely at the feet of the government, which is where it should be!

Why are people still referring to what social housing was originally intended for?

Like it or lump it, the 80s happened and we have a dire shortage of social housing now. It being a home for life, lovely as that sounds, is just no longer possible.

Social housing is a benefit. Just because the house is paid for doesn't mean it isn't benefiting the resident. There are huge waiting lists for social housing - why is it wrong to question who gets to have it?

Assessment every five or so years to see if the residents still need it, and then a reasonable timescale to find accommodation at market rates, ie what the vast majority pay.

OP says they could get a mortgage if they want. We're not pre-80s in a utopia where there is a plethora or social housing, ergo it is wrong that she is clinging to a system she does not need.

Re ghettoisation - I suppose social housing should be spread throughout, dotted around, not estates built for the purpose. The rule about a certain % of new builds being social seems sensible.

I think it has to be on need, now.

Social housing is no more a benefit to people than a bought house is, its still a home so everyone benefits in that sense that they have a roof over their heads - but it is not a "benefit" in the sense spam means.

The thing is that if there was a way of tackling the very high private rents; then social housing would become less of an issue and possibly less desirable as people like the OP would be able to move on to the private sector The chance of the changes happening seem small though.

Obviously there are people who will always need social housing. People like my DS who is autistic for example or those fleeing domestic violence.

Jump, that makes no sense from a financial POV! Council housing exists now, and is largely grouped together (though not all be any means).

How would you get to the situation where social housing was "spread throughout, dotted around, not estates built for the purpose"?

Either you build new housing - in which case it would be much cheaper to build several houses in the same place, rather than one offs. Or the council goes round buying up existing houses at market value - something which also makes no sense, when it'd be cheaper to build new.

Are you having problems understanding that council housing is an investment for the tax payer?

If you're worried about the economy, you should want more of it not less!

Making people be assessed every 5 years would be a reverse incentive for people to get good jobs (I might well cling on to a council house and accept low paid work if it was right next to my elderly mum who I had caring responsibilities for, for instance. Or if my kids were really well settled in a great school with lots of friends).

The council house system, where it's a house for life, works, and brings a profit to the tax payer. An abundance of affordable housing would also bring down private rents. The problem is that we haven't been building new houses - we haven't been tending to our investment. It's this that needs to change.

I really don't understand why people are arguing against something which so obviously would benefit us all (except landlords!)?

Can anyone tell me why kicking people out of their homes and breaking up communities would be preferable to building new council housing?

It's a state-owned asset, lent on a temporary basis to someone. The person is benefiting from something which saves them probably hundreds a month.

How is that not a benefit?

I maintain that in the current climate, it absolutely has to be allocated on a needs basis.

I am so shocked to be in the minority on MN on this!

"The thing is that if there was a way of tackling the very high private rents" there is - see my last post.

Build social housing. Simple supply and demand.