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?

Thanks for clarifying Chris481.

What do you think will happen if houseprices fall, and private rent is forced down to a more affordable level?

Quint - my SiL pretty much did this - ran away from her middle-class affluent parents aged 16, got into all sorts of mischief, faked forms saying she was estranged from them and got herself a lovely 1-bed flat in a small development. She's now 27, earns in excess of £40k and is buying it on right-to-buy.

This isn't Daily Mail-fuelled overreaction and jealousy to say there is something a bit wrong with a system that allows this, non?

Humans play the system in all manner of ways!

Remember self certification mortgages?

People will do what they need to, to get on and feather their nest, its human nature.

Some work the buying a house bit, some in the social sector.

Most people though, are somewhere trapped in the middle...just trying to lead an honest life and put a decent sized roof over their heads!

I 'played', the system, I now have a great three bed flat for DD and I, in one of the most sought after blocks in town.
I have no regrets, I became disabled as an adult, and no one was lining up to help, so I did what I had to do, and at no point did I break any rules.
I did everything by the book, point is, you have to find out what the book says and then tell it to the HA, as they will lie and lie and lie.

If you are paying a rent that is less than the council of HA could get if they were to offer a secure tenancy in that property to whoever is willing to pay the most, then you are being subsidised by the difference between what you pay and what your landlord could get.

This is wrong. It is still not a subsidy, if the council or HA are covering their costs. If they charged the maximum they could get, they, like commercial landlords, would make a profit - this profit would then have to be used somewhere.

Also, I may be wrong about this, but if things had always been done this way, councils would never have had a conflict of interest between their role as housing provider and their role in planning. I assume that it's not a co-incidence that all hideous tower blocks in London were built by the public sector. I'm guessing councils granted themselves permission for buildings that a private developer would never have been allowed to put up.

You are wrong in this; in large cities, including London, there is plenty of high rise housing (hideous or otherwise) that was not built by local authorities. Of course if high rise blocks are hideous, councils get blamed for constucting these awful blocks, or if they are blocks which are actually quite nice, tenants are castigated for living in luxury penthouses at very low rents.

shesariver - you say it's not a "benefit" in the way that Spam means.

Just to make it clear to you.

You are benefiting from a system that not all can benefit from, therefore you are obviously benefiting. To say it is not a "benefit" is ridiculous.

You ARE benefiting from a lower than private rent, other people can't do that because there is not enough available housing for some people.

Aufanaie the paying of taxes and costing the tax payer more - where did I bring up Housing Benefit? I have never mentioned housing benefit in any of my threads so can't understand why I being questioned on my intelligence to understand.

What I said was that if one person lived in a HA owned home earning enough to get themselves a private rental (without HB) or to buy their own property, then why would they sit in the HA house when someone earning a lot less than them and someone who really needed the HA house could be using it and having their few years of good fortune until their circumstances changed.

^I 'played', the system, I now have a great three bed flat for DD and I, in one of the most sought after blocks in town.
I have no regrets, I became disabled as an adult, and no one was lining up to help, so I did what I had to do, and at no point did I break any rules.
I did everything by the book, point is, you have to find out what the book says and then tell it to the HA, as they will lie and lie and lie.^

What lies did the HA tell you. How did you get such a large, sought after, flat for just the 2 of you?

Depends upon the disability I suppose....I know a couple who got housed in a three bedroom flat as he was blind and they needed downstairs accommodation. There were no suitable 1 or 2 bed flats available when they needed housing so they "got lucky" I think.

As I said, I believe all this is changing.

OP, I am sorry my post has grated you.

I am not saying that the reason I don?t agree with your way of life is because I see social housing as beneath me. I do not think the houses are not good enough to be grateful for. I see social housing as a necessity for people in need, until the need is not there any more, or if there is disability etc involved, not a permanent way of life, as you have used it for. When you were in financial difficulty you were given a council house. I see no problem with this as that is what they are there for. However, you are now no longer in financial difficulty; as you said earlier, you both work and receive no benefits.

This is where my problem is. You, and others, say that you should keep your council house because you are entitled to a ?home?. Yes, I agree, it?s nice to have a home. However, you are moving to a new council house, so ?home? doesn?t quite follow your logic does it? I could see why someone might stay in the same council house for life, but your idea of home is clearly transferable so let?s not use that as an excuse.

Let me explain what I mean by my pride standing in the way of living your way of life. If someone is in financial difficulty (and I have been, by the way, very much so. But I have never claimed benefits) then they absolutely have the right to claim what they are entitled to. But this should never be a forever option. If I had dragged myself out of financial difficulty and no longer needed social housing I would make my own way. Just because I needed it once, shouldn?t entitle me to that same benefit for life. If I do that, I am depriving another family who are in desperate need of the larger house I am about to move into.

I am not jealous. That suggests that I am resentful for something that I would want for myself. That is not what I would aspire to, and certainly isn't the example I would want to set for my children.

It's not all about the cheap rents though,HA rents are not that much cheaper than private where I live.There are other areas apart from London believe it or not. Its about the length of tenancy.

If more private LLs were willing to give tenants longer tenancies and not stupid 6 month lets then more HA or council tenants would be willing to move.

It's madness to give up a secure tenancy for a short term let.

I have brittle asthma.
I am entitled to the extra bedroom because I'm in receipt of HRC DLA.
They told me I wasn't entitled to the extra room. The most sought after block is by the by really, but it has wheelchair access, I will need a wheelchair going forward, again, they told me I didn't need a wheelchair accessible property.
They offered me the worst properties they had, in the worst areas, they were not suitable under their rules, which they kept denying.

I stood up to them and fought , and here I am.

Trust me, if I wasn't entitled to it, I wouldn't have it.

Oh, and get this for a laugh, they reckon my last flat needs redecorating, and they will kindly pay half of the £800 bill, yet the decorating grant they gave me for here, which again I had to fight for, was £234, and this is a bigger flat
They've approved my car parking space, but can't paint it on the road until they have the 'correct weather conditions', which they have no idea what are, so atm I'm still housebound.

They are a bloody joke.

And can I just say, I've already spent £700 repairing damage that was here when I moved in, because they wouldn't even acknowledge it was damage, and on top of that it had no floors.
I've paid for one, a charity paid for two others, I have the hall and kitchen to sort out yet, HA will do the bathroom as that's being refitted on medical grounds.

I am lucky to have it, I know that, and love my new flat, but it's been a lot of stress and tears getting it.

"What do you think will happen if houseprices fall, and private rent is forced down to a more affordable level? "

Not sure what you are asking?

Taking a wild guess at the direction of the question, the subsidy could disappear temporarily. Don't think it would disappear in the long-term as people who are hard-up wouldn't indefinitely pay more to live in a council house than they would in private rented.

Having said that, we need to compare like with like, and an assured shorthold tenancy is not the same as a secured one. The subsidy is not the difference between the private rents in general and social rent, it is (as my original post said) the difference between a hypothetical private price for a secure tenancy and the actual price. My hurried guess (have to leave now) is that that hypothetical price will usually be higher than assured shorthold, so the subsidy is bigger than we would think from looking at private rents in general.

Yes, that's what will make OP's new house a home, even if she isn't living there yet. You can't really put down roots if you can be given 2 months notice.

^If more private LLs were willing to give tenants longer tenancies and not stupid 6 month lets then more HA or council tenants would be willing to move.

It's madness to give up a secure tenancy for a short term let^

Yes. This.

My DNeice is in a 3 bed council house with her only (14 year old) child. She qualified after living all her life with her mum, dad and brother in a 2 bed flat.

She became pregnant and was offered a horrible 2 bed flat that she lived in for 10 years.

They council then tore down some of the flats and built 3 bed houses - DN applied and was successful.

She has a spare room now. Extra space for the first time in her 32 years - she's hardly going to give that up now is she?

' If someone is in financial difficulty (and I have been, by the way, very much so. But I have never claimed benefits) then they absolutely have the right to claim what they are entitled to. But this should never be a forever option. If I had dragged myself out of financial difficulty and no longer needed social housing I would make my own way. Just because I needed it once, shouldn?t entitle me to that same benefit for life. If I do that, I am depriving another family who are in desperate need of the larger house I am about to move into.'

And yet, before Thatcher went and fucked up the entire system, millions more were living in council housing, working away, and no one quibbled a jot that they were scrounging, depriving people of housing, etc.

Why shouldn't people on low wages have a secure home for life?

Do you think only the well off deserve to have a secure home?

Once again you are looking down instead of up for the solution to the housing problem.

It's true, expat, no one batted a bloody eyelid at the 1000s of people living in council houses a few years ago.

Ok so none of you would accept the offer [note the word OFFER] of affordable,bigger house in a nicer area just in case someone else could have it-which they couln't because the elderly couple wouldn't want to swap.
"I hear a hiss in the leaves ahead....."

Indeed, expat. Not only were the million in council housing not scroungers with no pride, they had to be given the Right to Buy (at knock down prices) so their children could inherit their conservatories.

I can't get over the lack of rage at RTB on this thread. Even the person whose SIL is doing it is rather than at it.

Right to Buy isn't a fundamental flaw of social housing. It's a flaw of ... Right to Buy.

It really says something that there are so many comments on this thread. So many mean people begrudging the OP. I have a HA house. It took ages to get but managed because I was living on a sofa caring for my terminally ill Mother when pregnant. I was on the list previously anyway. Got a two bed brand new house that I swapped for an old rough (in better area) 3 bed house and bought it and then bought another couple of houses too. My Dh and I have 5 properties between us - we are trying to provide a secure financial future for our children (two of whom have disabilties and one of those will probably not be able to ever support herself). All the houses we rent out are done so at the LHA amount and only to people on benefits as it is much harder for them to get decent homes. I do not make a massive profit but enough to stay at home with my children. I have really milked the system and I would do it all again, as most of you would too.

FYI I bought my council house at not a lot under the real value as I had not been in the system donkey's years to get a big discount.

There have been some excellent posts on this thread and I've certainly learned more about how social housing is funded.

Despite having my "tenancy for life", I am more of the feeling that its DS's "tenancy for life" and his security ...somewhere he can always call home.

It's hard if you perhaps get allocated a property in difficult times (and lets be honest you don't get a choice about where you go) and you build up a life, get children in school etc, perhaps build up friends and support networks. If things then improve then its hard to perhaps move on from this, especially if the area you were housed in is expensive and normally beyond you.

Private rents in my area for the type of property I am in are between £800 and £900 a month...for a 2 bedroom house. I cannot imagine ever earning enough to pay that kind of rent.....even if a LL would consider me as I would have to claim some kind of housing benefit to afford that.

A interested in how people are paying £1000 a month in the private sector. Do you earn enough to pay that? Or do you get any housing benefit to help?

Right to buy is a Tory thing and they are still doing it and they will expand it too as they are trying to ofload the socail housing system further into the private sector. If you had a chance to buy a house that you could afford rather than not be able to buy anything, you would do it too. Bullshit moralising by people who are jealous

Right to Buy caused most of the housing problems in the first place.

But it's all about owning your own house, according to some on this thread.

Usual honestly rtb is a drop in the ocean really. it s lack of building (social housing) and rental prices (private sector). Tories in late 70's and 80's made us believe it was the way to go rtb was a part of that but not replacing the houses is the problem

and OP. Good for you, we all hopefully get a few breaks and sounds as if this is one for your family.