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?

[isthisunreasonable]

BelieveinPink Well I have no intentions of doing that thank you very much. You may not agree with the social housing allocation system but that is no reason for everyone to drop their HA tenancies and go and rent privately. We are lucky we got given social housing, we appreciate it and always pay our rent on time, look after the houses they rent to us and usually spend a fair amount of money improving them too, we are model tenants and have never caused any trouble for our "landlords". In return we have a home that is safe and secure and we are not having to worry about short tenancies and such like. We got lucky with this new house and we know it, we don't feel "entitled" to it but the council say they are happy for us to have it as their rules state we are "entitled" to it.

[maisiejoe123]

So, someone please correct me. In order for the Council to offer £500k houses at £500 per month they use tax payers money to subsidise?

Whether they have money (and I work indirectly with councils) and I would be very surprised if they have money left over they are still funding this....

[aufaniae]

"Sorry to be a bit slow. If the rent is only £500 who is paying the difference or funding this."

No one is!

She isn't buying the house. She is paying rent on it. There is no difference to make up. The council or HA as LLs can decide what they want to charge.

They are not making as much money as if they were a private LL, but they are still making money, all the same.

[Wallison]

There isn't! Council houses pay for themselves. If the house was built 40 years ago, the cost of building has already been recouped by the council. The only costs they have now are maintenance costs, which I would doubt very much amount to £500 pcm. This is why having council houses is such a good idea - they make money and are an investment and constant revenue stream. As long, that is, as you allow people who are working to live in them, and not just kick them out as soon as they start earning money rather than living off benefits.

[maisiejoe123]

And that is why the rules need to change. Offering £500k houses for £500 pm to families who want 3-6 children will bankrupt the country.

[aufaniae]

"People who keep asserting that the OP more than pays her way, that he house is paid for and therefore the income from her goes into govt coffers:

That's besides the point"

It's not besides the point when posters are saying ridiculous things like they're subsidising her.

[JumpHerWho]

We are funding her.

As long as there are waiting lists for social housing and families are temporarily housed in B and Bs and other non cost effective accommodation while people like her take up much needed housing.

Therefore she costs he state money. It's a benefit and we are funding it for her.

[aufaniae]

"And that is why the rules need to change. Offering £500k houses for £500 pm to families who want 3-6 children will bankrupt the country."

Masie, please give up on the maths, it's not your strong point!

The council has been making money out of the OP! How on earth will that bankrupt us?

[Gibbous]

Sheesh there are some short-sighted ignorant views on here.

The simple message is that just because most rent and retail house prices are ridiculously overinflated (did you know that £18 an hour would be minimum wage now in correlation to the way house prices have risen?) it doesn't make it wrong that some aren't. Especially when that rent is going to a council to reinvest in services instead of lining the pockets of a private landlord.

Yes it is bloodboiling that we don't ALL have the opportunity of decent, reasonably priced housing as should be a right in a civilised nation, and I speak as a private tenant who can't afford to downgrade from an extremely stressful job, but why on earth should that mean the few of us able to access it can't,especially when it means putting back money into a public concern.

This is the OP's RIGHT as a contributing citizen as it is all of ours but a wealth of factors including boomer second homes (in desirable rural areas near me young people are having to move out of the community because they can't afford the house prices pushed up by a handful of people who stay there for a few weeks a year) and profiteering landlords (disclaimer I know that not all landlords are profiteering but the rental market has ballooned in the last 20 years) have made it bloody difficult to exercise that right.

Your anger is being aimed at the wrong people.

OP take the house, you deserve it, and enjoy it. I'm jealous and wish I had the opportunity too but why should that mean you miss out?

[aufaniae]

And, if you read the OP's post, she's not saying it's worth £500K now. She's saying it will be after her family put considerable time and money into doing it up (but which they won't get back in the way owner occupiers will when they sell).

[Anifrangapani]

New development is currently funded by loans against rental income, shared ownership first tranche sales, HA own resources, cross subsidy from open market rent and sales and recycling of grant generated from right to acquire and right to buy as well as subsidy from the Homes and Communities Agency. Not all developments need funding from all resources. There is an assumption that the amount of grant is the minimum to make the scheme financially viable. This is true for England only.

[Wallison]

But the house isn't costing the council £500k; it cost the council whatever it cost to build it forty years ago. That cost has already been recouped. The only costs to the council now are repairs and maintenance. The OP is therefore, at £500 pcm, paying the council more money than it costs the council to have the house, making her a net contributor. It isn't a subsidy and no-one is being bankrupted.

[maisiejoe123]

So if the council decided to put this house on the open market they could potentially get £2500 pe month for it. Maybe as they are so short of funds they could sell it. £500k goes a long way in some council depts.

The point I am making is that a £500k house should not have a rent of £500. It doesnt make commercial sense. However if someone is brave enough to say that the OP contributes £500k and tax payers money funds the ABILITY to live in a £500k house that makes more sense.

I am not saying that the council should sell the house. I am saying that they way this works and the way the OP has used the system just doesnt sound right.

[Gibbous]

"As long as there are waiting lists for social housing and families are temporarily housed in B and Bs and other non cost effective accommodation while people like her take up much needed housing."

That's the most perverse argument I've heard for a while. So if SHE were in the B and Bs and the other families were in her house, they'd be the villain and she the victim?

[HiggsBoson]

I could work full time, but I don't need to as I have a HA property and cheap rent

Hahahaha! LMFAO OP. Your beard looks as though it could do with a trim

[JumpHerWho]

Gibbous she doesn't need social housing, she wouldn't be in a B and B.m

She would be on the same playing field as everyone else.

And I agree with you Maisie on the council's lack of use of 500k asset.

[Anifrangapani]

On other point - larger properties are becoming more difficult to let because of the bedroom tax. HAs are trying to build more 1 & 2 bed properties as they are easier to let, kerping void rates to a minimum and arrears lower.

[expatinscotland]

'But the LL cannot charge £500 for a £500k house, there must be some subsidy going on somewhere... '

Because he/she didn't buy it or the land 40/50 years ago, but more than likely when the boom inflated the housing bubble to the point of ridiculousness.

We once rented, privately, a period bungalow with 3 huge bedrooms worth £300K for £280/month, just a few years ago. Why was the LL able to charge such a low rent? Because he bought it long before the bubble and had a low mortgage payment on it.

[aufaniae]

Out of interest, how many of you critics of the OP do a daily job which involve saving lives on a daily basis?

Just curious

[BelieveInPink]

OP, you know what? I wish you well. We will never agree and that's obvious, but it's pointless arguing forever.

Good luck in your new home.

[Gibbous]

"The point I am making is that a £500k house should not have a rent of £500."

Why? You think it better to house people who need roofs over their heads out of the market, because that is what is happening. Or would it be better for the OP to rent a £2.5k a month house and get housing benefit to make up the difference?

Which of course would end up with the landlord. Landlords end up with housing benefit brought in because the overinflated rent prices which the general working class cannot afford needs to be made up somehow.

[JumpHerWho]

Rent control. Everyone on the same playing field.

OP doesn't need the house, she can afford to rent privately.

[Gibbous]

I would make the converse argument that a £150k house should not have a rent of £800pcm as is the going rate round here, because it is crippling hardworking people.

[JumpHerWho]

OP wouldn't rent a 2.5k a month house - she'd stay where she is, and not have more kids - or she could work fulltime, as she currently chooses to work part time.

[Wallison]

Tax-payers' money doesn't fund anything. There is no funding for the house as the money it cost to build has already been recouped. This is the beauty of public housing schemes - they make money over and over, long after the initial investment. A system of private landlords just doesn't work like that, because the landlord sells the house, and the next landlord gets a mortgage, and off the whole thing goes with needing to be paid for again and again. Which is why we need public provision of rental houses, not private.