- munger
- Apr 15, 2025
Family Loses Bidding War for Garden Shed to Slightly Less Desperate Family Who Sold a Kidney
By Dusty Leasehold, Property Correspondent for The Daily Desperation
In a Kafkaesque twist of Britain’s housing crisis, the Boggis family have been outbid on yet another property - this time by a family whose only apparent advantage was not yet being at the “eating cold baked beans straight from the tin” stage of desperation.
The disputed dwelling was a 6x8ft garden shed in Croydon, optimistically listed as a 'bijou studio with rustic charm' by letting agent Roland Cheetham, who later admitted the photos were taken 'before the woodworm moved in.'
'We offered £200 over asking price, said Terry Boggis, gripping his printed-out Rightmove listing like a condemned man clutching his last cigarette. 'Then the agent mentioned the other family had offered to pay the entire year’s rent upfront. Turns out they’d sold a kidney. A f@cking kidney!”
The rivals, Daz and Stacey from Romford, turned out to be equally desperate - just marginally less broke. 'We sold the Xbox, cancelled Disney+, and moved in with Stacey’s nan for six months,' admitted Daz, bouncing a toddler on his hip in the shed’s 'open-plan living space' – a single room that smelled of damp and crushed dreams. 'Honestly? We’re one payslip away from bidding against you for a park bench.'
Cheetham, adjusting his Hermès tie, explained shiftily: 'The advertised price is just the starting bid in the auction of human misery. Next time, consider selling something vital – like your firstborn or that signed Robbie Williams vinyl.'
The Boggises have since viewed a converted public toilet in Zone 6 ('original Victorian features'), a parking space with 'potential for conversion' (a tent), and the attic above a kebab shop ('comes with free heating'). Their 28-year-old son Jayden has started referring to viewings as 'poverty tourism'. Meanwhile, Nan Beryl has taken to standing outside Foxtons muttering: 'I’ll curse the bollocks off whoever buys my council flat.'
At press time, the family were considering whether to finally accept that Hull exists, or hold out for a more prestigious cardboard box in Reading. As Terry observed, while being shown a 'unique fixer-upper' (a burnt-out caravan in Slough), 'At least the rats look happy.'
Mr Cheetham was last seen listing a bus shelter as 'a charming al fresco residence with excellent transport links.'
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
The government has today announced a further initiative to reform state welfare provision. In future, the government will make parents legally and financially responsible for their children until they reach the age of 30.
This means adults under 30 will be expected to live at home if they cannot afford their own place, and they will not be eligible for any state benefits.
‘Everyone thinks kids are cute,’ said a spokesman, ‘until they are old enough to have mobile phones and get stroppy. Then it gets tougher. We want to reinforce the responsibilities of parents in starting a family, and we want to avoid feckless Gen-Z snowflakes from clogging up the benefit system. It’s costing us a fortune.
‘Parents usually know how to keep their kids in line – the naughty step, being grounded, star charts, removal of their bedroom door, etcetera – so we think that this is very doable. It will also give the children a tremendous incentive to get jobs and earn enough money to get their own place. There is only so much outdoor sex that you can have before you get caught.’
‘This will avoid all the tedious arguments about whether state benefits should cover one, two or three streaming services, for example. And disagreements about whether the state should pay for Frosties and Cocoa Pops and Ready Brek and Multigrain Cheerios. In future, all those discussions can be settled by the parents. We respect that fact that different parents will reach different decisions. That’s quite acceptable in a democratic society.’
The initiative will generate massive savings on the welfare bill and ease pressures on social housing.
The government is also considering if children should be responsible for their elderly parents, once they are older than 75. This could generate big savings on the cost of care homes. This further initiative would provide a helpful counterbalance to the new policy on parental responsibility. Parents would need to be reasonable with their children under 30, or they could face retribution once they are over 75.