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?

I find it hard to concentrate when I read things like 'are you having problems understanding'

I haven't attacked anyone

"It being a home for life, lovely as that sounds, is just no longer possible."

You do all realise that these same people who are being called entitled and subsidised for renting council houses, and who you're talking of evicting to the private sector, can still buy these same council houses outright at a discount of up to £75,000?

Which really is a subsidy, because the buyer expects to sell the property on and trouser the cash. And removes the property permanently from council housing stock, causing permanent damage to the supply of social housing.

Parsing I know, my SiL is currently doing this - buying her 1-bed at discount, renting it out for a few years then selling at massive profit to pay a deposit on a 3-bed house

As an aside, HA housing is owned by HAs, not by the state.

If you can get the swap approved and you and the other couple both like each others houses I'd go for it without even a second thought. A 4 bed house for 2 adults, 1 teen and 2 younger kids is not really too big anyway, especially if you may want another child soon.

You were entitled to social housing when you and your DS were in a difficult place, that remains your right now, so don't be put off by some of the negative voices on this thread.

Ok, so if we had loads more social housing, how does that address the two-tier system that I and others have mentioned?

Where people of similar circumstances pay vastly different rents.

The problem with social housing is that people buy them at a substantial discount & let them or sell them on. I know 2 people that bought for 40k & one has just sold hers for £350k. I don't believe a council house should be for life. To many people profiteering.

Oh and not everyone had the right to buy. That depends on when and where you became a tenant.

This thread has really confused me re MN's sense of justice and entitlement!

Jump. The house itself is not a benefit.

The housing benefit which some people receive to pay for that house is the benefit.

The house itself is not a benefit - it is an asset which the council owns, and which they make money out of. They choose not to charge the same rent as a private LL, but that still doesn't not make it a benefit!

It is up to any LL how much they charge. The Council as a LL has different priorities to a private LL (so they have concerns other than simply profit from rent). However, they still make a profit overall.

I was a private LL last year. I didn't charge anywhere near market rent, as I was renting to a friend. That friend did work for me in the flat. I was not providing a benefit! I was still making money, but not as much as I might have done if my only motive was profit.

Jump, council housing is an investment which makes the council money.

How can that be a benefit?

LtEveDallas, am sorry but in most London Boroughs (and I am sure other major cities and areas of high housing demand) now there is no such thing as a 'list' that you will simply 'move up' - it's utter, utter nonsense.

People really, really also need to start reading up on the impact of Welfare Reforms and Universal Benefits as the impacts of these also on the Public Housing Sector are huge. London Councils are already putting in place measures to move families out of London.

I'm sorry to read of people who are unable to down-size from their properties - see above - if they are going to be hit by 'bedroom tax' then they really do need to push their housing provider.

As Jumper correctly says, I agree wholeheartedly, we are no long in a utopian society with plentiful housing - however, unfortunately this is ingrained into people's mindset and don't (like the OP) believe that they should give up that entitlement if they can afford other housing - eg; she says she could get a mortgage.

Frustrating still to be reading posters saying about 'owning' property - which shall reap equity - sorry but what a load of bollocks as other's have said - The Bank own my property, we struggle to pay an interest only mortgage along with many, many other people, we aren't afforded the luxury of being able to 'swap' properties to a larger one to have a couple more kids - no, we work too, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, however, therefore it's without doubt that the OP is in a fortunate situation and anyone that states that her tenancy on this 4 bedroom property, with it's equally low rent is not a 'benefit' is talking shite!

most landlords are not greasy faced spivs, they are small business men and women planning for their pensions.

isthis.. i was not talking about you with regard to rent levels and requiring high earners to pay more for social housing than lower earners. you are so greedy that you want to live in a large house and be charged as little as possible for it. everytime you post, you show your true colours more and more. as someone upthread said, you are here complaining that your diamond shoes hurt your feet. i do feel that you are showing off.

as for other posters on this thread, talk to your local social housing provider and get the facts in your local area.

-in some areas you cannot go on the housing list at 16 as 16 year olds cannot sign contracts, cannot manage their households and are not mature enough to live on their own.

-in some areas you cannot go on the housing list if you are in good health, working and under 50 as there is no chance that you will get to the top of the list. someone who is more needy than you will always turn up and get priority.

-in some areas it would take up to 10 years to rehouse everyone on their existing housing lists if they closed their lists now.

-if you live in an area with excess social housing property you may well get a huge bungalow to live in on your own. in london this will not happen.

-if you live in a 4 bedroom property in london the local authority will endeavour to give you anything you want/need in exchange for your house or flat. in other areas they may not have to show any interest.

The person is benefiting from something which saves them probably hundreds a month

Compared to a too high private rent maybe but that still doesnt make it a benefit - no housing benefit is claimed if someone is paying full rent.

"Ok, so if we had loads more social housing, how does that address the two-tier system that I and others have mentioned?"

Good question. If there was an abundance of affordable housing, LLs wouldn't be able to charge the kind of rent they do now.

So, if there was more social housing it would help those in private rented too, as the knock-on effect would be to bring their rents down too.

Ok, the word benefit seems problematic.

It's an asset, worth money, which is desired by people waiting for years, t saves people hundreds a month, it could be sold by the state, it's worth money - it has worth.

I'm not disputing that there should be more social housing, but as things currently stand, it is wrong that people Re waiting, in hostels, for places to become available when people who are perfectly able to rent privately (engaging with the current financial reality, not the historical cheapness of property) or buy, are hanging on to their property as a good bet. They are benefiting (small b) from the asset of the state which could be put to better use.

I think to clarify what people are saying it's a 'benefit' to her - of course it is she says so herself.
And also, just whilst I recall other infuriating comments on here - and so what if they have to decorate and bring it up to 'standard' to live in it. It's no difference to a homeowner would.

Glad we agree on that!

So the problem is not enough housing (too many people waiting) and the solution is more housing, yes? Especially as it's an investment, not simply a cost to the tax payer?

more social housing would bring rents down, the quality of property for rent would go up and probably end the 6 month tenancy as landlords would be keen to keep the tenants that they have.

People seem keen to justify their low rents as 'fair' and somehow normal and correct - and that private rents are astronomical, unfair, distorted and entirely due to greedy landlords.

Like it or not, the current financial reality is what causes rent prices - landlords don't make huge amounts, it may be enough to cover their huge mortgages but little more.

As long as te vast majority have to live in the financial reality, it's unfair that people of equal circumstance are protected from the massive increase of housing costs.

I'd like to pay whatever bread and milk cost back in the 80s - unfortunately no-one stocked up then and is willing to sell them to me at no profit.

But, people who hang onto council housing when they have jobs are not being selfish - they're paying directly into the system, rather than giving it away to a private landlord.

That's a good thing, as it's making money for the country. We should be applauding people who pay for their council house with wages, they are giving us money! (Funny how people get so get up about "paying" for people on benefits, but not so excited that people like the OP are in effect "paying" us all!)

The problem here is that that money isn't being reinvested in new housing. The OP's rent should be use to support housing others on the list.

JumpHerWho, I agree totally again, of course it's a benefit to her and despite what other's say a 4 bedroom with 3 kids is no way - her entitlement any more where she to be 'rehoused' again by the Local Authority or Housing Association that she's currently with. And, were she to fall on hard times and wish to claim Housing Benefit then they would not pay on the 'extra' bedroom.

Creighton, with you in all your posts. Greed and showing off are shining through. Oh and the 'I'm justifying it by the fact I'm helping the other elderly couple' grates on me. The OP deserves some of the comments as if the boot was on the other foot as other's have said and someone was saying 'ohh, I can increase my mortgage with my large bonus and now we can buy our dream 4 bedroom house and have a tiny mortgage' people may well have stomped in and slatted the poster.

"it's unfair that people of equal circumstance are protected from the massive increase of housing costs."

Yes jump, it's unfair. And it's something which could be solved, by government, without chucking people out of their homes. (Surely preferable to avoid this?!)

Aufeniae - I'm not sure... it wouldn't solve the two-tier system which concerns me.

I think keeping social housing for those in need, but introducing private rent caps and other clever ways of keeping the property market regulated would be far better. Otherwise it's just admitting that the vast majority of uK families are paying huge, huge amounts and constantly trying to plug a gap. Give up on social housing - I think with the death of big companies also funding housing for working class it's just not feasible any more - but start regulating property prices through taxation etc. not punishing LLs, They're not baddies, but just keeping property affordable and everyone on an even playing field.