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 chose to have children so no, it's not "unjust" that they're in a house and you're not. You're the one responsible for providing for them.

OP is this military? If so, I think you should specify, as it does nuance it somewhat. By that, I mean that everyone who enters the military does so accepting that they will be required to move around, and the type/look/size of housing is not part of the “package”, so I think it’s extra unreasonable of them not to move. It’s also an environment where level of seniority counts for a lot, so even though their actions are out of sync with the policy, if this person is very senior, they will have more clout if they push back (not saying that’s right but it’s true…it also means they could make your/your other half’s working life miserable if they chose to, which ties your hands somewhat in terms of how much you can argue).

I think all you can realistically do is accept they’re not going to budge, even though the policy dictates they should, and proceed down whatever convoluted path you’ll need to go down to get the 2 million approvals needed to rent somewhere suitable.

OP stated very early on that it is not military

YABU to blame individuals

Put yourself in their shoes. Not many people would want to move in their circumstances unless they are being compensated

Its 100% the company’s fault

I think this is the employers problem to solve, not the couple’s. The housing stock they have seems to not be suitable for their staff and if they require staff and their families to live on their property they must make it appropriate.

Don’t blame the couple - try to put yourself in their shoes. They didn’t trick anyone or cheat to get the lovely house. It was given to them and presumably the employee worked their way up the ladder and the lovely house is part of their reward for hard work and loyalty. It would be unfair on them to take it away from them now.

Couple in the larger house should be made to share if they have excess space!!
Company needs to get them sorted - really selfish behaviour....

Military?
Boarding school?

It's a tricky one and really depends on the contract that came with the job. If I took a job on the basis of a specific type of accommodation I wouldn't want to move somewhere much smaller just to accommodate someone else, who presumably too their job on the basis it was offered.

I guess if the contract just specifies 'accommodation' in general terms the company could force a move but it sounds a rubbish way to run a business frankly.

Made to share? That sounds like it would go well!

That's like asking someone to share their salary because they have excess!

The people in the big house would have been given this as part of their salary package.

The best thing the company could do is to sell the excessively sized houses and use the money to buy more reasonable sized houses.

With a couple or two single adults.

I know vicars' children and they often had visiting clergy staying in their households as guests for different lengths of time.

I think you have to take the other house out of the equation.
Your company provide accommodation, if you don't want the accommodation they have provided and think you deserve someone else's house I think YABU.
The company own the properties so ultimately unless they specified to you you would get the bigger house and then didn't I honestly don't think there is much you can do.

I think that if the accommodation gets reviewed annually, then acquiring lots of pets to the point that they need extra rooms/a garden etc seems stupid.

Personally I'd hate such an oversized house to rattle around in, but if the company won't force them to move there's not a lot that can be done.

Hopefully the company will sell off such oversized homes and purchase more reasonable properties in future - six beds seem unusual to have for single family occupancy (Vs single employees house sharing) compared to three beds.

Did she? Sounds like policy changes in the armed forces to me.

I'd be more concerned about losing the garden than the rooms. It looks like the company has the wrong mix of housing stock. I might take a modest downsize, but not six beds and garden, and presumably the possessions to fill that, down to a two bed flat. Really you don't need a 6 bed house either, a 3 bed flat would work.

I think it would be useful here for the OP to explain the set up as I think it is relevant to the answers people will give. Is it boarding school? Forces? Abroad?

The way it's being worded sounds like a boarding school. At the end of the day the couple in the big house have it as their home. They don't owe you anything...you decided to have kids in what is presumably free or very subsidised accommodation. Your workplace are now trying to accommodate your changed needs.

I have quite a senior role, and my pay means I have a bigger house despite not having kids. Some more junior members of the team do have kids and have much smaller houses. I could give some of my salary to them so they could afford a bigger house. My employer could ask me nicely to do so. I’d say absolutely not.

You’re asking the same thing here. Either the employer can force the move, and if they can they should. And if they can’t then they should’ve negotiated a better employment contract to give them that flexibility. But if they didn’t, then it’s the couple’s house so long as they work there and it’s unreasonable to expect them to move if they aren’t willing to following a polite request.

There’s such a difference from a 6 bed house to a flat with no garden. I wouldn’t move to that. A three bed house with a garden maybe but unless making a baby is part of your job requirements then I don’t see why you’d get better benefits for doing the same job as the childless couple.

I think this.
The type of housing would be a major part of the remuneration package so even if I felt bad I wouldn't relinquish without compensation.
And if I was the family and had been promised family housing but not given it I would be asking for extra to pay for my own.

If the couple accepted/were assigned the 6 bed house 6 years ago based on the policy of the company at that time, no, they shouldn't have to move, not even if the policy has changed.

If there's a new policy of 'according to family size' then that policy should be 'from this day forward' and not retroactive. But who on earth would be entitled to a 6 bed house? A family with 5 or more DC? And if you have less, do you stay put until an 'appropriate' house is available?

It’s not just about square footage or bedrooms. Living in a flat is very different than a house. It’s different enough that some employees will quit if forced to downgrade.

If you are used to quiet, going back to dealing with noise through the walls is shocking. If you are used to entering your home immediately, carrying groceries up stairs and along hallways is annoying. If you are used to having outdoor space of your own, especially a garden, a flat could feel downright claustrophobic.

ultimately it’s going to come down to who is more likely to quit over the housing issue and who is the company more afraid to lose.

What you have discovered is that they don’t want the person in that house to leave and whilst they might rather you/your DP didn’t leave they are willing to risk that.

personally I agree that they should move, but I can see why they would refuse if they were housed on the old system and see their house as connected to their rank/status.

I would move for an appropriate lump sum or an ongoing increase in salary corresponding to the difference in rental value on the open market, adjusted for tax. Otherwise no way.

Thank you everyone, it is really helpful to hear all different sides. Whilst it’s not considered as part of the package it’s a fair point that moving would equate to a loss of remuneration in that form. One of the couple is a grade higher and one year on from me.

I had been told it was being allocated to us as they were moving so got my hopes up. I shouldn’t focus on the couple, I ended up dwelling on it as they constantly moan about the size of it, the company won’t change their housing stock and effectively said the couple won’t move for you so sorry you’ll have to wait until someone does. They also won’t provide money direct to find somewhere suitable.