Council tenant

Oldernotwiser

McKneff wrote: »

Oh dear thats your Buckingham Palace cover blown ONW or should i curtsey and call you ma'am or just plain Lizzie.:rotfl::rotfl:

One thinks that ma'am will be quite sufficient!

seven-day-weekend

If you buy your own house and have more room than you need, it's your own money you are spending. So it doesn't matter if one person lives in a six-bedroom house.

A scarce resource like social housing, funded by public money, must be allocated on the basis of need. A single person does not need a three-bedroom house. A family with three kids does.

That honestly seems fair to me.

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

One thinks that ma'am will be quite sufficient!

Is one amused?

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Is one amused?

Not 'arf!!!

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If you buy your own house and have more room than you need, it's your own money you are spending. So it doesn't matter if one person lives in a six-bedroom house.

A scarce resource like social housing, funded by public money, must be allocated on the basis of need. A single person does not need a three-bedroom house. A family with three kids does.

That honestly seems fair to me.

i guess you are replying to a point i made. it was just a speculating point/idea. i was just thinking if there are many families out there in need of a house why should it only be council tenants who get forced to move out. yes private house owners have paid for their house but if they have a house that is far too big then why not compulsory purchase their house and move the family in. they can then use the money they get to buy a smaller house.
i dont actually think this should happen its like i said speculating. poeople have had their houses compulsory purchased before although not for this kind of thing.
my idea could actually happen in the future if the housing situation continues to get worse. lets hope it doesnt get that bad.

exitroute?

Building more houses isnt the answer. The first step should be for all national CBL schemes to give the top band priority choice of homes to tenants who are willing and able to downsize. The second band should be for those in need of housing. End of. Everyone else who is already housed in Social Housing and either needing to move or choosing to move should go onto an exchange data base and all RSL should have access to that and be able to allocate suitable homes from it. At the same time,tenants should have access to it as well and be able to find their own exchanges. The tenants with the longest tenancy records should be helped first. Its about time that long established tenants were given consideration and priority instead of first time tenants who get to pick and choose all the best properties. Also, Borough Citizen status is granted after 12 months. This should be increased to at least 3 years. If folks choose to move to an area then let them live in private housing or bedsits etc and wait 3 years for housing.

DX2

donnajunkie wrote: »

i guess you are replying to a point i made. it was just a speculating point/idea. i was just thinking if there are many families out there in need of a house why should it only be council tenants who get forced to move out. yes private house owners have paid for their house but if they have a house that is far too big then why not compulsory purchase their house and move the family in. they can then use the money they get to buy a smaller house.
i dont actually think this should happen its like i said speculating. poeople have had their houses compulsory purchased before although not for this kind of thing.
my idea could actually happen in the future if the housing situation continues to get worse. lets hope it doesnt get that bad.

Do you actually understand what council/social housing means :rolleyes:

donnajunkie

surely more available housing would fix all of the problems more than anything else?
there are 4 things that should be done.
1.modernise all boarded up houses and rent them out. if they are privately owned then compulsory purchase them.
2. build more houses.
3. stop right the buy.
4. cant mention this one as it is very controversial and i would be called a racist and obviously reported to the mods.

DX2

donnajunkie wrote: »

surely more available housing would fix all of the problems more than anything else?
there are 4 things that should be done.
1.modernise all boarded up houses and rent them out. if they are privately owned then compulsory purchase them.
2. build more houses.
3. stop right the buy.
4. cant mention this one as it is very controversial and i would be called a racist and obviously reported to the mods.

So the money tree at the bottom of your garden will pay for all of this?

exitroute?

Just another point..no one would be on a housing list for 20 years! It is Policy to house families in need within 2 years. It is the families in so called need who are being picky about where they live..most are getting brand new housing in my area. Good luck to them and of course they should be housed if in need. Its those of us who accepted the first offer of a home when in need who cant get out of it now...whether we want to downsize..need a larger home or simply want to move to another area. If you have a roof over your head thats that. You might get help if you are under threat or have severe health problems. I have done a quick check in my locality tonight..out of 6x3 bed houses....there is only one house with children in it. All the rest have been here years, their kids have all left home and none will move to smaller houses/ flats/bedsits/sheltered accommodation etc because they all have grandkids who come to stay occasionally and none are eligible for over 60's homes for some time yet.