Overcrowding laws?

donnaessex

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The same help would be available to them. Why should they not access the assistance they are entitled to?

How? Me and my husband made the decision to stop at two babies. We cant afford to buy a bigger house and have to look at these things before jumping into a situation we cant handle.

Why should social housing tenants be able to claim overcrowding through their own actions? My salary doesnt increase with every child I have (quite the opposite I've found) so its got to be a considered decision to have another baby.

Wee_Willy_Harris

donnaessex wrote: »

How? Me and my husband made the decision to stop at two babies. We cant afford to buy a bigger house and have to look at these things before jumping into a situation we cant handle.

Why should social housing tenants be able to claim overcrowding through their own actions? My salary doesnt increase with every child I have (quite the opposite I've found) so its got to be a considered decision to have another baby.

Overcrowding is not limited to social tenants.

donnaessex

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Overcrowding is not limited to social tenants.

Really? I didnt know that. So how does that work then? (Sorry for going OT).

Wee_Willy_Harris

GracieP wrote: »

Just because one subsidy may cost less than a different subsidy it doesn't stop the first one from being a subsidy. They are all a cost to the taxpayer.

The fact of the matter is that as a general rule social housing providers carry out their business in such a way that they run in surplus. Individuals may recieve assistance from the public purse by way of HB. Affordable rents merely mean that those individual costs to the taxpayer are reduced. In much the same way that the canny shopper who buys "value" products isn't being subsidised by the branded shopper.

pingu2209

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The same help would be available to them. Why should they not access the assistance they are entitled to?

But are they entitled to it, morally?

I don't believe they are.

This person had 2 children in a 1 bed flat, the parental duty is to protect the children you have, not make life even more difficult for them by making the overcrowding situation worse.

When will it end? Should people be able to have 6, 7, 8, 9 10, or even more children and let the tax payer pick up the tab for the ever increasing housing need?

Why should a family have free or subsidised housing when they have taken the decision to have multiple children?

Why is it that there is a section of society that think they have the moral right to have as many children as they would like and the state should pay for it? The attitude of "well it's available so I will go out and get it", is morally abhorant.

I do believe in social housing. I completely believe in it. However, morally a line needs to be drawn as to the maximum sized accommodation available. If the people claiming then decide to have large numbers of children, it is up to them to squeeze into the maximum accommodation and make do.

Perhaps if a hard line is adopted by the state, families on state benefits would have fewer children and the bill for their housing benefits would reduce over the years to come?!

Wee_Willy_Harris

donnaessex wrote: »

Really? I didnt know that. So how does that work then? (Sorry for going OT).

Social housing providers will have an individual policy on overcrowding (overseen by Section x of the 85 housing act). The implementation of such a policy isn't dependant on the tenure of the persons claiming to be overcrowded.

Wee_Willy_Harris

pingu2209 wrote: »

But are they entitled to it, morally?

I don't believe they are.

This person had 2 children in a 1 bed flat, the parental duty is to protect the children you have, not make life even more difficult for them by making the overcrowding situation worse.

When will it end? Should people be able to have 6, 7, 8, 9 10, or even more children and let the tax payer pick up the tab for the ever increasing housing need?

Why should a family have free or subsidised housing when they have taken the decision to have multiple children?

Why is it that there is a section of society that think they have the moral right to have as many children as they would like and the state should pay for it? The attitude of "well it's available so I will go out and get it", is morally abhorant.

I do believe in social housing. I completely believe in it. However, morally a line needs to be drawn as to the maximum sized accommodation available. If the people claiming then decide to have large numbers of children, it is up to them to squeeze into the maximum accommodation and make do.

Perhaps if a hard line is adopted by the state, families on state benefits would have fewer children and the bill for their housing benefits would reduce over the years to come?!

Your moral appraisal has no impact on actual entitlement. We are a developed, wealthy, civilised society. As such, we have no need to revert back to the Victorian slums and workhouses just so the Daily Mail readers can feel even more self righteous.

donnaessex

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing providers will have an individual policy on overcrowding (overseen by Section x of the 85 housing act). The implementation of such a policy isn't dependant on the tenure of the persons claiming to be overcrowded.

Thanks WWH. I really cant get my head around how that would work though. Would the owners of the house be forced to sell their house to subsidise the new social housing? Or helped to raise more money to buy a bigger property? It seems very difficult to say the least.

Wee_Willy_Harris

donnaessex wrote: »

Thanks WWH. I really cant get my head around how that would work though. Would the owners of the house be forced to sell their house to subsidise the new social housing? Or helped to raise more money to buy a bigger property? It seems very difficult to say the least.

When anyone applies for social housing, a housing needs assesment should be completed. This will highlight any needs that should be reflected in the priority (or points, if that system is still being used) awarded. In only very few instances (UNDER occupation for example) is the tenure an issue. An owner occupier would be free to do as they saw fit with the owned property if allocated social housing. But that decision may have an impact on their ability to claim certain benefits. To be honest, it's very rarely an issue.

donnaessex

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

When anyone applies for social housing, a housing needs assesment should be completed. This will highlight any needs that should be reflected in the priority (or points, if that system is still being used) awarded. In only very few instances (UNDER occupation for example) is the tenure an issue. An owner occupier would be free to do as they saw fit with the owned property if allocated social housing. But that decision may have an impact on their ability to claim certain benefits. To be honest, it's very rarely an issue.

Blimey I never knew that! Its a really interesting issue actually. Thanks for answering my inane questions!