How many bedrooms is adequate?

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was just replying to another thread, when I thought about ths difference in opinion between boards.

On here, we say that a single person can do with one bedroom, a couple with two children, 2-3 bedrooms. We use it as a "gauge" to affordability.

So I was a bit shocked to read Fife's housing policy on what is deemed adequate for someone who needs housing help..... (bold number = no. of bedrooms)

Single Person 1 or 2
Single pregnant woman 3
Couple 3 or 2
Family with one child 3
Family, two children of same sex under 13 years old 3
Family, two children of same sex one or more aged over 13 years 4
Family, two children not of same sex (irrespective of childrens age) 4
Family, three or more children 4 or 5

What do people think of this? This is from Fifes council housing policy. You can view this here for anyone who wants to see it in a PDF rather than here!

I think it's absolutely insane and downright disgusting and a right kick in the knackers for anyone else. But, does this have any bearing on the posts on here, in which we say FTB's should start out of a 1 bed flat while a single pregnant women would get allocated a 3 bedroom place?

Sorry Graham - you don't quite understand the Scottish system of housing - Fife council or any other council in Scotland or even sometimes sellers - call liveable rooms apartments (the leaflet doesn't say bedrooms, it does say apartment) so that includes the living room too, infact it is all rooms except kitchens, bathrooms & toilets.

Single person - 2 apartment = 1 bedroom and 1 living room

3 apartment = 2 beds and 1 living room or it could be 1 bed 1 living & 1 separate dining room.

We lived up there for quite a few years and one of our houses was a 6 apartment house - we had 4 bedroooms, a living room and a separate dining room.

We had another that was a 5 apartment - 3 beds, living room and separate dining room.

Or you could have a 4 apartment - 3 beds and living room

sjaypink

that makes much more sense and seems in line with most other las.

although i do believe there are some areas in the midlands/ northern england where single pregnant girls are offerred 3 bed houses because there is a surplus

for overcrowding purposes (those already in social housing) the general system is:

parent/ parents: 1 bedroom
child under 2: not taken into account at all
child 2-5: 1 can share with parents
1 child (or 2 same sex) over 5: 1 bedroom
2 (1m, 1f) eldest under 7: 1 bedroom

i say age 7, but in some areas it is 5yrs, in some 10yrs old

i have noticed though that the new lha system is much more generous, and is being abused, in my eyes.

under the lha, all those in the house over 16 are entilted to claim for 1 bedroom each.

eg: 2 parents, 2 girls aged 17 & 15, 2 boys aged 16 & 14

social housing: 3 bed

private rent (lha claim) 5 bed

MrsE_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Single pregnant woman 3
Couple 3 or 2

Why would a single pregnant woman need 3 & a couple get away with 2?

Dan:_4

My Sister and her Husband are living in a 1-bedroom flat (ground floor) with a 12 Month old baby, and they find it quite comfortable - the bedroom is a bit cramped with a cot and storage but they seem to do just fine.

They have just put their flat on the market actually as she is now expecting her second Baby, so defently no room for that!

baileysbattlebus

MrsE wrote: »

Why would a single pregnant woman need 3 & a couple get away with 2?

Bear in mind these are not bedrooms they liveable rooms.

A 3 apartment house/flat in Scotland is usually 2 bedrooms - so it would be logical to give a pregnant woman a 2 bed place (3 apartment) - she wouldn't be shouting for a bigger house for a few years - unless she went on to produce lots of children.

And as for couples - if you were a couple of chlid bearing age I would imagine they would give you a 2 bed place (3 apartment) as again it would be ok for a few years if you go on to have children, and if you were a middle aged couple a 1 bed (2 apartment).

sjaypink

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Bear in mind these are not bedrooms they liveable rooms.

A 3 apartment house/flat in Scotland is usually 2 bedrooms - so it would be logical to give a pregnant woman a 2 bed place (3 apartment) - she wouldn't be shouting for a bigger house for a few years - unless she went on to produce lots of children.

And as for couples - if you were a couple of chlid bearing age I would imagine they would give you a 2 bed place (3 apartment) as again it would be ok for a few years if you go on to have children, and if you were a middle aged couple a 1 bed (2 apartment).

also, i assume these are the 'targets' if you like, rather than the absolute minimum?

although it might make sense to give a pregnant woman 2 beds, in reality if there are none vailable at the time she will be given a studio/ 1 bed?

i say this as the list in my post above is the minimum iyswim, and so in those i know or have worked with, there have been variations in what has been alocated, purely down to what cam eup as vacant in those days/ weeks after the girl has been declared homeless.

one i know was given a nice 2 bed house, one a tiny 1 bed flat (which she was then not eligible to move out of until the child turned 5) -luck of the draw in that sense

wageslave

The real problem is there isn't enough social housing left.
In her crusade to turn us all into a nation (notice I dont say society) of home owning Tories, Mrs Thatcher introduced the RTB scheme. Which was wonderful if you were sitting in a decent council house, you could buy it at a huge discount and either MEW it to death or resell it and make a huge profit. It was as if you had been given a decent inheritance from a Great Aunt.
Unfortunately it wasn't so good for the next generation who were forced to buy or rent privately when, traditonally, they would have become tenants for life of the council.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if thats where all this BTL and sub prime nonsense started.

baileysbattlebus

sjaypink wrote: »

also, i assume these are the 'targets' if you like, rather than the absolute minimum?

although it might make sense to give a pregnant woman 2 beds, in reality if there are none vailable at the time she will be given a studio/ 1 bed?

i say this as the list in my post above is the minimum iyswim, and so in those i know or have worked with, there have been variations in what has been alocated, purely down to what cam eup as vacant in those days/ weeks after the girl has been declared homeless.

one i know was given a nice 2 bed house, one a tiny 1 bed flat (which she was then not eligible to move out of until the child turned 5) -luck of the draw in that sense

I would imagine they are targets and availability will really determine what you get.

In the the North East at one time they used to try and give every who had a child and couples a minimum of a 2 bed house and didn't put families into flats.

In Scotland people aren't as averse to living in flats as they seem to be here - and there are a lot of both private and council flats.

I suppose each council is different - some have virtually no stock and others have a fair bit.

Graham_Devon

If it is actually rooms, then it makes more sense. Why do the Scottish always have to do things differently

3 room apartment = 2 bed house. Nice!

bo_drinker

wageslave wrote: »

The real problem is there isn't enough social housing left.
In her crusade to turn us all into a nation (notice I dont say society) of home owning Tories, Mrs Thatcher introduced the RTB scheme. Which was wonderful if you were sitting in a decent council house, you could buy it at a huge discount and either MEW it to death or resell it and make a huge profit. It was as if you had been given a decent inheritance from a Great Aunt.
Unfortunately it wasn't so good for the next generation who were forced to buy or rent privately when, traditonally, they would have become tenants for life of the council.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if thats where all this BTL and sub prime nonsense started.

One major flawe with this, the money was not re invested in to building more, and for the discounts people were getting you could not build more with the money.( Up sprung the HA's) W T F did Thatcher think would happen. On the face maybe a fair idea, but no thought put into it as with many Gov'ts inc this lot now
They don't need to think they just need to collect the expenses:mad: