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'm quite amused about all the posters saying that the reason they don't approve of Op's choices are because they think social housing should go to those in most need, and then they should leave when their life improves.
What a load of crap, it's because they are in short term lets or have believed the Tory myth that everybody should be a homeowner.
And because the housing market crashed, and those lucky enough or those that fitted the criteria for social housing are more secure, they are absolutely [green] with envy.
If there was a housing boom at the moment they'd all be happy home owners and would be looking down on those that live in council houses, and be trying to get them as far away as possible so they would all go to the right schools.
Natch.

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

I agree with usual suspects point above. If someone gets a council house/HA and betters themselves by getting a good job/promotion etc then why should they then lose their home? That is like saying only unemployed people who never progress should keep their houses. I know many people cannot improve their circumstances through no fault of their own such as illness etc but it would be a disincentive to those who can improve their lot to threaten removal of their home if they do so.

Social housing should always contain a different mix of families/different incomes.

What would be the cut off for being 'allowed' to stay in it? 30k 40k?

On those 'better' incomes it is still nearly impossible to buy, where would all the 'richer' people live?

Social housing was never invented for the poor, it was just a way to have a secure home. Yes, these days , there are lists and criteria boxes to tick -that is only because they haven't built enough since they were stupidly sold off!

I don't know why it has to be repeated so many times on this thread, and on MN in general

The estate I live on (as an owner/mortgage payer) consists of around 200 houses, possibly more, of which I'd estimate 10% were not bought under RTB and remain in HA hands.

That is a lot of affordable housing out of many people's reach.

Fwiw we didn't buy it under RTB - we bought it from someone who bought it from someone who did - the mark up between that RTB purchase and our own, looking at house price records online is

I worked with a girl who had a council flat in Clapham - and not in a block but a Victorian conversion. She said it was the norm for mothers to write to the council and say that their violent boyfriend was attacking their child and then the child was given a flat. This girl (who was about 21) said all her friends had flats. In fact then she went travelling and sublet her flat.

I don't think, otoh, that need should necessarily be the overriding factor in allocation (illness/disability excepted). As others have commented, this rewards fecklessness and also any family arriving from abroad wih a number of children would immediately trump locals. This has caused a lot of upset in East London, I believe.

It is a myth that families arriving from abroad with children trump locals. A racist myth, at that.

If you came from abroad with a number of children you would trump locals with no, or fewer, children.

I'm giving up posting on the thread as I keep being accused of being bitter and so on. I'm not - I'm interested in the debate, but cba with all the arguments being reduced to 'poor people deserve a home too' 'right to buy was bad' 'social housing was always meant for anyone who wanted it' and 'we need more social housing'. Whenever points are looked into in more detail, with actual facts and dealing with current reality, someone comes on to build a straw man argument.

Eh? RTB is current reality. Right now.

From the government's own website:
"If you?ve been a council or housing association tenant for 5 years or more, now might be the perfect time to think about buying your home.
That?s because the updated discount under the Right to Buy Scheme in England offers up to 60% for a house and 70% for a flat ? up to a new top discount of £75,000."
righttobuy.communities.gov.uk/

I worked for an organisation for 16 years where my job was live in (tourism).
I had a lovely home though it was tied to the job, and after my marriage broke up I lost that,my job and my home.
I was on the homeless list, 60 miles away from my tiny village and the school that my ds had spent his whole life in.
A very rare HA home came up, I got it, and believe me, you'd have to kill me to give it up, it is my security.
If I won the lottery tomorrow, yes of course I would, but as there being a fat chance of that I'll stay here till the day I die.
Until you're threatened with homelessness, B&B accommodation and the rest, don't judge.

I am in a HA house and as far as I am aware have no RTB this property. It was let to me as the Carer of a child who is autistic and as such will remain a HA property. This was pointed out when I took the tenancy. The HA have homes which are shared ownership and some which are let to those who need it.

Are all ha and ch secured lifetime tenancy or is this getting fazed out now for people who newly move in?

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

Exactly! but there are people on low incomes who are renting privately and won't get a home for life but that's okay is it?

There are also the hundreds of private renters that have to deal with short term tenancy's but again that's okay is it?

Also put the shoe on the other foot - most Landlord's would love a long term let, it gives them so much more security that the mortgage is going to be paid every month. One month of having no tenant due to constant changeovers could cost a LL a lot of money, but have I ever found anyone willing to commit to longer than 6 months - no never!

And everyone going on about right to buy - yes a lot were sold off but even if they weren't sold off and someone stayed in there for life instead of a few years when they really needed it it could take years and years to replenish the market with affordable houses for those that need it NOW.

What I am struggling with is the assumption that all those not in social housing are somehow loaded and really don't need it. That is simply not true, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that need it but cannot get a home because of availability, a lot of that availability is due to people keeping hold of something that they now don't need and could really afford to rent privately, whilst not desirable that is what hundreds of other people have to do whilst they sit and wait for available housing.

Some if not most people on here seem to really need the benefit of reduced rent but there are many out there that don't - just read the thread there are loads of examples of people taking the piss because they can and because they somehow feel entitled.

Oh and to clarify there is absolutely no bitterness, no envy from here. I have no reason to be envious of anyone on this thread I can assure you.

Good example of a straw man there Parsing (I am fully aware RTB still exists, my SiL is using it) but don't let that stop you reducing the arguments to basics again. It's so annoying for a thread to get this long with only brief interludes of sensible debate before the same cliches come back.

I'll just state my position again before attempting again to leave the thread though.

• if I were OP, I'd take it. She would be silly not to as it benefits both parties and the older couple are not being helped by the current system.

• I think RTB is a bad thing, because it distorts the market and promotes inequality

• there is clearly a shortage of social housing

• in my opinion it is not tenable for social housing to be a forever home if circumstances change, it promotes inequality as it genuinely isn't fair to have two families with identical circumstances with one struggling to py private rent and the other benefiting from social housing.

• social housing was oroginally intended for all

• the way forward given the shortages is to prioritise the needy

• in my opinion people should be assessed every 5 yrs or so and if they are no longer 'in need' they should be made to enter the private market

• rent control should be introduced as Wilson agrees with as a LL

• social housing should be spread throughout all areas and all types of housing to prevent ghettoisation. Keeping middle class high earners in there to provide a social mix is IMO bonkers, a bad use of resources and again a two-tier system.

Please don't insult me, if you want to address any of my arguments (or indeed ignore them ) feel free. By no more straw men plz.

No RTB here either Jake, it was created as housing to counteract the people buying second homes at way over the odds that any local could afford.
But it was too little too late, our primary school has closed down now, lack of children, though the two local ones, one 10 miles, one 7 miles have the kids our village couldn't house.
Before I got my HA home, I desperately searched around for private rental, but none of the second home owners would give up their profits for a local.

And another myth that all Landlord's are greedy.

Errrrmmmmm no. I have a second home that I rent, for various financial reasons the mortgage is similar to the price therefore there is no equity in the property or very little. I am told I could rent it out for £1,400 - £1,600 per month but I take £1,000 a month which covers the mortgage and the ground rent - no profit made whatsoever. It "might" go up in value, just like the mortgage could go up to £1,800 per month should the BOE change it's mind on base interest rates. The reason I take £1,000 per month - there is far more security giving a lower rent and knowing you have a long term tenancy rather that keep swapping tenants and missing one months mortgage payment.

Again the assumption that all those with second homes are somehow rolling around their beds in pots of money is another staggering misnomer.

I hear and understand you Spam, I have rented in the private sector too and the rent was eye watering! Even on a full time salary it was nearly 50% of what I was taking home. This was when I was a newly single parent.

No its not right that those on low incomes shouldn't have security if they are in private rented accommodation. Prior to being a single parent I rented for three years as a long term let and only left as my marriage broke down. The cost of renting privately is horrendous for many many people and this needs to be tackled.....but I don't know how, especially as some LL are simply people who needed to move but couldn't sell so let out their property and pay the mortgage with the rental income.

"the way forward given the shortages is to prioritise the needy"

Why is the way forward not to increase the amount of social housing?

This is why people keep bringing you back to the points you're ignoring, Jump. They are all interlinked.

And the points you're ignoring includes Feminine's at 17:13:05 that, if social housing becomes restricted to the very poorest, to be removed if one earns more, you create a benefits trap where unemployment is rewarded and earning more is penalised.

Oh, but that'll be a straw man because you don't want to look at that.

Haven't read the whole thread and fully expect to be flamed but...FIVE children? Makes me very catsbummouth that someone who can't afford to house themselves (and that is what social housing is) is even contemplating 5 children. I guess this is what I pay 50% tax for. Lucky me (who could never afford 5).

Where did I say it's ok, Spam?

And coming from someone who owns 2 houses I think you haven't got a bloody clue.

Oh god here come the 'tax payers'

I'm off.

Chunderella - hmm I see your point. From reading this thread the difference between a social flat rent and a private flat rent seems to vary according to where in the country you are, however I guess if the social rent increased with income (I understand it already does) all the way up to a full comparable rent to private? I guess that would still result in better off people moving out and ghettoisation occurring.

Am ignoring posters who just insult without engaging

The hideous council built blocks in eg Peckham and Ele and Castle... can't they just be demolished?

To be fair, it looks like things are heading (in my opinion) slowly in the right direction with new developments starting off mixed.