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?

^When social housing was invented in the 1930's that was the aim, yes. That ordinary "hardworking families" (to quote the current government) would be able to live in spacious, clean housing with space for a veggie patch and the kids to run around in the fresh air.
That was always the point. Social housing was never designed to be a race to the bottom for the dispossessed, or a social lottery for people who have been priced out of private rented accommodation.
It was always supposed to be there to give normal people a decent place to live.
Of course, now we no longer live in houses. We live in "properties", which makes us think that housing is no longer a right but a privilege.^

Excellent post Ifnot. Thank you.

dawndonna we are all entitled to have a conversation without being called thick and asked to bugger off. Needless.

Wow - some disingenuous posts on here.

It is a two tier system whether people like it or not. You can't have it both ways - either social housing is for the needy, or it's for everyone. It's clearly not for everyone, as me and many other posters have pointed out we are paying huge amounts in rent privately, and cannot afford more children. It isn't fair. You can't pretend it is.

Obviously OP you should take the house, I would in your situation. I do also think you should 'pay it forward' by moving out when you no longer need it.

I do think its bonkers that people aren't continually assessed to see if they need council housing - get a foot in the door and you're sorted for life seems so wrong. Am absolutely not a DM reader and I resent debate being polarised in this way - my SiL has just bought her council flat on right to buy and will wait the minimum period before selling it on at a huge profit, renting it out in the meantime. I don't blame her and I don't blame the OP, but it's not right for some people to struggle privately while others are subsidised and able to have more children. My heart aches writing the bit about more children tbh - OP do give a moment's pause to the idea of having to sacrifice the desire for another child because you couldn't afford a bigger house. You're on a different playing field here. You're not a millionaire, you're a normal hardworking family, I get it - but the majority of hardworking families do not have the choices you have. It doesn't mean people are rightwing DM readers, it means they see the injustice in people who have similar jobs having homes subsidised in order to afford more children. It's a dream for most 'hardworking families' and we don't have the choice to move to a bigger home.

And, with all due respect, they can't afford a larger house. Neither can I. But they want more children, so they will take a HA house.

This is logic I am not understanding.

For the record - I don't understand it on general principal, I don't give a flying fuck what the OP does or where she lives, as an individual. In fact, given the story, I'd say take the bigger house. Seems to make sense.

BUT what I can't understand is why some people, like the OP, are in this situation? Surely if you can't afford a house adequate for your needs, you stop having children until you can afford it? Obviously, social housing is wonderful for people who haven't planned their children, accidents happen, but the OP is actually talking about children she intends to have years from now?

Good Post Jumper, you explain so well what my opinion is.

I do sometimes despair when I look at this entitlement culture. I am not talking about people who need help, like the OP did. But why shall welfare be for ever? Would it not benefit more people if welfare was used temporarily to get back on your feet, and move on from once you manage? It seems that people view it as their entitlement to a certain way of life, a subsidized life, even when they no longer need it. Rather than showing social responsibility and moving on when their situation is better, they cling to their entitlement for life, while their financial situation is getting better and better, to the point of having 5 kids in an overpopulated country. I just dont understand it.

With nobody voluntarily moving on from social housing, it is harder and harder to get a home. The government is not likely to build more social housing, their best bet would be to try and make changes so that people who dont need it move out of welfare and into the private market. This way, they wont need to replenish the social housing stock. I think the government more and more want to see a population that work, and pay their own way.

It is just a different point of view. Some blame the situation on not enough social housing. And others, like me, on too many people who stay in social housing and view it as permanent rather than a stop gap solution.

jumpher you put it so much more eloquently than I

quint so do you. God I am so in-succinct

And I totally agree with Dsm

Although actually I suspect like Worra, that the OP may not be back, having lit the touch paper...

X post. I dont agree that you are in-succinct!

But thanks. (Dare I say Lol)

My DM is very snobby about the people who live in the new social housing estate next to her. Until I reminded her that her house was originally a council house. My point being that before right to buy my DM would never have considered buying a house. As far as she was concerned, you moved into your council house and that was you until you died. That wasn't based on need, btw, it was just what you did if you were working class, you went on the list for a council house, you had your secure tenancy and that was you for life. But you worked and you paid a market rent for it.

Now, if there's enough social housing to go around, then that works fine. But then Thatcher said 'no, secure tenancies at fair market rates aren't enough, we need an nation of owners.' So she bought her house. That house (which she moved into from new btw) will never go back into social use. It's that which is wrong, not the concept of secure, fairly-priced social housing.

I just hate being typed as a DM reader when I'm just frustrated at the inequality. It's good to read others feel the same. I'm not judging the OP but I do judge those who can't see beyond their own cosy situations I the wider implications of a two-tier situation. Jealousy is a normal reaction I think.

OP yes go for it. You want to and you can afford it why the heck not? I have only read first page and this page but you would be mad not to accept. I hope you'll be very happy.

I've never read the DM either

Wilson good post. But where now? We can't go back to that situation, things have changed irreparably, market rents are ridiculous and there's no money for councils to build or buy.

I think the 'home for life' in the current climate has to be impossible, it's not right as it causes unfairness through inequality.

Op, I think you would be perfectly reasonable to do this swap. 5 people occupying a 4 bed house is perfect, it's not under occupied in real terms. I can see that the council may class it is under occupied because 2 of your dc could share but I think that isn't something to feel guilty over as it is just a technicality and none of the bedrooms will actually be empty.

However, I am not so sure that it is financially wise to plan to have another 1-2 children when you already have 3 and cannot afford to buy a house. I think that having 3 children in your position is fine but actively planning more is not really sensible.

A 2 bedroom mid terraced house for £325, you think is 'about right'? And £500 would be daylight robbery

Wow. I really do think you should be even more grateful than you are. You have no idea how lucky you are.

To help - I pay four times what you do. And We live in a flat.

I pay £1200 for a 2-bed terrace in a horrible area in zone 6 tiny galley kitchen. This talk of dining rooms...

I know right, dining rooms. Jeez.

DSM do you live in an area described by chundra? Are you paying more to live in london?

Slightly OT but I'm shocked at how high rents are in other areas. Granted, I live in a very very poor area, but the lovely 4 storey, 4 bed, 2 bath house I've just moved out of cost £495 a month!

Average rent on a 2 bed house here is £400!

Do wages really differ so much that people can pay double or triple that amount??

You can not compare an apple with an orange.