Moving into my girlfriends council house

duchy

Vectis wrote: »

So, basically, she doesn't want to move in with you because it would mean her giving up her subsidised housing, and that would be a problem if your relationship didn't last?

It appears your relationship comes second to her council house 'entitlement'.

Sounds like a doomed relationship (or, as some others have said, a troll at work).

The answer, if it's a serious question, is really blindingly obvious. Rent a larger house together.

I can see why a woman wouldn't want to put at risk her social housing rights - presumably as she already jas kids she's aware that even seemingly stable relationships can fail and she'd be left with having to find something suitable and affordable in the more expensive and less secure private sector. With children to consider -it's a fair point.

That said -she does qualify for right to buy most likely so a large house and a partner capable of funding a joint mortgage with her may also be relevant.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Vectis wrote: »

So, basically, she doesn't want to move in with you because it would mean her giving up her subsidised housing, and that would be a problem if your relationship didn't last?

Social Housing isn't subsidised, it's just affordable. There is a huge difference.

Vectis wrote: »

It appears your relationship comes second to her council house 'entitlement'.

It appears that the security of her children is uppermost in her mind, which sounds like a very sensible way to think. It's a shame more don't have such foresight.

nannytone_2

Poppie68 wrote: »

You could wait years for a 3 bedroom property and it that time living together in a 2 bedroom could take it's toil on your relationship... if you do move into a larger property and the relationship doesn't work out she will be left with a larger rent bill.
I've never understood why people say things like " if we don't work out" etc, you are together now and that's what you should be moving forward on...

i totally understand the OP\s girlfriends attitude!
i gave up a council house to move in with my then partner.
8 years later, i was unable to work through disability and homeless!!
i would never give up my security again, no matter how much i loved someone!

NYM

OP...what is your housing situation at the moment ?
How many bedrooms do you have ?
Do you own it ?
Will you be letting it ?

nannytone_2

the OP said he rents privately

NYM

nannytone wrote: »

the OP said he rents privately

..:D

*note to self*...before posting, read and read again !

FBaby

nannytone wrote: »

i totally understand the OP\s girlfriends attitude!
i gave up a council house to move in with my then partner.
8 years later, i was unable to work through disability and homeless!!
i would never give up my security again, no matter how much i loved someone!

Surely it is about choice then, you take the house rather than the partner. What OP (or his partner) wants is her cake and to eat it, ie, to share a home with OP, but because what she has at the moment is not big enough, she should be entitled to a larger property whilst OP, who can more than afford that size of property wants to take such a large property away from a family who can't afford it.

Like is full of choices. My OH had much to lose out financially by marrying me, but lucky me, he valued his love and trust for me more than his money. Saying that, he didn't have to, he could have secured his money and house instead hoping that I stayed with him regardless.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

Surely it is about choice then, you take the house rather than the partner. What OP (or his partner) wants is her cake and to eat it, ie, to share a home with OP, but because what she has at the moment is not big enough, she should be entitled to a larger property whilst OP, who can more than afford that size of property wants to take such a large property away from a family who can't afford it.

Like is full of choices. My OH had much to lose out financially by marrying me, but lucky me, he valued his love and trust for me more than his money. Saying that, he didn't have to, he could have secured his money and house instead hoping that I stayed with him regardless.

However, if I remember correctly, your partner doesn't have children he would need to house and feed if his relationship with you should break down? And you yourself are financially stable in full time work on a good wage?

People (usually women) who have been left financially compromised following the breakdown of a relationship and who have their children's security to consider often have difficult choices to make in new relationships. I have worked incredibly hard to get myself on an even keel following my ex walking out - it has taken years. It is not something I would give up easily and without taking steps to protect both my own and my children's futures as best as I could. I don't think love and trust comes into it: it's just realism. My marriage wasn't a bad one and decisions were taken jointly within which have affected my long term future - I will, for example, never recover from what I lost pension and savings-wise - decisions that wouldn't have mattered if we had stayed together. If a reasonable marriage can break down once, it can happen again, no matter what emotional precautions I would seek to make to ensure it didn't. It's not unreasonable to try and protect against the worst happening.

That's what the OP's partner is trying to do. Unfortunately, she is vulnerable because she's not working and is in social housing - this relationship could potentially cost her far more than the OP. I am sure they will find a way to make it work if they can.

sulkisu

You probably won't be considered to be a part of your girlfriend's household (and therefore not taken into consideration as far as overcrowding is concerned) unless you are actually living with her and doing so for a certain length of time. Realistically you would need to be prepared to be overcrowded for a while, before you could even go on the list for a bigger property. In my area it is one year. Even babies aren't counted until their first birthday. Otherwise it would be very easy for someone to claim that they have a partner and children moving in, get a bigger property and then weeks later partner has moved out again, meanwhile the tenant remains in the bigger house.

nannytone_2

sulkisu wrote: »

You probably won't be considered to be a part of your girlfriend's household (and therefore not taken into consideration as far as overcrowding is concerned) unless you are actually living with her and doing so for a certain length of time. Realistically you would need to be prepared to be overcrowded for a while, before you could even go on the list for a bigger property. In my area it is one year. Even babies aren't counted until their first birthday. Otherwise it would be very easy for someone to claim that they have a partner and children moving in, get a bigger property and then weeks later partner has moved out again, meanwhile the tenant remains in the bigger house.

and would lose housing benefit because they would be over occupying.
i can't see someone that lives solely on benefit thinking this was a good idea.
in my area alone, there are 12 three bed houses that have been up for bidding for at least 5 months with no takers. probably as a result of the over occupancy rules.
i can't see anyone deliberately doing this can you?