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 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? '

This doesn't apply to the OP, though. She and the partner don't earn enough to afford a private let for the family without having to use HB. And, well, again, NO ONE is pointing out that the elderly couple have been rattling around in a 4-bed house for who knows how long and guess what? The rules about HB claimaints (which the OP is not) under-occupying? They don't apply to OAPs.

This couple could easily have stayed in that house till the end of both their days.

Instead of putting pressure on teh government to change the way private letting works in this nation for everyone, however, it's easier just to point fingers at 'you guys in social housing'.

If people in council housing are moved on once they don't need the house any more (and I think badtaste is right, this may start to happen) then you create ghettos where only people in bad situations live. That's bad for society as a whole.

Moving people on when they are in a better situation is one of those things which may seem to make sense at first glance, but on closer examination, it's not a good idea fo any of us.

It's better for society if we live in mixed communities. Ghettos are not a good idea.

JumpHer, Couldn't agree more - expat, am not sure what everyday hardworking folk that can't get on Housing Lists or half million pound 4 bed houses supposed to do ?? other than be a slave to a mortgage or a landlord..

WileyRoadRunner, you've hit nail on head - so where has the guilt she started with suddenly gone ? I think it's just trying to wind people up - to which is it obviously succeeding.

There are changes in tenancies afoot and many tenants now only get non-secure tenancies which means many in dire situations are pushed from pillar to post and often shipped out to cheap low demand areas - away from family and support at a time when their live is at it's most low.. am not sure this is the way we want to go either.. as it detects from helping those most in need..

Sadly we already have the ghetto effect in some areas. The area I grew up in was a good family area at the time. It now has huge problems with crime and drugs. The housing shortage has a been a factor in this.

My relative lives in a brand new housing association on a private estate, under the planning development rules a certain % of new houses are allocated for social housing. This works well, it has a good mix of neighbours and it takes away the stigma of living on a rough estate.

There are a couple of council properties in our road, I didn't even realise until recently that they were council houses.

aufaniae - what is your obsession with Ghetto's. Where I live social housing is amongst private housing. Why would there be a Ghetto at number's 7, 9 and 14 Orchard Close but not in the rest of the Close. And just because someone finds themselves on hard times does not mean they are "bad people" [hmmm]

Moody - what do you mean by "these people" what are you insinuating?

I am a full time working mother, who pays her way in life and want's what is fair for EVERYONE not just some. Does that make me a bad person?

Expat -I am not singling out the OP at all I am talking about EVERYONE who abuses this ridiculous system, yes including the OAP's. However, the OP could afford her own house she would just have to work full time - much like the majority of people who have to work in order to pay their mortgage/rent.

Reading thru this thread , there seems to be one point missing, we are in a recession, and anyone at any time could lose their jobs and unable to meet their morgage or rent, this could in turn require them to go and ask for social housing or benefits.people should not be so quick to slate council or h/a tenants because we are all vulnerable right now.good luck to the op if she can get the house she needs.

Happy have you done any research into this? Your maths does not add up.

Building council houses is an investment, any way you look at it. In fact not building council housing may be costing us more money overall!

From a report by the "House of Commons Council Housing Group"

The private housing market is in crisis, and cannot deliver the homes we need. Evidence to our inquiry showed the massive scale of demand for council housing throughout the country. We need a mass programme of new council housing
for political, social and economic reasons.

Public land should be used to build public housing.

The social costs of not acting are enormous, while using councils to deliver council
housing has direct benefits to tenants and to society.

Councils can build more cheaply than RSLs [Registered Social Landlords] and private-public partnerships. The costs of a large-scale programme of council homes would be less than the costs of not building them. Not building one million new council homes could cost £21.5 billion a year in the direct and indirect costs of homelessness alone."

Report link

More from the same report:

"For more than twenty years, successive governments? housing strategy has relied on the private sector ? banks, builders, landlords and landowners.

Local authorities have been prevented from building new council housing with only 350 completed in 2007-8. The rents of existing council tenants are being robbed and homes and estates starved of investment. The ?for profit? sector has
been on a crazy binge of speculation and profiteering that is now unravelling before our eyes.

Reliance on the private sector has left us with 1.8 million households ? four million people ? on council housing waiting lists, still nearly 100,000 in temporary accommodation, up to 115 homes repossessed every day, 750,000
empty properties, 554,000 households in England overcrowded, as well as millions facing disrepair, serious financial problems and insecurity in the private market."

This is a scandal and we should be pressing government for a positive solution which benefits everyone.

you guys in social housing

I own my home (well, the bank does) and I have a flat I rent out. Having an asset to pass on to my DC is important to me, and being mobile (not as in socially mobile, as in wanting to leave my home town and be in a city) was important to me, so that's the route we've chosen. Our choice because those are things that are important to us.

OP has chosen a different route. I just can't get het up about it. She had a tough time when she was young, now she has security. She has a manageable rent so she's not claiming housing benefit. She's not paying a LL's mortgage, she's looking after an asset on behalf of her community. I cannot find it in my bones to be upset about that. What I am upset about is that opportunity is denied to other people through just - what? 25 years? - of systematic damage to the social housing policy in this country thanks to Thatch and RTB.

And now I'm out.

madem - everyone is vulnerable yes. I am vulnerable but am not in HA or Council housing currently and the likelihood of me getting a Council or HA house is going to be very limited because there is no stock.

So I am less of a concern to you am I? It's okay to let me be homeless is it whilst someone else holds onto their "entitlement" when they don't really need it, just in case they might be made redundant or find themselves in dire times?

Although meant to add the reason I'm out is OP's 'house worth 500k' post which is deliberately inflammatory and has more than a hint of trip trap about it.

Spam, please think it through. Yes, of course there is plenty of social housing in areas mixed in with private housing.

However there are also large estates and collections of houses, all over the country, where the majority of housing is council / HA.

If council / HA properties are only reserved for those in most need, then those areas will become ghettos (only populated by people in dire circumstances - to be shipped out once their situation improves.)

These places would quickly become ghettos - how could they not?

I am mystified as to why anyone would think breaking up communities in this way is a good idea? I can only think you haven't really thought it through.

Again, it's one of those ideas which sounds good on paper but ignores the fact that we are human beings and things like community do matter.

"She (OP) and the partner don't earn enough to afford a private let for the family without having to use HB. "

And they are planning to have two more children?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can see why people are annoyed at this brazen attitude and so should you.

Mademred, no one here is begrudging anyone who is in NEED. The OP doesn't need the house. She just needs a proper job.

Sigh.

This entire thread has had eloquent well thought out responses, from both sides. I am still supportive of op and her choice.

I'm upset at the last one (from her) though. There was no need to add the fancy details of the house, and its value.

Cote - they do have enough money, OP said they could get a mortgage if they wanted to but choose not to. By taking the 500k council house, she can stay working part-time only and afford two more kids.

Win win.

aufaniae, you can spout all the research you like at me. I'm more than well aware of the facts.

Across the Country the 'ghetto's' you describe are being knocked down - residents are moving into brand new mixed tenure developments. Councils have been unable to build new properties for years now and these developments are being built by Housing Associations many with private investment for the private sales or in some more complex schemes, the private sales fund the social rented properties. However, there is a recession on and many of the private sales aren't selling - therefore developments are stalling all over the country. The Councils are also at the same time being hit with huge bills to bring their existing stock up to 'decent' home standards.

Spam if you became homeless you would become eligible for social housing.....and this is the crux of things for me....more and more people are struggling with very very high private rents and with the changes to HB might well fall into the homeless category .

I am a big believer in secure tenancies and don't care if these are social or private as long as someone can have a place to call home which is affordable and decent. In this day and age that's not too much to ask I don't think.

I am hugely fortunate to have my current home and really needed it. I will always need it given my DS's difficulties as he might not ever be able to manage independently.

Jake, whilst there is no denying that if someone became homeless she would become 'eligible' for Social Housing - the HUGE issue though is all about supply and demand though - in some parts of the country (particular emphasis on London) whilst the Council will have a 'care of duty' towards housing you if you have child/children - where and how they house you is a whole different ballgame, it would be highly unlikely they would just walk straight into a 'secure' council tenancy and are likely to spend years, if not forever, being housed in non secure or Private Rented accommodation - that the Council would put you in touch with. I certainly don't think anyone these days will be walking into half million pound houses as described by the OP. With benefit caps being put in place also, the likelihood is that anyone on benefits too would also be (rightly or wrongly) shipped out of London to cheaper areas of the country.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about secure tenancies and I do think Councils are working hard with private landlords to make sure that at least the tenancies they will be offered are guaranteed and protected for a given length of time.

So, those of you who think the OP should give up her tenancy completely, do you really think it's a good thing to aim for a society where people either live in insecure tenancies (on 6 or 12 months contracts) or owned properties, which they may well have to sell to pay for care when they reach old age?

We can do better than that I reckon! It's not utopian, or pie-in-the-sky. It's the job of government to look at this kind of issue, and come up with positive, workable solutions.

Its actually rare to get tenancies for life from HA. Most are for 5/6 yrs they will then look at individual situations again. That is still better than being at the whim of a 6 month stint...

Governments should think long and hard at the money they chuck at waste of time projects, and concentrate on building secure homes.

That is the kind of 'back to basic' help this country needs.

Good to see the penny has finally dropped regarding gloaty OP.

Yes, yes HiggsBoson, that's what I've been saying all along it's the gloaty, boastful under-tonnes of entitlement that people are getting peeved off with.

And yes, Creighton, I agree the ability to buy it would be hard I believe.

aufaniae, again, you are stating things that simply aren't true - why would her alternative be to live in an insecure tenancy? She could look at Shared-Ownership perhaps, that would help if she can't afford to buy outright (though again, she does boost she could get a mortgage). And, yes, why shouldn't she have to then pool any assets she has to pay for care.. that's what huge amounts of the population have to do.