Overcrowding: more opinion

I agree that the present overcrowding standard is far from perfect (27 February, page 18 and 5 March, page 18), but one fundamental issue appears to be overlooked: everybody has to live within their means.

If an owner-occupier wants a bigger family, they have no choice but to buy a larger property first. It appears with social housing that the situation is reversed, and that people assume that the more children they have, the larger the property they are entitled to.

Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to live as they choose, but with family planning and other such agencies readily available there can be no excuse for a family of five to be in a two-bedroom flat.

One tenant moved in in 1994, and went to have four children. She knew her present accommodation could not handle this, but nevertheless made the choice to intentionally overcrowd her property.

Now Tower Hamlets is being made to look the bad guys for not rehousing them? Should an owner-occupier complain to Barratt, Persimmon, Wimpey or whoever if the two-bedroom house they bought 10 years ago is not big enough for the children they subsequently have? Councils have a duty to house the homeless and vulnerable; they do not have a duty to rehouse people who cannot control their libidos.