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?

Oh can I just add, after my marriage broke down and therefore losing my home,
none of you naice middle classes with your second homes offered me a long term let, you stayed two weeks a year, and made a profit renting it out during the busy tourist seasons.
Thank fuck for HA.
Though because of people like you, we no longer have a primary school, this area has been priced out.
So ta for that.

Lol at 'people like you'

Who are you addressing? I wish I could afford a second home. Can barely afford one.

Parsing - to address one thing amidst your rudeness which is worth debate:

If you believe the answer is to build more social housing, where does it end? It is an unequal system, at the moment at least the vast majority are on the same playing field. Surely it's better to fix and regulate the private rental market and even property prices than to create a bubble of artificially cheap housing?

Usual, you have no idea of why I have two "homes" no idea at all.

It appears desirable on paper doesn't it? It is not especially but you wouldn't be interested in hearing why I have two "properties" because for you that adds something to your argument that all those in HA houses are more entitled than everyone else and all of us in the private sector are rolling about in pots of money.

I won't bore you with my story because I fully suspect the ears will be closed - you have all you need for a full on onslaught - the fact that I appear to be a greedy two home owner. Whether that is true or not will never be known.

I said earlier I have no envy of the situation that a lot of people face, none at all, my input into this discussion is not about my own personal need to housing benefit in whatever guise it comes. Whether I have 1 or 20 properties the situation remains the same - there ARE people out there that need more help than a lot of long term secure tenancy benefiters and ignoring that by somehow feeling entitled against what I have is idiocy.

I am surprised (don't know why really) that not one of you defenders of this ludicrous system has actually admitted it is wrong and there in lies the problem doesn't it. People just take, take, take because we are bought up in a society of entitlement, irrespective of where it comes from and who else is being affected.

I think it does. In an ideal world, everyone is on the same playing field. Whether that is the state owning all housing and having fixed, transparent costs, or having everyone on the open market but with lots of regulation. Not abolishing social housing but having it just as a safety net for the needy.

I'm speaking up for all those in social housing that have been lucky enough to get one in the village they've decided that is their home, and in my case has been for nigh on 20 years, but get priced out of the market.
Our village is dead until the summer comes, but if you've been brought up all your life here, and have something to contribute, you don't stand a chance apart from social housing.
And though it didn't happen here, the two nearest schools, where family homes have been provided by HA are thriving.

Oh and Usual in case you weren't aware most banks own the houses in this country.....

You keep taking the moral high ground, Spam.

While some poor sod pays the mortgage on your 2nd home.

Oh and I hope your tenants don't claim HB, wouldn't want my tax money paying your mortgage either.

You might as well ignore people who as you say 'insult without engaging' as by the (very long) last post you made you made it clear that you don't want to engage with anyone who doesn't agree with you, JumpHerWho.

As I understand it, chris upthread is one of the greasy-faced spivs who gets other people to pay off his mortgage, so no surprise that he favours a supposed 'free market' solution. Except that housing in this country has nothing to do with a free market - the eye-watering rents that the likes of chris charges has led to £10bn a year of tax-payers' money being funnelled into landlords' pockets. So angeltulips, if you want to get mad about your tax money being misappropriated, get mad about that. The OP's council house isn't actually costing you any money - in fact, as she's paying her rent herself, she's a net contributor.

If I were unlucky enough to own not one but two houses I would spend all day and all night crying, dressed in black, and desperately trying to figure out how to extricate myself from the insane hell that such wealth carries with it. I don't know how those poor unfortunate landlords can cope, I really don't.

Wallison - so you have no problem with insulting a previous poster (Chris) without engaging?

I am more than happy to engage with different opinions, I am doin so right now with Chunderella.

I have no idea why some people post on MN just to insult and be defensive. Pointless.

I pay the mortgage on my second home and often I am paying more than my poor sod's rent. I also pay for the maintenance, upkeep, repairs on top of what my poor sod tenant pays. My poor sod tenant pays a rent that is 40% lower than the market value - much like HA eh?

Except that I am liable when the housing market hits the floor and my second home goes further into negative equity, the poor sod tenant buggars off without paying rent or stays put but refuses the pay the rent or trashes the place causing me 6 months worth of rent to correct the damage.

My poor sod actually has a bloody good deal because poor sod can't get on the housing asscociation list due to greedy sod being in the property and refusing to leave because he is entitled to be there for some obscure decision that affected his life 30 years ago.

Why can't private owners/renters be poor sods too or is that somehow unacceptable/incomprenhesible due to the fact that they "own" their own properties.

Jeez the level of incompent understanding of simple economics in unbelievable...

Chunderella I wasn't aware until this thread what a difference the security aspect makes to some people's desire to stay in social housing. That to me is definitely an argument to make private renting more secure. But it doesn't make it more moral to stay because its 'your right' knowing full well you don't need it and others do.

Someone upthread made the very good point that if its meant to be a 'home for life' then OP is misusing the system anyway - she said she could afford a mortgage but chooses to remain in social housing, not for security or because its a much loved home, but because it is cheaper.

The cheaper bit is the elephant in the room. Hundreds a month... and people are surprised it fosters resentment?

Sorry for incoherence - I mean it wasn't a home for life because she was upgrading.

I'd sell your house if I were you, Spamspamspam - you are obviously getting a really raw deal out of it all and it is making you very unhappy to be in such a difficult situation.

Chunderella I just think its untenable to have, in the same locality, people of the same circumstances on totally different playing fields. It's unbelievably unfair. That's why I think it needs to be just for the needy. And because of the waiting lists - it's downright immoral of OP to do as she's doing.

Usual are you just going to throw insults around?

Surprised this is still going but I am back to make one point that occurred to me today.

If social housing is subsidised, which ime it isnt but anyway......I would rather my tax went on that and on benefits to support our citizens than on MPs expenses and travel, wars, foreign aid to countries that are no worse off than us, management consultants in every single fucking government run department and tax breaks for the rich to get richer.

Carry on, dont mind me.

Come on now, if you found a bargain house to buy but could afford to pay more for one, would you turn it down for someone who could only afford to buy that house?

No I don't think so...