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?

at thread becoming a civilised debate again - thought there was no rescuing it for a while there!

Will continue lurking but enjoying aufeniae and happy's posts.

I suppose it's odds on that this 500k exists under a bridge somewhere but it's triggered an interesting debate anyway so doesn't matter.

HappyJoyful I wasn't meaning the OP as an individual.

I was talking about society in general.

I was asking a question of those people who think that council housing should only be for those in most need - to be given up once you get a job - rather than tackling the issue by increasing supply of council housing.

The question is, in general, 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? And (I'll add) that the cost of housing is so high that ordinary working people have to limit their families purely because of the costs of housing?

(Agreed, huge numbers of poeple have to sell their houses to fund care. That's why I mentioned it!)

If you don't think this is a good idea, why aren't you angry with the government for not doing something positive about it?

Aufaniae, appreciate you are talking about society in general, I certainly don't think the solution is to simply build more Council Housing..will we not simply then get a whole new waves of people who all feel equally entitled to it in the same way that we do now?

The debate as I see it here is whether a tenancy is for life, as it used to be and many view it as, or whether it should be something that is given up once other options become available to the tenant.

I certainly don't think we should be aiming for a society where people live in insecure tenancies or own property.. there is a massive, massive middle ground that I think is currently being explored by Housing professionals and providers and of course the Government - there are vast number of different schemes that people can apply for the obvious one here would be the 'Shared Ownership' Scheme.

A number of large Housing Associations are starting to also agree with the train of thought that many have taken on here - that a tenancy is not for life - Tenancies are being now issued on a 5 year basis with the view that this is reviewed after this period and if the situation has changed of the tenant and there are other schemes or options available then they would need to take that path.

Thus the tenancy of the Social property is there for when someone is in most need. Do note - there are exceptions to this, but surely no one can disagree that this would be a good starting point

Yes I disagree! (I'm sure you're not surprised to hear!)

If we're building more housing, then people holding onto it for life is not a problem. In fact people paying the rent out of wages is a good thing and an important part of the equation as they're contributing new money into the system which can be used to invest in the scheme.

There seems to have been a sea-change in attitudes towards renting beginning with the introduction of the Assured Shorthold leases. Prior to that, those who rented, from both private and public landlords, could expect to remain in their home for as long as they wanted, providing that they paid the rent. But since the 1988 Housing Act there seems to be an expectation that renting should be short-term, insecure and on the landlord's terms. I find it quite alarming that there are so many people, not just on this thread but among policy decision-makers, who not only think that this a proper and desirable state of affairs but who want to extend this insecurity and lack of a proper home to people who rent from HA/LA as well. It's a backwards step, however you look at it, to put people in a position where, through no fault of their own, their home can be taken away from them. How can people properly plan long-term, take on jobs, send their children to school, even decide how many children they should have, if the roof over their heads is not secure. The fact that it has already happened to tenants of private landlords is something that governments should be ashamed of, not seeking to emulate in the state rental sector also.

Yes but aufaniae, you're dreaming to believe that the solution is to simply build more 'Council Houses' I still don't see how you're going to pay for all this housing you feel should be built, there's also a huge land shortage too in lots of areas so no idea where they'll be built either ? then who should it be given to?

Wallison, I agree, but I don't think anyone wants to make people feel insecure in their tenancies and their homes I think it's about best use of the limited resources that are now available and the realisation that by everyone either exercising RTB's historically and the acute shortage of Social Housing - be it Council or Housing Association that we now have. These homes could/should whichever way you feel be used, as is being discussed as a 'stepping stone' to help you out when needed. I think again, there's middle ground and it's not as extreme as 'they'll throw you out in 5 years' and certainly I don't think anyone wants to not make sure that people can plan ahead etc. I certainly, as stated in a previous post think it's horrendous when people are going to be shipped out to live far from families and friends and support networks because there is no property locally for them - but that is the reality and right now there is little solution to solve it and certainly nothing viable as far as I can see has been offered up here.

I meant to add aufaniae, I find your idea of 'new' money that could be invested into this building as rather stupid.. generally the rent on a HA/Council property is calculated to cover management of the property, maintenance etc - I certainly don't think you'll find any surpless or this 'new' money you talk about. What so do you think we should raise all the rents to allow this ??

Cutteduppear... I have never been offered a decorating grant (although i have never asked) I have never had any improvements that weren't necessary - never heard of anyone requesting french doors etc (unless it was to adapt the house to help someone with a disability)

You would have been offered - you wouldn't have had to ask. It would have been offered if the house/flat was in a disgusting state. I have had 3 tenancies and was given a grant for just one of them - it looked like a squat, although it was the mess the previous tenant had made of it.

I had a £100 grant offered for my HA place....likewise the previous tenant had left it in a disgusting state. I filled three rubbish bags from debris left in the gatden alone. Graffiti all over the walls etc....some people never appreciate anything they are given.

^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.^

Probably the worst case scenario is that they stay and their grown up children club together and buy if for them at maximum discount.

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]

That's great about where you live. Where I live, social housing tends not to be amonst private housing but on separate estates. Most of the estates are fine and obviously now contain a lot of bought houses. But one of our estates does have a bad reputation; people are reluctant to live there; there are a lot of void lets. However, even this estate has some established, respectable and better off (relatively) tenants - if these tenants were moved on it would just exacerbate the problems of the estate.

'Probably the worst case scenario is that they stay and their grown up children club together and buy if for them at maximum discount.'

I've been on MN a while, and can think of at least two people who used to be here who did that. They went and sold the house on after the appropriate time for a huge profit. And during the boom, plenty of people lauded them for being so sensible.

My cousin did this for my aunt and uncle. My uncle was a rather sporadic worker, and was given a large council house in what became a very desirable village.

Some years later my cousin bought it at maximum discount and they sold it for about £400K.

Don't know what happened to the money but a couple of years later they were back in a council bungalow

I have no right to buy, my house and the others in this tiny village were built for local people in a very rural area where every other house is a second home.
And not let out long term because they want to use it 2 weeks a year, and then rent it out during the very lucrative tourist seasons, and make a fortune doing it.
All three of the local villages up here have had new housing, and they're all occupied by either young families who live and work here, or in my street, a few have gone to single or divorced blokes.
Three of them that even though they worked hard all their lives, lived in caravans as no one would let out their little money makers.

YANBU DH and I's first house was a 3bed xcouncil house. The previous owner had bought it under right to buy. His children had grown up and as a widower in failing health he was going to live with his son.

WE moved when DD was 10 months old and I wish I coulds say that house went to a family with kids, but it didn't. It went to a couple who's family were grown up.

Such is the housing market, those who can afford reasonable sized houses get them regardless of need.

If you've struck lucky, grab the chance your DCs deserve a nice house just as mine do.

This I fear is exactly why we are in such a mess in this country. A woman working part time stating she is 'entitled' etc etc when the rest of us are struggling to make the choices we need to.

Who on earth does she think she is - £500k - I am speechless.

dont allow her to have the house - and love - get yourself a job that will enable you to afford that house yourself as opposed to expecting others to pay for it!

So I take it if you were in the Op's situation you'd turn it down for the greater good maisie?
She got into social housing because her need was greater than everybody elses.
As I've repeated again and again on this thread, put yourself on the list, it really is starting to amuse me that, because the housing market is in such disastrous straits, all those that would never even have thought about a council/HA home before would jump at one now.
In my nearest city there's a sink estate where there are fights every nights and is the place where all the local junkies hang out.
There are many homes with boarded up windows because the council cannot let them.
So, loads of homes there for everybody jealous of social housing, move in and improve the area.

Well, if it helps, my friend with two kids has just moved into a five bed house and we have three and are extending ours to have four bedrooms. I see no difference really, we're allowed to do it and so are you. Go for it. I'm afraid that I don't see why people who live in council and ha houses should have any greater moral responsibility than any of the rest of us.

HappyJoyful, I agree with you that reducing tenants' rights isn't done out of a sense of vindictiveness; I don't think that even the most hard-line of Tories thinks that way. But what I think has changed since ASTs were introduced is an underlying carelessness about tenants' rights. Nobody now seems to start from the point that tenants should have secure homes, and find solutions that include this presumption. Which, when you consider that recession and all we are one of the richest countries in the world, is a parlous state of affairs. Around 30% of households are tenants, and that figure is only going to rise unless there is a substantial decrease in house prices, which is not going to happen if the govt and Bank of England have anything to do with it. A rich, prosperous country that cannot and will not ensure secure housing for 30% of its population is a country with its priorities all wrong.

I am not a troll nor am I "gloaty". Not at all. I posted about the nice area and lovely house etc as lots f posters said they wouldn't want to live in social housing, or the areas of social housing properties are often undesirable and it wa mainly in reply to pink who said she had too much pride to live in social housing. I was making a point that this house is lovely and that I will be proud to live in it and people should not be ashamed of living in social housing.

Oh and MaisyJoe Who do I think I am? I used the word "entitled" when refering to the local council / HA policy, their policy states that our family are "entitled" (as pert of our tenancy) to do a mutual exchange to up to a 4 bed house. I work part time and my partner works full time, we do not claim any benefits (except child benefit).

The 500k thing was in direct response to a poster who said she had to much pride tp live ina council house and others implying council houses were always in shit run down "ghettos" and who the heck would want to live there anyway. read my posts, we know we are lucky, we are grateful and very happy. I would love it if everyone was offered social housing but they're not, doesn't mean we should turn down what is offered to us and what the council are more than ahppy for us to make use of!

I'd give up now Op.
There's too many envious posters on here who wanted to get on the housing bubble, and now it's all fallen flat they need somebody to blame.
So it's you that's getting the shit, because they all want what you have.
Good luck.

Lady why do you keep spinning the envious line - is it to goad?

I repeat I am not in any way shape or form envious of the OP or anyone on this thread. I really have no need to be envious AT ALL, believe me. I can't see any other contributors being envious either, all I can see is common sense and questioning the fairness of this ludicrous system.

But if it helps your "argument" to keep slinging insults please carry on, I am sure most of us will now just ignore it

A "ludicrous system" that gives a family that needs it a home that suits them at a price they can afford......you're right, its absolutely outrageous!