In a right pickle dont know what to do

JimmyTheWig

19lottie82 wrote: »

It's plenty big enough! Especially if you only have your SS on the weekends!

2 kids per bedroom, you and your OH in the living room. Plenty of people do it.

It is not plenty big enough! It is _far_ from big enough. But you could cope.

I was going to say that this is probably your best option.

But then I saw that your rented place was a council place and I agree (from your point of view) you'd be mad to give that up.

Really, you need to sell the other property, and fast.
The usual way to do this would be to drop the price to the point where someone bites.
But this might not be an option if you are in negative equity. How do you plan to fund the shortfall when it sells? Could you cope with more of a shortfall if you dropped the price?
My point is that it would be better to drop £3k in price than pay out £300 a month for a year waiting for a buyer at the right price. But you can't drop the price by £3k if you can't fund an extra £3k shortfall.


I think it goes without saying that you will do what is best for you and your family. If, in doing so, that is not what is best for the population at large then it is the rules that are wrong. People who have a problem with what you are doing should be complaining to those who make the rules rather than having a go at you.

But I also think that you should consider yourselves very lucky to have secured a council property while owning a house.

Sammie_UK1

Following the death of my sibling, I now look after her 2 young children in her cramped house with my child, her widowed husband, my husband, Mum and disabled sister. There's 8 of us in a small cramped terraced house that was owned by my late sister.

We make do in our difficult situation and you should too. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the tax payer to sort your "pickle of a situation out".

There are people in situations a lot worse than yours who are more deserving of social housing.

If you have any sense of right/wrong, you will gove up your council house to someone who actually deserves it.

Sorry to be harsh; but thats life!

19lottie82

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It is not plenty big enough! It is _far_ from big enough. But you could cope.
.

JTW - As someone has just said, the babies can sleep in a cot in the parents room for the next year, at least. this is the norm for most people anyway, isn't it?

That leaves a bed room for her other child, in which her SS can stay, during his weekend only visits.

OK, you couldn't describe it as spacious, but I really wouldn't view this as cramped, or far from adequate I'm afraid.

Cramped would be a family of 4/5/6 sleeping in a single room at a B&B, waiting on a council house that they REALLY need.

Sammie_UK1

sddk1985 wrote: »

We will not making a profit from the property as negative equity.

So you're in negative equity..

Let me guess; you bought you're home at the peak of the housing bubble (2006-2008) with a 95%, 100%, or even a 105% mortgage and now the bubble has burst.

What goes up, must come down.. What was so ridiculously overvalued (i.e. your house) has now come crashing down in value. Did you not contemplate what would happen should the bubble burst?...

A bit of future thinking/contingency planning was severly lacking on both your parts!

princeofpounds

I agree that if you are happy with the council place then it is worth retaining it.

There is a high possibility that your best course of action is actually to go bankrupt if you cannot sell the place you own. By the sounds of it you don't have any other assets, the house has no equity and is not likely to build any over the next few years.

Caz3121

sddk1985 wrote: »

Basically when all said I will be better asking my partner the father to all my children the man i have been with for 10 years to move back to his mums ...... the only way we are gonna be able to stay afloat

I am not sure how this helps...is it to give you one less person in the current property or so you can attempt to claim you are single to get more in benefits?

JimmyTheWig

19lottie82 wrote: »

JTW - As someone has just said, the babies can sleep in a cot in the parents room for the next year, at least. this is the norm for most people anyway, isn't it?

I wouldn't have said that keeping babies in the parent's room for a year was the norm. But certainly do-able, I agree.

After that, however, it will become do-able but cramped.

I presume that if the OP moves back into their own place now they will not be able to get a council place in a year's time. I don't know how they managed to get one now, but I can see why they would want to keep hold of it if they did.

Obviously the right answer for the greater good is for the OP to give up the council place and move back into the place they own.
But if you honestly put yourself in the OP's shoes, is that what you wuold do? Is that what you'd tell your friend / sister / etc to do in that situation?
Yes, they've made some mistakes. Yes, they should have planned things better. But can you really expect them to do what is wrong for their family just to do what is right for the greater good? You can't.
If that means you don't want to help them, then fair enough. There are some things I wouldn't want to help someone to do. But in which case just leave them alone. A single comment to say you will not be helping on this thread because you disagree with what they are doing would be reasonable. Multiple posts arguing they should deliberately disadvantage themselves is not reasonable.

JimmyTheWig

Caz3121 wrote: »

I am not sure how this helps...is it to give you one less person in the current property or so you can attempt to claim you are single to get more in benefits?

I believe they meant to then claim as a single parent.
I don't believe it works like this as they still wouldn't be single in reality so wouldn't be able to claim like that.

[Obviously they may get away with it for a while, but would then have to pay it all back once found out which would be worse than not having had the money in the first place!]

19lottie82

JTW - yes you're prob right. I am just astounded that the council would give the OP a house in the first place when they owned their won house. is this the norm up and down the country?

BUT I don't see how it is for theri own good that they are paying £300 a month from their own pocket for a house to sit empty.
If this is the case, and they are not willing to live in it, as another poster suggested, sell it, make a loss and declare yourself bankrupt.

JimmyTheWig

19lottie82 wrote: »

I am just astounded that the council would give the OP a house in the first place when they owned their won house. is this the norm up and down the country?

I don't believe that this is the norm. I presume there is more to this story than we have been told.

BUT I don't see how it is for theri own good that they are paying £300 a month from their own pocket for a house to sit empty.

Whether occupied or empty they'd have to pay that money. Assuming that they get their rent paid then they're no worse off living where they are. And it's a bigger place. And if they can sell the house then they'll no longer have to pay this £300 a month.

If this is the case, and they are not willing to live in it, as another poster suggested, sell it, make a loss and declare yourself bankrupt.

I've got no idea how this works. Have you looked into it, OP?