Company accom: Family in flat vs couple in house

[HotCrunchyCrumpet]

Company provide accommodation with the job. There is a wide variety in terms of quality and nearly all are flats, only very few houses. Company changed policy a few years ago that houses should go to families based on occupancy.

Couple in house prior to policy change is being asked to move to a two bed flat as they’re currently in a six bed house with garden so that a family can move in. Would you move if you were in the house?

You would think the company had more authority to prevent such gross under occupation but I can understand why they are digging their heels in. I suppose the real question is why on earth were they allocated such a ridiculously large property in the first place? They've obviously developed a taste for luxurious accommodation which wouldn't have happened if they had just been allocated according to their need at the start.

@Ponderingwindow you’re not told what accommodation you get upon joining only that you’ll be housed.

@Swissrollover no we don’t need a six bed, but a two bed flat for different sexes of children isn’t ideal.

@TheTartfulLodger allocation used to be based on hierarchy, so that’s how they ended up with it. There used to be a single living in there previously. Now it’s based on occupancy and time served

Are the children approaching puberty? If so, this would be a strong argument, but if only toddlers, it would be irrelevant.

Did you have the children before or after the 2 bed was allocated?

If you don't need all of the bedrooms, would you happily vacate to a smaller house, or back to a flat after 3 years if a larger family needed it?

I'm surprised the company doesn't have more ability to force the issue to be honest. Maybe there are rules around employer provided housing.

I'm also surprised they provide 6 bedroom houses. There can't be that many employees who would need that much space so it's an odd choice for them to buy it.

I wouldn't stay in the 6 bedroom house in this case, but I'd try and see if I could negotiate for another house, rather than a flat.

@kitsuneghost the accommodation allocation is reviewed annually for changes

@Swissrollover i completely get what you’re saying, it would be crap to leave. So long as there’s three bedrooms for us I would move but not if there’s not enough bedrooms.

YANBU, this sounds very difficult but the couple DO need to move, it’s not possible for a family like that to cram into a flat.

It is tricky is it an estate house? Lots of people locally live in tied houses some of which are massive so the head gamekeeper has a seven bed rambling farmhouse for him and wife whereas assistant gamekeeper has a three bed bungalow for him/ wife and three kids. Luckily he’s going to retire and they will swap.

I get the change but people are often resistant to change so have to be allowed a bit of time to get used to new set up.

Yanbu. If they want a 6 bedroomed house they should buy one from their own earnings.

I might feel slightly differently if OP had chosen to have an excessively large family & was then expecting commensurately large house, but that's not the case here.

@Abitorangelooking they’re not on an estate, the company owns various properties and buildings.

Honestly, it sounds like a really weird set up. Is the accommodation free, all paid at the same rate, or paid for by size?
Is the accommodation part of the overall remuneration package? If so, I think you can justify bigger properties based on seniority of the role, but not on how big a family is. I'd be very annoyed if I did the same job as someone else, and they got paid more (by having a bigger house) than me based on 'having a family'.

When you couch it in terms of person A earning more money because they have a family to support, and a single person should earn less because they don't, it sounds a lot less reasonable.

I think you'd have to be pretty selfish not to move out of a 6 bed house if you're only a couple.

I think it is fine to insist that you move in, as long as you also plan to move out again as soon as a family with one more child than you, or the same number of children and a dog... arrives.

We've lived in tied housing most of our adult lives and TBH I think allocation on hierarchy is more simple and TBH, fairer. In that system, you know how to get a better house- you go up a job. Basing it on need means nobody can settle in case somebody arrives out of the wings with greater 'need' for their house.

If I was the couple I'm afraid I wouldn't move unless very specifically made to by the company. If housing forms part of your work package it would be the equivalent of a huge pay/benefits cut so I would expect to be compensated for that if I was willing.

I certainly wouldn't want to end up in a1 or 2 bedroom flat having been in a 6 bedroom house.

I know it's shit for you, but if I was the couple I'd not know you and it would be giving up something huge.

They were there first and after 6 years l can see why they might not want to leave. Will you move out if someone else is hired who has double the children you have?

If I had another job lined up easily, I would say no to the move - otherwise, what is the alternative

If DC are under 10 they can share a room. If over 10 and opposite sexes they need their own room.

Are the properties (and jobs) overseas? Are you ex-pats? If so the couple might not want to move as they may be used to having friends and family (adult children?) to stay. Being in a position where that isn't an option may make an overseas job not acceptable for them.

Couple have pets but no children

If they were allocated a 6 bedroom house when they signed up how is it just to ask them to move, to effectively give up some of their benefit?

@TruthorDie its occupancy and time of service, so whilst it’s possible people have more children new joiners wouldn’t be considered.

few people pointing out that yes the company don’t consider the value of the housing in the package

Sounds to me that the company has completely ballsed it up.

If it’s compulsory, then, yes, I’d have to move.

If it’s voluntary, then, no, I wouldn’t want to move.