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?

As the family, I see you moved under false pretences, and I would notify the company that the housing allocated is very different from as advised and unsuitable for our family. We will unfortunately be giving notice in a week and expecting our return to our home location/country to be paid for due to having been misled by the company. I’d happily see a lawyer to write that letter.

I was “the couple” in the family house. I wouldn’t have moved. Just because you have children doesn’t trump my right to a nice jome

I would move; like PP, I would feel uncomfortable having that much space.

I don't think companies should endlessly shuffle people around every five minutes, but a review every year (resulting in a move if there is clearly a SIGNIFICANT mismatch) is reasonable. The employees do not own this accommodation and have no "right" to it.

The company really needs to look afresh at the suitability of the accommodation it provides, or maybe pay its workers properly so that they can buy or rent homes that are suitable for their needs.

Are you working for the FCDO and have been posted abroad? This sounds familiar.

If so, ask the DHM via the Post Housing Committee to reconsider your circumstances and this example in particular. Ultimately the decision to adjust circumstances comes from them (not the Estates team who run the allocation of the properties). Good luck.

@FuckMeUpFlorida my first thought. In fact I’m pretty sure I know which country this is.

Another point to consider is who is paying for the costs of the move. Moving from a six bed house to a 2 bed flat is a massive thing. Seems unlikely that the employer is covering the true costs of that (and certainly I can't imagine them compensating for the time it will take to diet out such a major downsize).

I think it's pretty unreasonable for the company to try to enforce the policy retrospectively. The couple in the large house might not have taken the job if it hadn't been for that property- for all we know, they might own a large house and only took the position because there was equally good accommodation as the one they own. They might have turned the position down had it just been a small flat on offer so it's hardly fair for the company to try to coerce them into moving out of some sense of duty. Presumably you took the post knowing you were in a flat with children OP.

I think that's the bottom line. The company have changed the policy but it's not really on to try to apply it retrospectively

No one knows where they will be put accommodation wise until days before they start work as part of the on-boarding process.

When compared they win on the extra year being one point on the system however, and again this is the company’s system, we have an additional two points due to people present.

How old were the children when you joined?

Is this in the UK?
What's the purpose of them providing accommodation and keeping so much housing?
If its not properly accounted for in the remuneration package then are you otherwise getting a competitive salary and could just rent elsewhere?

Either is part of the package so you should be compensated, or it's not do you should be able to rent your own.

@HotCrunchyCrumpet it really does seem to be a crap way to run a company. But if no one knows exactly which accommodation they'll be in until shortly before starting work, then that's the situation everyone is buying into isn't it? There'll be winners and losers but everyone is being treated on equal terms- everyone has the risk of being allocated a small flat.

with 3 children, or planning to start a family, it's a risk a lot of people wouldn't take. Though having said that, I've known people take jobs with free accommodation for all sorts of reasons, including a couple with 2 young children who moved to a job with a small flat. It enabled them to rent out the (larger) house they owned and enabled the mum to be a SAHM for 5 years which was what she wanted and wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford.

You presumably took the gamble knowing that there wasn't a specific accommodation being offered same as the couple in the big house. It's wrong that the company have led you to believe the couple will move out and got your hopes up but tbh

Tbh I don't blame the couple for wanting to stay in the accommodation they were allocated

The company is in really bad form here—disclosing who is in which house, saying that you should be entitled to a particular home, and that the current family in it are “refusing to leave”. They’re really pitting colleagues against each other here, aren’t they?

Agree, how could you work in that environment? Alongside someone who'd basically caused you to leave your home?
Also if its reassessed yearly and you have to move who undertakes the marching out clean? Would I hell be prepared to do that every year! Also can you imagine a family tragedy and the housing vultures swooping in?! 'Well your family doesn’t need that house now, I do, move!'

This is pretty standard when you live in company owned housing! I have lived in several different sets up - both my DH work (overseas) and mine (UK boarding school).

Accommodation is provided based on need - so a senior member of staff can and will be asked to move. Well I say asked but really it is told, it is move to the other accommodation they are providing or move out and sort out your own accommodation.

When you are living in company provided accommodation - which is usually free or very reduced rent - then the downside are you can be asked to move. It doesn’t officially make up your remuneration package, so you are not loosing financially by moving. (In the same way once my kids stop going to the school I work at I lose the staff discount, but that doesn’t affect my package from the school).

Huge benefits in living in company accommodation but you have to accept they come at some cost - and moving when required is one of them!

Not really as you weren't promised "a 6 bedroom house" as part of the renumeration, just "accommodation"

How much notice would be given to move? What if you'd a holiday booked in advance for the dates of new arrivals? Would everyone have to down tools for the housing switches? Sounds hugely stressful!

This is not the case at our boarding school. DH gets a specified house type in his contract (used to be a specific house linked to each job, but that is no longer the case). It is very much part of his remuneration package. We under-occupy our house, but would not be asked to move.

I'd move, purely to pay less tax on the BIK!

It's ridiculous that the company has allocated you a two-bedroomed house with children of those ages. That's the line I'd be taking with them, rather than focusing on the particular house that you've missed out on. A 12 year old needs privacy.

I think this is the issue. Many people would not want to give up a house and garden for a flat.

Why would you want to work for such a crap company? Seriously, they are shit. I'd be looking for another job and leaving as soon as I'd secured one.

Only houseparents and the head (maybe deputy not sure) have a dedicated house. We don’t have enough houses so family homes have to go to families. Getting free accommodation is such a massive perk, having to move occasionally is a price you have to pay (moves are minimised but do happen as circumstances change)