Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To keep our council property when we can technically buy?

236 replies

HungaryForLove · 26/11/2025 17:25

Hi all,

My partner and I are TTC and thinking about our future. Ideally, after I have a baby I only want to work maximum 2 days weekly so I can be around for our kids, and also save on childcare costs. Partner earns about £35k/year before tax/pension, and we have around £16k in savings. We wouldn’t be claiming UC, just child benefit.

We currently live in a council house that my partner grew up in — he inherited it when his mum moved abroad. It’s a 3-bedroom house. Rent is £480/month. The estate is fine, some people are bit rough around the edges but they never give us any trouble and there’s actually a nice community. I regularly walk to the local shop at night and never feel unsafe. It’s full of young families.

The alternative is buying a 3-bedroom house (we need 3 bed as want 2 DC and I often WFH), which seems to start around £160,000 here and with the 10% deposit of £16,000 our savings would go back down to £0 with no buffer for house maintenance, car issues, maternity leave etc. Also with a 30-year mortgage (we’d need 30 years to be able to afford the monthly payments) at 4.35% interest, I’d realistically need to work 4–5 days a week just to cover costs. I am currently only earning £26,000 full-time. Working so many days would mean barely seeing our kids and only taking home less than £1000 anyway after childcare, and that’s with taking into account the 30 free hours as you still end up paying hundreds a month anyway (I know this from my sister who uses our local nursery 4 days a week for her son who is soon changing to 2 days as she will pay nothing then).

If we stay in the council house, we could comfortably manage on one full-time income and one very part-time income and retain over £10,000 in savings (that would otherwise go on house deposit) to get us through maternity leaves etc, and the a portion of the money we’d otherwise spend on mortgage interest we would invest. Even considering rent going up a few percent per year, we’d still be much more comfortable.

So, AIBU for wanting to stay put in our inherited council house for now, even though we could technically afford to buy? I’m not saying we would stay forever but at least until the expensive childcare years are over, and maybe by then mortgage rates will have become more reasonable and I could go back to working full-time and we’d only be paying wrap-around care.

I do appreciate we are in a fortunate position to be even able to make this choice. Me and DP did grow up in severe poverty, I had alcoholic gambling addict parents and DP is originally from a very deprived country which his DM has moved back to and neither of us will inherit anything. Just to add context.

OP posts:
PeonyPatch · 26/11/2025 20:17

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:13

Why do people think council house rent is subsidised? Is it because it’s lower than private rental? If so, it SHOULD be lower.

As an example, my cousin moved recently into a council house, and my sister into a private rental, about £200 per month difference in rent. The council house was a total shell, no appliances, no carpets or flooring, filthy bare walls, radiators with pain peeling off, garden a disgusting mess…. The private rental is lovely, fully carpeted, walls freshly painted in neutral colours (and will be refreshed every 3 years), some kitchen appliances built in, garden neat and tidy and easily maintained. Over a 3 year period, it will cost my cousin a lot more in her council house with everything taken into account

that is because benefits and council housing are for people who NEED it.

Why should tax payers be paying for luxury homes for people when they themselves are propping up the country? I’ve no issue supporting my local community but when we are scrimping and saving and drowning in bills and wages that are stagnant, why do others get to exploit the system? Too many takers in this country.

comeandhaveteawithme · 26/11/2025 20:17

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:13

Why do people think council house rent is subsidised? Is it because it’s lower than private rental? If so, it SHOULD be lower.

As an example, my cousin moved recently into a council house, and my sister into a private rental, about £200 per month difference in rent. The council house was a total shell, no appliances, no carpets or flooring, filthy bare walls, radiators with pain peeling off, garden a disgusting mess…. The private rental is lovely, fully carpeted, walls freshly painted in neutral colours (and will be refreshed every 3 years), some kitchen appliances built in, garden neat and tidy and easily maintained. Over a 3 year period, it will cost my cousin a lot more in her council house with everything taken into account

The difference isn't just the rent (and £200 is actually a decent amount and saving that monthly can make a big difference to someone's life), it's the security.

Your sister could lose her home at the whim of her landlord in two months flat.

Your cousin - not so much.

BreatheAndFocus · 26/11/2025 20:20

So your joint income is currently £61k? I can’t believe you’re considering staying and stopping someone else far worse off than you getting the property. That’s the issue. Yes, technically you’re allowed to, but IMO morally it’s wrong. It’s not even like you’re borderline struggling. Council houses are for people in need. Move on and let someone worse off than you have it, eg a single parent stuck in emergency accommodation.

And why do you need a 3 bed house? Get on the property ladder with a 2 bed and you’ll be fine.

AInightingale · 26/11/2025 20:21

People who earn too much, or are under-occupied should be kicked out ASAP.
That just disincentivises people, so they choose to live on benefits longer or work fewer hours so they don't fall foul of an eviction order!
Councils do need to get tougher on under occupation though. They won't touch the homes of people over sixty, which is extremely unfair to young families on the waiting list.

PigeonsandSquirrels · 26/11/2025 20:21

So you only pay £5,760 a year in rent but you earn £61k a year between you… I don’t see why you don’t have a lot more than 16k saved tbh. What are you spending the extra 47,000 after tax on?

PeonyPatch · 26/11/2025 20:23

I’ve honestly done the wrong thing in life saving up and getting on to the property ladder. I should’ve had kids at 18 and got a council property……

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:25

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 18:12

The OP is a very long post so I'll summarise. Despite being able to afford to be independent of the state, you would like to live in a tax payer supported house that you don't need so that you can give up work whilst blocking the use of the property for someone who actually needs it.

Yes, thats unreasonable and immoral. You know that otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Do the right thing.

(And if you won't do it for someone who needs it, do it for yourself. There is nothing that is economically sensible about renting instead of buying).

Council houses are not subsidised by the tax payer. So op should stay put.

Waitingfordoggo · 26/11/2025 20:25

HungaryForLove · 26/11/2025 17:35

I have considered this. The way I see it though is that the reduced rent is what allows many people to otherwise support themselves and stay off needing further benefits. There’s loads of people in council housing who can technically afford to buy or private rent but if you kick them out of the council housing they will end up needing support in other ways in the future as they could only afford mortgage/private rent by the skin of their teeth. If we were to buy now we’d end up with no savings or safety buffer, all it would take is for DP to have an accident at work and become disabled for us to be thrown back under the poverty line and needing UC, or would only take the car or boiler breaking down for us to end up needing a £5000 loan which would then spiral.

we have no intention of ever claiming housing benefit.

Edited

I have nothing to say about the council house but re accident at work: I would urge your partner to get a life insurance/critical illness policy if you can afford it. This means that his income is covered for a period of time in the event of him being unable to work due to injury or illness.

I would also suggest getting married or having a civil partnership- doesn’t mean you have to have a wedding, but does mean you and any future children would be better protected in the event of separation or your partner dying.

comeandhaveteawithme · 26/11/2025 20:26

AInightingale · 26/11/2025 20:21

People who earn too much, or are under-occupied should be kicked out ASAP.
That just disincentivises people, so they choose to live on benefits longer or work fewer hours so they don't fall foul of an eviction order!
Councils do need to get tougher on under occupation though. They won't touch the homes of people over sixty, which is extremely unfair to young families on the waiting list.

60 isn't even old these days. A lot of 60 year olds are at the height of their careers, earning plenty and living full active lives.

My mum is about to turn 70 and I don't even consider her "old" yet.

comeandhaveteawithme · 26/11/2025 20:27

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:25

Council houses are not subsidised by the tax payer. So op should stay put.

Who pays for them to be built in the first place?

Alpacajigsaw · 26/11/2025 20:28

Stay put.

its not down to you to make life harder for yourself so someone random MNers deem more “deserving” can live in your home. It’s hardly your fault the housing market in this country is a shitshow. No one else on this thread who is criticising you would actually move out either, they’re at the wind up.

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:29

AutumnLeavesandKnittedJumpers · 26/11/2025 17:34

No doubt below market rent.

they expect the taxpayer to subsidise their savings.

Did you run out of twatty things to say on the budget thread?
First pensioners. Now council tenants who's next on on your shit list?

Cosyblankets · 26/11/2025 20:34

titchy · 26/11/2025 17:35

How is the tax payer subsiding? Councils charge market rent which they are paying and they’re not claiming benefits. Confused

Market rent? Did you read what she's paying for a 3 bed? You find one for that price.

I live in the north West. A 3 bed in am average to rough area is about 800 to 900

u3ername · 26/11/2025 20:38

Poms · 26/11/2025 17:32

Rage bait bullshit

I don’t think it is. I know at least three families who are not worse off than us but somehow secured a council house and live cheaply. They often work part time to keep savings under a certain threshold etc too.
I think it’s area dependent and a bit of a lottery as to whether you qualify, although of course, I have no idea what they’ve put on the papers (single parent, disabilities, etc) to qualify.

Alpacajigsaw · 26/11/2025 20:38

Also, if OP bought a house and had to work full time when she had a baby, she’d be getting taxpayer subsidised childcare. So how come that is ok but not living in a council house?

TheDevilFindsWorkForIdleMums · 26/11/2025 20:43

Buy the council house?

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:48

lazyarse123 · 26/11/2025 20:25

Council houses are not subsidised by the tax payer. So op should stay put.

Council houses are owned by local government which is partly tax payer funded.

Social housing is owned by non-profit organisations which are part funded by government grants (and therefore tax payer funded).

It is a complete myth to say they are not supported by tax payers.

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:50

PeonyPatch · 26/11/2025 20:17

that is because benefits and council housing are for people who NEED it.

Why should tax payers be paying for luxury homes for people when they themselves are propping up the country? I’ve no issue supporting my local community but when we are scrimping and saving and drowning in bills and wages that are stagnant, why do others get to exploit the system? Too many takers in this country.

Think you’ve misunderstood my question, you haven’t explained how it is subsidised

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:53

comeandhaveteawithme · 26/11/2025 20:17

The difference isn't just the rent (and £200 is actually a decent amount and saving that monthly can make a big difference to someone's life), it's the security.

Your sister could lose her home at the whim of her landlord in two months flat.

Your cousin - not so much.

It isn’t a saving though, is it? Just to fund carpets and flooring will cost her 2 years of her £200 per month ‘saving’. That’s before considering sorting the garden out, painting, buying appliances

I was just pointing out, that the rent may be lower, but with good reason, not because it is subsidised

Somersetbaker · 26/11/2025 20:54

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 26/11/2025 17:48

I dare say private rents locally are considerably more, so that’s what posters mean by being ‘subsidised’.

You mean they're not increasing the wealth of a private landlord!

Witchcraftandhokum · 26/11/2025 20:54

I'm 98% sure this is ragebait. The other 2% wants me to say thay when my abusive partner kicked me out of his house the council wouldn't house me because they was a shortage of.council houses and I "didn't have kids". They'd rather I lived on the streets than give me a house.

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:57

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 20:53

It isn’t a saving though, is it? Just to fund carpets and flooring will cost her 2 years of her £200 per month ‘saving’. That’s before considering sorting the garden out, painting, buying appliances

I was just pointing out, that the rent may be lower, but with good reason, not because it is subsidised

If she's genuinely no better off because she's going to pay for the stuff you're claiming, why does she not go private?

Rituelec · 26/11/2025 20:59

I wouldnt feel secure. They could take it back at any time.

Fizbosshoes · 26/11/2025 21:01

I have read on another thread that in Australia and USA, social housing is seen as temporary and it is expected that families will only live in it for a set number of years, so presumably there is a much higher turnover of property.
Im intrigued how that works - because obviously its completely different to here, where the tenancy is secure - potentially for life.

It guess its easy to be judgy about supposedly working the system but that happens in lots of areas (eg people moving/renting in school catchment areas, or attending church for 6 months to get into c of e school etc) and while it might not seem fair, its not breaking any rules. Lots of people would and do, do things that are beneficial to their own family.
I disagree with rtb though as that just takes away the house as a council.house altogether

JollyLilacBee · 26/11/2025 21:02

HoskinsChoice · 26/11/2025 20:57

If she's genuinely no better off because she's going to pay for the stuff you're claiming, why does she not go private?

I don’t know the full circumstances, but I would assume it’s because she has a poor credit rating so can’t get a tenancy. Her partner upped and left and she lost her house as she couldn’t pay the mortgage, she was in temporary accommodation. She’ll probably have to live without carpets and flooring if I’m being honest, but that was the quote she was given