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'd say that if you can afford it, and there's not going to suddenly be in 6 months' time HA going "hang on isthisunr, you're in too big a house, we have to move you out because we've got someone who needs this" then go for it.

But I would thoroughly check that you're not going to find yourself thrown out in a short time because moving back to children sharing is going to give them big arguements if they're used to their own rooms.

In this area, it's basically up to 3 children can share of the same gender, or children under 5yo. After age 5yo they are entitled to be only with the same gender. So if you've 3 girls they can be expected to share (ie 2 bed house), but if you have 2 girls, 1 boy, you'd get a 3 bed house once the boy hit age 5yo. (I think) But round here 3 beds are the really hard to get hold of ones. 2 bed and 4 bed aren't too bad, but they won't let you have one that's too big either.

Market rate is very much in proportion with mortgage rates that banks give. If anything, blame the BANKS, not landlords.

There is also the issue of reluctant landlords (for want of a better term) who have not been able to sell but needed to move. They then rent out their former house and havr to charge enough rent to cover the mortgage which might be high, management fees etc.

Of course if we are being picky we coukd say that they too have made a choice......but it does explain why the rent they charge might be high.

Shame you stay on full time, now that your circumstances have changed, and even plan on milking the system for all it is worth, getting another couple of kids that the HA (and the tax payer) is subsidizing, rather than give way for somebody else who is in need, like you once were.

What would you have her do? I would remind you that this is her HOME we are talking about and she has as much right to stay there as you do in yours. Just because she is in social housing doesnt mean that anyone has the right to kick her out so you can feel better about paying high rent!

And how exactly are her kids being subsidized? HA and council housing is NOT subsidized, it just isnt subject to the same market forces as the private rental market. Get your facts right before slagging someone off!

I think the issue here is that private rent should not be sky high.

Go for it op and don't feel guilty at all just enjoy your new home.

Private rent cannot be anything else but sky high whilst public money is spaffed on subsidising housing for people who are working and therefore don't need it.

Subsidise the private rental sector and you'll see rents for all fall very, very quickly.

This is a swap. This is not depriving a family in need and all that bollocks because the tenant of the 4-bed will not vacate the place unless there is a suitable swap.

This may be due to under-occupying.

This is an option if you are under-occupying and on HB and then the bedroom tax applies to you - to a) swap for another property b) go private (6 month contracts, really 4 months if served notice and I haven't had a 'longer tenancy' yes that didn't have that good ol' 2 months notice after 4 monts clause).

People bitch left and right about under-occupiers on MN (but conveniently forget that the vast majority of under-occupiers are pensioners, who are exempt from these new policies) but then when someone goes to do it, there are flames afoot.

expat I didn't say I was annoyed at the OP - all I said (which you actually quoted and then misunderstood) was the its easy to see why people get annoyed.

And yes, it should be directed at the 'system', the government.. whatever. But it's also fair to direct it at those who abuse the system and make it even worse. Whether that be people staying in HA when they could afford not to, or landlords bumping up private rent.

I happen to know several private landlords (all through the one PL), and each and every one of them owns a minimum of two BTL properties which they charge over the odds for and are raking it in. I know ONE person (me) who had to rent out property to afford to live elsewhere, and admittedly, I gained zilch from this, lost out actually as couldn't cover costs and had to sell, almost at a loss. But to say that all PLs are in my position, is quite frankly, bullshit.

"HA and council housing is NOT subsidised...get your facts right."

WOW, ignorant of how public money works, much?

Go for it! Local authority housing was meant to be for working families who would not otherwise be able to pay the market rental rate. Why on earth should you feel guilty?!

If Maggie hadn't sold all the council houses then this would not be an issue and there would be affordable housing for all.

Of course not all LL are like Daddy Warbucks. The problem has been, though, the in the last 15 years "property" has been seen as a way to make fast money. As quintessence knows, it isn't.
It is also the fact the property prices got so insanely high, so if a LL only has one or two flats the rent has to be high to cover the mortgage.

The best LL I ever had was a builder who had maybe 15 places. Repairs were done, rent was reasonable, because he had held the property for years, and he never kicked anyone out as he like long term tenants.

My current LL won't do anything about the rising damp,and the mould, and I fix everything myself because he won't. He is making approx £300 a month profit from my rent-not loads, but not bad considering he does absolutely nothing.
I will never have an ameteur LL again.

we don't and never have claimed benefits, have no disabilities and have obviously managed to pay our rent for the past 4 years.

Your financial situation is irrelevant. If you are inadequately housed then you will be able to join the list, and eventually you will get enough points for a new house. However, if you are not inadequately housed then you wont, simple.

Lil Blonde How old are those other landlords you know who are making a profit. Approaching retirement age, I'll bet. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH PRIDE TO LIVE OFF THE STATE.

And if they're making a profit, they'll be paying taxes. Good luck to them, I say.

If you want to buy an investment property on a buy to let mortgage, the bank will place demands such as "must be able to reach a rent of X in order to get a mortgage of Y" - Unless you put down a deposit of more than 50% of the value of the property, you are never going to get rich from letting a property, because the mortgage will almost swallow up all you get in rent.

This means two things.

On the one hand you have landlords such as me, who had to let the house for a period, and did not make any profit because the rent was used to pay mortgage.

On the other hand you have landlords who own a large number of flats, people and companies with a lot of cash to invest, and they are the only ones who make money.

1. They buy a property with a high deposit and small mortgage - so have an income from the rent.
2. They will at some point in the future be able to sell the property, and make profit based on a higher price than they bought for.

BUT these developers need to earmark some flats for HA and Part Ownership flats, which require cheaper rent and cheaper buy prices.
How do you think they fund this? Through their market rate flats.

I blame the Banks. Mostly.

'Private rent cannot be anything else but sky high whilst public money is spaffed on subsidising housing for people who are working and therefore don't need it.

Subsidise the private rental sector and you'll see rents for all fall very, very quickly.'

PMSL! So you shouldn't be 'subsidised', unless you're a private landlord, then you should get monies to pay that extra mortgage (which many already are via taking tenants on HB)?

Private rent is sky high because of a massive housing bubble that two successive governments allowed to occur, via dodgy lending practices, and continue to support via artificially low interest rates, despite inflation increasing. So, looking at it that way, all of us are subsidising the BTL landlord or the private landlord in general, via inflation. Not to mention savers and pensioners.

Oh I have no guilt about paying low rent. We are not greedy grabbing people at all. I was put in a very awful situation years back now and I was very fortunate to be helped by being given a social housing tenancy. I am not obliged to move at all, I was given this tenancy on the understanding that it was a home for life if I wanted it.

I understand why people dislike the way the system works but it's not my fault!

DSM...Where we are now is a nice area, non estate. We are very very excited about this exchange as the 4 bed house is in an even nicer and more rural area (nearby still) and is down a lovely country lane surrounded by fields and greenery. We feel very fortunate and will likely spend a fair amount of time and effort on the house and keeping it to a good standard so when the time comes for us to no longer need the big house we will pass it on for someone else to benefit from.

Just had an email from the other couple, they particularly want our house as it is near their son and grandchildren and ours is disabled adapted and the wife there has mobility problems, so they will be very happy here.

If I were you I'd jump at the chance!
I've got 3ds all who have their own rooms now we converted our garage and it's great.
If you've got the opportunity for them each to have their own space take it...quickly!!

Bogey it's swings and roundabouts really.

The rent isn't subsidised but millions of pounds of public money goes into the purchase of these homes. I guess that's why people think the HA's should be more careful about over housing and leaving a shortage of larger properties.

I don't have an opinion on the OP's situation either way...just explaining the subsidy thing.

But we aren't inadequately housed because we pay a fortune in rent, and cut back elsewhere. We have never had another child because we can't afford a 3 bed.

If I got pregnant, would I get a HA house? And then we'd be at least £600 a month better off, just in rent?! Not to mention tax credits etc that we'd get for child 2.

Is this how it works?!

Private rent cannot be anything else but sky high whilst public money is spaffed on subsidising housing for people who are working and therefore don't need it.

Most housing benefit claimants are people with jobs, so yes, they do need cheap housing as moving out to private rented housing would actually cost the state more.

And yes I do know how public money works, probably more so than most thank you.

Damn I agree with you.

Selling off affordable housing stock has crippled this country. Labour costs are high because housing costs are high - it's why our manufacturing industry has shrunk so dramatically.

By taking up subsidised housing when you don't need it, you create hardship for other people who do.

We are also missing the fact that while the OP and her husband work they might not earn enough for private rent. The answer folks is much more investment in social housing.

For those of you bitching about unfairness I'd like to ask how many of you have parents, friends, aunts etc who benefitted from buying their council house at a vastly reduced sum? You might have even grown up in them.....my parents paid a pittance for their council house...a huge subsidy.

THIS coupled with the lack of reinvestment in replacing social housing lost is why we are now in this mess and why YOU are paying vast sums to rent a 2 bed flat instead of being able to go to the council and ask to go on the housing list knowing you would be housed.