Family wants me to give up my social house and I'm not - wwyd?

[spicy2001]

I currently rent a three bedroom social housing property and I live on my own. Most of the rent is paid for by universal credit and I have to pay 25% bedroom tax which is very affordable to me which is for two rooms and a shortfall of £30.55p.

I did speak to a housing officer and they said I am legally allowed to occupy it, and as long as I pay the rent on time, tax and shortfall, then everything is fine. I don't feel guilty for occupying this three bedroom house, it's been my home since I was born.

Recently, I noticed that my family were talking a lot about me downsizing. I asked why are they talking about me downsizing? They said because I don't need this property and have to downsize.

I explained I'm legally allowed to stay here, this is my property and not yours. I get that I don't need this property but I'm staying here because I'm allowed too. I found out that they actually joined a site called "home swapper" and a site called "glass bob" my sibling set up an account using her email address to advertise my property. If I'm correct, I've never joined these so I don't know 100% but they're platforms where you can do mutual exchange and advertise your property.

I phoned my housing association and explained the situation, they've started an investigation and they are speaking to various departments to see if they can do it from the end to see if they can do anything as they approved it but they don't know if they can disapprove it.

The other day a tenant from another part of my cul-de-sac came round and told me she knows I'm downsizing and she has a friend whose currently living in a one bedroom flat with his wife and they've got a one year old daughter and another baby on the way. I explained to this person my family have been trying to get me to downsize to a one bedroom flat and I'm not actually looking to downsize so I won't swap with them but told her I do sympathize with their situation.

She told all my neighbours about her friend and now all the neighbours are peed off at me because I'm not downsizing. My family are also peed of that I'm not downsizing. As far as I'm concerned I don't care as I have the legal right to stay here for as long as I like or want.

I just wanted to know though what would you do if you was in my situation?

Which all go back to the government or to maintain and build housing, which is a very good use of taxes.

I'd say you will not be very popular with either your family or neighbours. While you can tell them all to piss off, I think you are choosing a hard time for yourself by staying.

I'm not sure that "taxes" fund social housing anyway. Any new social housing is financed through capital leverage, some earmarked grant funding (available to other forms of housebuilding also afaik) and throughput investment isn't it? Investment deriving from rent receipts amongst other things - social housing tenants via rent contribute to all of that. It's quite a neat little system really - you work, you pay tax, you pay rent and that £4/5/600 of rent you pay every month goes towards provision and maintenance of social housing. So even if you're on a low wage you can contribute loads of ££, proportionally, to society.

Larner, I am not sure what to say to your post. I am afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of property law. You are making things up.

I shall try. If you own a property, you get to enjoy all rights to do with that property. It is not just to occupy it but also to sell or or pass it on to your beneficiaries in your will. You own not just the piece of land but also some of the airspace over it and the ground it stands on. The right survives your death. Absolutely. Otherwise why do people write wills passing on their property to their descendents if it died with them.

Well nobody OWNS any house really. We're all going to die and mostly our houses remain standing afterwards. Unless you get into some kind of Fall Of The House Of Usher situation, but that's kind of niche. OWNing just means you can occupy it for your lifespan, if you wish. Same as OP can.

This statement is categorically wrong in law. It is not niche. It is the law of the land in the country which invented common law and where a person's home is their castle. Property rights are one of the oldest and most fundamental.

OP only has a right to live in the property under the terms of whatever contract she has with the housing association. It in no shape or form represents a right of ownership. Whatever she or her father paid for it is just payment for the right to live there. It gives her no ownership rights at all. If anything dies with the occupier, it is the OP's right to live there.

I mean op. I have asd and I may not pick up on things but man alive.

I can see why your family are annoyed. Morally it's not great. Really not great and it's kinda a I'm alright jack situation. Legally sure you don't have to move and you don't care about other people. Fine but your actions have consequences and that means that kids gonna be kicking your fence until the day you leave. People will judge you and make comments and that will be on you.
Your free to make choices but your not free from those consequences.

If you only care for yourself and your own situation, you may find that when you come to rely on someone doing the right thing morally by you, that people won't and say well why should I put myself out.

You reap what you sow

As opposed to home owners with mortgages subsidised by low interest rates ? And for the umpteenth time, social housing has nothing to do with the tax payer. Assured tenancies are being phased out - they’re a product of a time when those who couldn’t afford to buy were assured the security of a family home that could be passed down through the generations. The fact they didn’t own it didn’t make it any the less a loved family home. It appears that now only those who can afford to buy should have the luxury of putting down permanent roots, as evidenced by some of the comments here.

Why on earth do you think this is a peculiar way to live ? The OP is working full time, for minimum wage. She’s also going to uni in an attempt to better her situation, so hardly feckless. Surely your gripe should be with employers who pay wages that don’t allow people to make ends meet, and are quite happy to let the tax payer pick up the slack. Not forgetting of course, that the OP is a tax payer herself. Something MN contributors like to forget when piling on to benefit claimants.

@blueshoes yeah yeah land law. The same law that says the crown owns everything really and we're all subsidiary to that. The same law that has entire swathes of newbuild houses apparently being "leasehold" properties where even cash buyers are subsidiary lessors to the freeholder. There's a whole lot of crap in land law.

Although, as an occupier beneficiary of an assured tenancy OP has rights of occupancy anyway. So even that doesn't wash.

But. Look at the land you yourself are occupying now. Are you the only person ever to occupy that space on earth? Are you the last person ever who can occupy it? No, of course not. Land law is just a way of codifying things so you don't have to spend your evenings barricading your door and pouring boiling oil on other would-be occupiers. You can watch Netflix instead. Or go on Mumsnet. Land law allows you to do that. But it's not some all encompassing universal truth. Which, granted, maybe isn't what you're after. But it's what you'll need once you get into the arena of whether someone should or shouldn't be occupying a space that they are absolutely legally and financially entitled to, just as you are legally and financially entitled to occupy your space. Within the law.

Your family are arseholes.
I honestly don't know what I would do but I do think you are within your rights to dig your heels in and stay put.
I wonder if the posters saying you are morally wrong really know what they would do in that scenario - if they are homeowners then they don't have a clue.

I will ask again Why does the OP owe more to single parents that needs housing than the kids OWN FATHERS

@Larner I am afraid you are babbling now. I wish you well.

You do realise that this is the normal process for people who receive no benefits, they don't have kids or as many as they want as they can't afford it or have big enough house or get help with childcare. Having children is a choice and it's not the OPs fault, she's not denying anyone a family. Would you tell that couple them they should have waited, worked harder, got better jobs, etc? It's always someone else's fault or someone is always losing out

I agree with PPs, don't private rent just for the sake of it. A lot of landlords are awful and also could sell up etc whenever.

As under 35, @spicy2001 , unless you have a disability, apart from a few exceptions, you would only get the Shared Accomodation Rate. You would have to pay any other rent for a bedsit/1 bed yourself.

Op the 'family' who are trying to force you out, are they your siblings or someone else who potentially has eyes on the house?

Or do you think, they think you can't afford to keep it on?

I can't understand their mentality.

@blueshoes lol. Yeah M8 I should talk about sensible things like owning fucking air.

Prannet.

When I was in uni, roughly 16 years ago I needed a guarantor for all 4 houses I lived in

No it doesn't belong to the taxpayers. It's social housing as stated in OP. So not at all owned by taxpayers.

@TheHandmaiden Your post reads like a threat to me Its nothing to do with the fucking neighbours or their feral kids

I understand you are proud of owning your own home.

Apart from the financial stuff of being able to make a profit and pass it down to your children, there’s the social aspect of housing too. ECHR states that everyone should have a right to quiet enjoyment of a family life. It does not differentiate between renters and owners. I guess that is maybe what you meant by a person house is their castle?

Also, surely, while a mortgage is owed isn’t it the bank that actually owns the house?

What common law do you mean? If Magna Carta crap, only the nobles could own land and property, people like you and I were tenants. It was feudal for hundreds of years. Tenant farmers etc.

it was an unfair system. The idea of Social housing recognised this and was supposed to give a sense of home and entitlement to everybody, as a human right. Nothing to do with ownership. A house is more than bricks and land and air above it.

please try to stop judging people because they don’t own a house.

I don't judge people who don't own houses only those who conflate ownership rights and occupancy rights.

Disown as controlling and nasty

What situation is the sister in because it sounds to me like jealousy.

LOL!! What other angels on a pinhead matters do you also stand in judgement over? Or : is this the overweening rubric by which you categorise the world? Eg that Jeffrey Dahmer, he was a right wrong un but he wasn't as bad as Peter Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe didn't even distinguish between property rights and ownership rights. Imagine!!!

The OP seems to be someone who has become an orphan in her (late) teens. It's hard to understand why so many posters think it's immoral for her to stay in her home. If you lose your parents as a teenager, are unsupported/defrauded by wider family, haven't finished your education yet, are in precarious (most NMW is precarious) employment - it would be very wise to hold on to her assured tenancy until she can hopefully buy her own place one day. Would people e.g. say its 'morally wrong' for someone who inherits a 3 bed house, or a large enough deposit to buy a 3 bed house? The vast majority of people would keep what they got. Most people only downsize for practical/money saving reasons, not to 'free up houses'. Why should social tenants be holier than most?

I just wanted to know though what would you do if you was in my situation

I'd tell the family members to F off and mind their own business. Why are they so keen you downsize that they put you on a website. It seems odd, are they after your house?

OP you are an incredibly selfish person for taking up such a precious public resource when you don't need it. I'm shocked you can't see that, especially when faced with a real life example of the suffering of others.

Shame on you.