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 agree with the poster who suggested that 4 bed council homes are replaced with smaller properties. I would make an exception for families who have additional needs such as a disabled child where they might need to have an additional bedroom for example."

thesnootyfox I'm curious. The problem is obviously that there's not enough council housing for all the people who want / need it.

So, why do you see the solution as further limiting the housing stock we have?

If we build more houses on the other hand, they will be an investment for the tax payer - they will make us money not cost money.

What reason is there not to build more housing?

I think more social housing should be built definitely!

I'm confused why you think that my post indicated otherwise?

"The new house we are due to move to is in a gorgeous rural area, it's on a lane with only a few other houses and surrounded by fields, it has a lovely back garden (somewhere under the jungle I know we will find one) it's massive and has lovely period features, open fireplace etc. Probably worth £500,000 once we've done it up, redecorated, cleared gardens etc"

Sounds lovely OP, I hope you and your family are very happy there.

Good luck to you, OP. And good luck to your children who will no doubt have the lack of morals, pride and sense of entitlement that you do

what a nasty, disgusting comment.

It was this, thesnootyfox:

"I agree with the poster who suggested that 4 bed council homes are replaced with smaller properties. I would make an exception for families who have additional needs such as a disabled child where they might need to have an additional bedroom for example."

It seemed to me that you were talking about managing very limited resources, downsizing the stock, rather than extending the scheme.

Sorry if I misunderstood!

Why don't people understand that this type of benefit should be for all and not just some and when you get back on your feet you should accept graciously that you got the help when you needed it and give it back.

If you need an NHS bed for a period of time, you have that don't you - you don't however have that bed, consultant, team of nurses open to you for ever, once your need has gone they give the bed, team, consultant to someone else who now needs it.

Your children go to school up until they are 16, a place isn't held for them for the rest of their life is it?

Why should housing be the same? Why should some have something for ever therefore denying someone else the very same need that you once had. It's very Me, Me, Me and sod everyone else, how some of you can claim to be "Left" is eye wateringly hypocritical.

aufaniae, you really must live in a very nice sheltered naive world - do you not think I'd like to be there for my child ?? So responsible parents don't work full time ? I think it's rude and unpleasant of you to suggest that people need to look at their choices.

"The new house we are due to move to is in a gorgeous rural area, it's on a lane with only a few other houses and surrounded by fields, it has a lovely back garden (somewhere under the jungle I know we will find one) it's massive and has lovely period features, open fireplace etc. Probably worth £500,000 once we've done it up, redecorated, cleared gardens etc"

For once I am speechless

'Why don't people understand that this type of benefit should be for all and not just some and when you get back on your feet you should accept graciously that you got the help when you needed it and give it back.'

So they can go pay the mortgage of a BTL landlord and move as often as every 4 months, paying exhorbitant fees and costs over and over again?

expat there is no point trying with these people, they just don't get it do they. the point you have just made (which is entirely valid) has been made in different ways by loads of posters, but it is just not sinking in to these peoples heads

its like banging your head against a brick wall it really is..... :(

Happy you have totally misunderstood my post!

No I wasn't suggesting that you wouldn't like to be there for your child - nor was I suggesting that responsible parents don't work full time - quite the opposite in fact!

Many of us have to work full time when we'd rather be there for our children.

What I was suggesting was that it's futile (and unpleasant) to have a go at someone who does have these choices when you don't and would like them.

Instead, it would be more productive to look at why people are being denied this choice. Generally I think it often comes back to the cost of housing, and I was hazarding a guess that if BelieveInPink's mortgage / rent was cheaper, then she might have that choice available to her.

I was trying to get people like you and BelieveInPink to have a think about the bigger picture (economics and government policy) and to understand that if you have a problem with the way things are, that you should be having a go at the government who have the power to change this, not taking your envy out on people like the OP: it's completely shortsighted IMO (not to mention pretty nasty).

My posts keep disappearing. Very annoying.

Aufanie I was agreeing with the suggestion that an expensive 4 bed house could be sold and 2 2/3 bed houses could be built with the proceeds which would house more families. I don't think that that there are many 4 bed social housing properties anyway although I know of a fair few that have gone up recently within private developments that have been allocated to social housing.

Expat - it's not for all, it never has been an never will be. But it's a convenient justification for you guys who are living in social housing, isn't it.

I love the idea of 'ooh private rent is too high, banks and landlords are evil, why would anyone choose to do this' moralising - there is not enough social housing for everyone, and until there is then it should be there for those who need it only. Why should oP have the chance at a lifestyle millions of people have no chance at?

Yes, I did mean to be so unpleasant. The more I read of the OP's situation the more disgusted I am.

And this: "One parent wanting to work part-time when they have kids seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do IMO. That's not a "sense of entitlement" that's being a responsible parent." Yes, I completely agree. If you can afford to stand on your own two feet that is perfectly reasonable.

The OP is so full of cliches it's unreal, she's a typical stereotype. God forbid she has to work full time to be able to fund her own lifestyle. I worked full time, I paid childcare. I was broke for years but I paid my own way until they went to school and I no longer had that big outlay.

I'm alright, Jack, hey, OP?

Spam, It's a vision and in an ideal world everyone would give back their tenancies once they'd got back on their feet. I guess the obvious thing would be that if someone wishing to do a Mutual Exchange no longer would actually even qualify for Social Housing in the first place, then they shouldn't be allowed. I'm actually interested in this case to see if the HA involved is going to give the go ahead as technically (depending on age of children) she will have 1 room over their need as will the couple moving into her property (Unfortunately, I think the rules of Mutual Exchange allows this though) but perhaps it's high time they stopped that.

Aufaniae, your ignorance about just building more houses is out of touch and clearly you've not read what other posters have said about how the Social Housing Sector is funded. Plus, you've got to bare in mind the decline in conditions of many Council stock means that they simply don't have funds to build new properties when they have to make the properties they do have fit for habitation.

Gah a long post of mine disappeared into the ether

Swapping 1 house for 2 or 3 increases the housing stock...

The fact that the council isn't bending over backwards to facilitate moving the couple from the 4 bed house suggests that there isn't a huge demand for this size of property in this area, so losing a 4 bed and gaining two 3 beds would be advantageous.

Although I think Believe's posts cover my sputtering total outrage pretty well.

Expat - like to rest of the population has to? And that's okay is it?

The issue is with giving something back once your situation changes. I have absolutely no issue if you needed it once and you continue to need it for life. What I have an issue with is when you don't need it anymore, your situation has changed, you earn more, your kids leave home, you meet a new partner who now contributes, your live in children are now contributing, you get a promotion and a pay rise - all of the sorts of things that happen to people as their life moves on and when these things do happen you should be grateful for the help you received, understand you don't need it anymore and go back to how the rest of the population manage - without a benefit. If everyone did that surely there would be more help for the upcoming needy - can you really not see that?

"you should be having a go at the government who have the power to change this, not taking your envy out on people like the OP"

No. Let's take some responsibility for ourselves, too.

The OP has a choice. Many don't, and that is not my problem. My problem is people who take, take, take when they do not need it.

The cost of my mortgage is irrelevant. I would pay it if it was cheap or expensive rather than take social housing if I could afford to.

And for the love of all that is sacred if one more person tells me I'm envious my BP will rise.

BelieveInPink, I'm with you -and Spam, I was equally speechless..

Aufania, you are still missing the point - if someone comes on AIBU and starts 'boasting' about their fantastic life opportunity and how she can have more kids etc, etc.. then I don't think I'm wrong or unreasonable to flag up to do this is being very bloody unreasonable. The OP never had any intention of not taking the property and is now as other's are saying leaving many banging their heads against brick walls.. Your rubbish about economics and policy is just plain stupid - of course I know it's not 'her fault' she's in this fortunate position - however, it is her fault that she's come on a forum and asked a question that has infuriated many - and keeps on then gloating! You know nothing about my housing situation or anything so to suggest I'm envious is purely ignorant on your behalf. What's infuriating is people lack of knowledge on the subject of housing and that's why I've continued to post on this thread - nothing to do with being envious of the OP.

hahaha BelieveInPink, am with you - I think my blood pressure has gone through roof - I think you've summed it up.. take, take, take..

I haven't read the whole thread because it's way too long for me - so this may have already been mentioned...

Aren't there plans afoot to change council housing whereby new tennants won't be given life-long tennancies, but ones that have to be renewed every five years or so? Sounds like the solution to me - people facing hardship get the cheap housing whilst they need it, then (have to) move on when they don't

I think the OP has been trolling a bit. She started off feeling guilty about swapping as they didn't need the 4 bed blah blah. Within a couple of hours this had changed to how she was doing the couple a favour by swapping.

Then she drops in how the new house will be worth £500k (only after bringing up RTB of course).

ILikeBirds, am with you, I suspect the demand for 4 beds in this area is low - personally as other's have suggested, the HA should therefore be doing a review of all it's stock and the type of property like this one sounds should be being sold off for market value and the receipts from it reinvested in new build for what the demand is in the area. Clearly the issue is they should have assisted helping the old couple move to suitable accommodation.