Will my girlfriend lose her council flat if i marry her? I own two properties.

jaylee3

AdrianC wrote: »

Third page, and not one suggestion yet the OP's trolling? <surprised>

Assuming it's for real, then we can only speculate about the state of these two owned properties that the council flat is preferable as their first home together. Clearly, the rent is better value, being subsidised by us taxpayers, but I'd have thought the OP - being the kind of person who clearly doesn't want to live together before marriage - would put pride in his home before mere finance.

Makes you wonder what kind of standard of housing he's providing for others, doesn't it?

Is it? Citation needed.

And as for what 'jellie' said: why on earth would someone voluntarily give up a cheaply rented social housing property that is virtually for life, for private let?

Would you? No.

Yes it seems a bit annoying as the B/F has two homes, but as Geri says, many HA's and councils want people from different walks of life renting their properties, not just people on benefits!

specialboy

The 2 houses the OP owns are a business, they provide an income, would you all suggest he sold his business and buy a house if that business was a garage or a butchers shop?

AdrianC

jaylee3 wrote: »

Is it? Citation needed.

It's kinda self-evident. If the rent in the council housing wasn't better value, then the OP would prefer to move into one of his own properties.

tunnel

I couldn't give a monkeys if the OP has 2 or 20 houses, they're offering to pay full rent and take his partner off benefits

That's rent and benefits that I as a taxpayer will not now be subsidising

AdrianC

tunnel wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys if the OP has 2 or 20 houses, they're offering to pay full rent and take his partner off benefits

That's rent and benefits that I as a taxpayer will not now be subsidising

Except you will - because somebody who IS in need of social housing will now not be living in that flat. Perhaps they'll be renting one of the OP's properties privately, and receiving benefits towards that. Except that the subsidy that person is receiving will be higher than if they were in social housing, with the difference going to the OP.

tunnel

AdrianC wrote: »

Except you will - because somebody who IS in need of social housing will now not be living in that flat. Perhaps they'll be renting one of the OP's properties privately, and receiving benefits towards that. Except that the subsidy that person is receiving will be higher than if they were in social housing, with the difference going to the OP.

Let's be real here, if the OP had posted about moving into his partners private rented property, still taking her off benefits and housing allowance, rather than a social housing property nobody would give a monkeys

As it is there would then be 1 person claiming benefits instead of 2, unless private let in the area where the OP's partner lives is twice the cost of social housing then its a winner for the taxpayer, something no-one knows.

duchy

So you are not living with your girlfriend at either property now - and plan to marry without having previously lived together . Brave woman ! Especially as she has a child already.

You don't get to "take her off benefits" even if you are not currently living together at the moment - depending on circumstances you MAY be viewed as "a couple" (or "a family" if she has children living there ) under benefits rules already and she may not be entitled to any benefits at this point. Benefit eligibility is decided by circumstances not by a possible future husband. Even if you have separate residences things like the time spent together as a family, if you shop together, eat together etc carry far more weight than where you sleep when it comes to assessing if she is single or part of a couple for benefits.

If she is already "resident" in this HA property and not living with you then why are you intending to ask for permission to move in ......................... or do you want YOUR name added to the tenancy (in addition to owning two properties) ?

As for wanting to "Do the right thing" Do you mean legally or morally ?

jannatiex4 wrote: »

My girlfriends lives in a council flat and is a assured tenant, run by a housing associations, she is working part-time so claims housing benefits. I have always been working and have a mortgage on two properties. We are planning to get married and I would like to move into my girlfriends council flat. We do not want her to lose her property just because I own two properties outside her city, her child is in a good school and she is close to her family.

The idea is to move into her council flat, rent out my two properties that i own, take her off benefits based on my income and pay the full rent!!

However I’m worried that we will get married and then when we apply to move into the council flat, the housing association will tell my girlfriend to move out and move into one of the flats that I own which is far way from her family and child's school.

I have phoned up the council and housing association for general advise, the council said its not a problem, and on the other hand the housing association said that I should really move out.

Please advise, i really don't want to jeopardise my girlfriends situation, and we are trying to do the right thing.

Thanks

AdrianC

tunnel wrote: »

Let's be real here, if the OP had posted about moving into his partners private rented property, still taking her off benefits and housing allowance, rather than a social housing property nobody would give a monkeys

ITYF people are suggesting that's exactly what should happen.

As it is there would then be 1 person claiming benefits instead of 2, unless private let in the area where the OP's partner lives is twice the cost of social housing then its a winner for the taxpayer, something no-one knows.

Sorry - was the choice between her continuing to live in the council flat on benefits on her own, and them both living there without claiming benefits? I thought it was between them both living in the council flat or both living together elsewhere? I didn't realise the OP was going to call the relationship off if he couldn't move into the council flat.

tunnel

AdrianC wrote: »

Sorry - was the choice between her continuing to live in the council flat on benefits on her own, and them both living there without claiming benefits? I thought it was between them both living in the council flat or both living together elsewhere? I didn't realise the OP was going to call the relationship off if he couldn't move into the council flat.

I maybe didn't make it quite as clear as i thought,

If the OP moves in with partner, then all benefits stops. This may force someone "requiring" social housing to rent privately. If that rent is less than double of the social housing then the taxpayer wins. Only 1 person claiming benefits rather than 2(the OP's partner and someone requiring social housing)

Never mentioned anything about calling off relationship

AdrianC

tunnel wrote: »

If the OP moves in with partner, then all benefits stops.

Wherever they live. Yes. Which is the assumption behind my post above.

There's three options...

1. OP + SWMBO continue to live apart, her in the council flat on benefits.
2. OP + SWMBO live together in the council flat, no benefits. Somebody who needs that flat is denied it.
3. OP + SWMBO live together, elsewhere, no benefits. Somebody who needs that council flat can have it.

The OP thinks option 2 is the optimum. Everybody else thinks option 3 is the optimum. Nobody is suggesting option 1, afaict.

OK, so the OP's properties are elsewhere in the country. I'm not sure there's any relevance in that - he can either sell them and buy in their town, or continue to let them out and rent somewhere privately. His choice. But for somebody who does not need social housing to deny it to somebody who does is wrong.