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?

Argument still remains the same.

Those who don't social housing should let someone else have it. Those that need it should be awarded it.

Those that told all these "stories" about greedy LL were told a case in point about someone not actually making any money but they chose to ignore that completely just because in their eyes someone had a second home.

Sad sense of entitlement which goes on even further when you test the water and mention a second home. The amount of people that somehow feel justified for their choices by my appearing wealth is staggering.

Lets not forget there are hundreds of people out there who need housing but cannot get it in this market.

Ok Lady - I'll head off to wash up - should have done it hours ago, and there is no debate here any more.

Enjoy your cheap house, hope you get to stay in it as long as you want.

I am not jealous of you in any way shape or form Lady. And social housing is effectively home ownership - you have a tenancy for life which is a hell of a lot better than loads out there in this country. Good for you - you got in the system when it was easier and you are now comfortable for life.

What I have said consistently is that if you don't need the support you were once offered you shouldn't take it. If you need the support then fine you need it no problem.

There are a lot of people whether you like it or not that do not need the support but take it anyway in some sort of entitlement argument - probably caused by the government. But that then adds to your fire doesn't it I mean if David Cameron says I am entitled them I must be [hmmm]

Oh. Your message has gone puff. As mine will now as I retaliated in the same way. Apologies.

Ah well, i've been deleted.
Because I stuck up for myself for daring to live in social housing.
And hey, in the winter I'm on benefits too,
You know, just one of these people that should never venture onto MN, I don't have the class, clearly.

If it walks like a duck...

Just to clear up a few technical points so you can get on with the more interesting arguements of why we have "council" housing - I include in this the ha owned and those subsidised by Kickstart and Firstbuy products..

There are different rent models in social housing Affordable Rent (capitalisation is important as it differs from affordable rent) and social rent.
Affordable Rent is defined as upto 80% of market rent. The market rent is set using RICS red book assessments. That is a HA has to get an independent surveyor to determine the market rent. They do this when the tenancy is renewed or on first letting.
AR tenancies are fixed term of at least 2 years.
Social rents are determined by either the local housing allowance or the target rent.
Depending on the housing market the social rent can be higher or more usually lower than the AR.
New housing development is paid for by a variety of means. But most commonly from a HA own resources,loans supported by the rental income, central government grant, recycled capital grant (generated from disposals - right to buy, right to acquire and selling on to other organisations) and cross subsidy from shared ownership sale, open market sales and open market rents. Some HA are using bond markets and pfi models as well.

Government subsidy is a grant that is treated as a debt. If the HA goes bump the grant in the ground is repayable with overage and clawback or transfered with the property to another HA.
Any recycled grant must be used in that new grant would be given - ie for new housing to be let on AR.

Pre 2011 - the amount of grant was much higher as there is now an assumption that the AR will generate more income against which the HA can borrow.

There are broadly 2 Schools of thought on housing provision
To provide housing for those in need - which leads to a discussion around the deserving or undeserving poor.
Or provision for all regardless of socio economic status.

This difference has been discussed since Victorian times. It is quite interesting looking at the differing operating principles of the old housing trusts.

So we can assume that everyone urging Isthis to go for it - after all she's doing nothing wrong/ is entitled/ its perfectly legal - is also absolutely fine with tax avoidance? After all they're doing nothing wrong, are entitled to and acting perfectly legally too.
No? Funny that, isn't it. Aren't both just making the best of opportunities open to them?
Yet everyone objecting on this thread is merely jealous, but all you moaning about tax avoiders are rightfully outraged.
Talk about double standards!

I am jealous of rich company directors who dodge their tax and live in big fuck of houses TBH.

Objecting to someone living in a HA house who is not living on bread and water and wearing old rags is frankly ridiculous and petty.

Personally, I would prefer social housing not to exist yeh you and the Tory party would love it.

Cutted up - you didn't get the irony where others insulted me?

Cocky? errm where exactly? Pointing out the bleediing obvious you could accuse me of but cocky errm no. Nothing to be cocky about.

What is driving me is equality of which there is little but those that take are obvisouly going to find issue with that - what has really surprised me is that there are so many on mumsnet - its been a hidden for many of my yhears here I wonder why? Is it that people really do feel ashamed for all the benefit they take from others?

sunflowersfollowthesun, but working people who live in council houses pay rent which goes back into public funds. Which is exactly the opposite of avoiding tax.

spamspamspam you might have thought that your point was bleeding obvious but it's gone way over my head.

You were the only one who resorted to lying to get your point across, I'm still not sure what your point was. But nice try.

I don't know any company directors, I just made it up to prove a point, Spam.

And companies such as starbucks etc employ tens of thousands who pay tax which also goes into public funds.

As it goes, I am a company director.

BUT I actually make a loss out of my company, year on year. I still pay my employees over the odds, because that's what I believe in - no-one should work for less than £50k a year; I just don't think it's right. I am losing money hand over fist but I still pay £thousands in taxes every month.

HAHAHA! Fooled you all. I'm not really a company director at all. I just said I was to TRICK you all and you fell for it by insulting me and thus proving my point that people who live in council houses shouldn't have secure tenancies. See me laugh! See me laugh at you, you suckers! I win!

Ffs

Wallinson wins the thread.

So lying is okay Usual? And here in lies the problem, its okay for you but not form me??