I live in a five-bedroom council house which I don't need, yet I'm not allowed to swap with an overcrowded family

No one should be forced to move just because their circumstances have changed, but many tenants would like to downsize to escape the effects of the bedroom tax yet are unable to do so, because of draconian regulations on ‘under-occupation’

The real problem is that for decades government has been unwilling to invest in social, as opposed to ‘affordable’, housing (Getty)

I have been fortunate enough to live in social housing for almost 30 years, and by swapping homes multiple times with other tenants I’ve progressed from a tiny bedsit to a five-bedroom property in Islington with my wife and two children.

We took on our current home because it was within walking distance of school and for family reasons, but then our circumstances changed; so we registered on home-swapping websites in order to downsize to a three- or four-bedroom house in the same area, given we are currently being charged for our spare bedrooms which we neither need nor want.

You’d imagine there would be thousands of desperate social housing tenants in urgent need of a larger home, and you’d be right. In London alone, over 100,000 families in social housing are classed as being overcrowded; other families are shunted across the country because of the £23,000 cap on housing benefits.

According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 6.8 per cent of social renters across the UK are classed as living in overcrowded households, compared to 5.1 per cent for private renters and 1.3 per cent for owner occupiers. Yet the same figures show that more than half of social housing households are currently under-occupied. Of course, no one should be forced to move just because their circumstances have changed, but many of these tenants would like to downsize, to escape the effects of the bedroom tax, save money on bills or cut down on household chores – yet are unable to do so, because of regulations on “under-occupation”.

We know a number of families who are desperate for more space, but because of the rules on under-occupation enforced by our landlord (Peabody Trust) we have been unable to arrange a swap. Peabody’s lettings policy means we are unable to swap homes with even quite large families because they would be deemed as “under-occupying” – even if they are overcrowded in their current home.

According to Peabody’s website, a proposed swap can be refused if “the property is substantially larger than is reasonably needed by the proposed assignee”. But what is meant by “reasonably needed”? According to Peabody, a couple with three children (where two children of the same sex can share) only require three bedrooms; a couple with four children where two children can share only require four. Two children of the same gender are expected to share into adulthood, unless there is more than a 10-year age gap.

The situation with local authority housing is equally confusing. Whereas in Islington you are allowed to move into a new home with one “spare” room, across the boundary in Camden such a move is disallowed. We know this all too well because a few years ago, when we had a two-bedroom maisonette and needed somewhere larger, we couldn’t swap with a couple who lived alone in a four-bedroom flat because by moving both they and we would be “under-occupying”. The fact both of our families were already under-occupying didn’t come into the equation.

There needs to be greater flexibility by social landlords to allow tenants to move somewhere more suitable to their current needs.

We know a family of three in Haringey with a five-bedroom house who are desperate to move somewhere smaller because the rent is too high due to the “bedroom tax”; yet each time they apply to swap homes, their application is refused because the incoming family, who might now be in chronically overcrowded housing, would still be classed as under-occupying.

We are now desperate to move to a smaller home, and several families who are overcrowded are desperate to move into ours, but we are unable to do so because of outdated regulations that do little to ease the housing crisis and appear to make little sense.

We contacted our landlord and asked to be considered for Peabody’s own mutual transfer scheme, judging there must be many other Peabody families in the area who would welcome a larger place. That was months ago – and Peabody still haven’t even informed us if we have been registered for a transfer.

Of course the real problem is that for decades government has been unwilling to invest in social, as opposed to “affordable”, housing. With so many families unable to get social housing at all, and victims of the Grenfell fire still stuck in hotels a year after the disaster, I know we are incredibly fortunate to have any sort of secure tenancy, let alone a five-bedroom house in north London.

But the place is too big for our needs and there are so many families in much smaller properties in dire need of more space, yet we are unable to arrange a swap because of ill-thought-out rules on under-occupation that appear to hinder, not ease, the housing crisis.