Housing benefit rise inline with rent rise?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fiver29 wrote: »

No idea which law it is, but neither the council nor letting agents will rent a house with insufficient bedrooms once the oldest child reaches 10 (if they are different sexes). But looking at the sarcasm in your post, I'm sure you're going to say there is no law and you can rent a smaller house {yawn}, heard it all before from the trolls. If you can get your council or letting agents to rent to you, then good for you, they won't here.

You said you HAD to move, so you were already in the property. Therefore, it wasn't a case of anyone REFUSING to rent it to you, as they already were.

Fiver29

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You said you HAD to move, so you were already in the property. Therefore, it wasn't a case of anyone REFUSING to rent it to you, as they already were.

No actually, we had to move because the council were (and still are) pulling down the houses in a town centre regeneration plan, and HAD to get a 3 bed house even though there were plenty of 2 beds available.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fiver29 wrote: »

No actually, we had to move because the council were (and still are) pulling down the houses in a town centre regeneration plan, and HAD to get a 3 bed house even though there were plenty of 2 beds available.

Well, that's not what you posted. If you're struggling to remember, please allow me to assist.....

Fiver29 wrote: »

Not at all, even if the OP pays taxes they still have a house bigger than their needs. I rented a 2 bedroomed house until my children were too old legally to sleep in the same room, then I had to move.

Lucky that the OPs taxes are able to subsidise YOUR housing.... and your nice little relocation lump sum as well.

Fiver29

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, that's not what you posted. If you're struggling to remember, please allow me to assist.....



Lucky that the OPs taxes are able to subsidise YOUR housing.... and your nice little relocation lump sum as well.

Sigh

I posted the basics because I couldn't be arsed going into detail, but the outcome was the same I had to rent a 3 bed because I wasn't allowed a 2, had we been able to stay we would have.

And what are you on about relocation lump sum, I paid for it all myself, no one gave me anything, it was private housing not social so the housing wasn't subsidised. And just so you know I work, always have.

Oldernotwiser

Could you go and troll somewhere else please - like in the middle of the motorway?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fiver29 wrote: »

Sigh

I posted the basics because I couldn't be arsed going into detail, but the outcome was the same I had to rent a 3 bed because I wasn't allowed a 2, had we been able to stay we would have.

And what are you on about relocation lump sum, I paid for it all myself, no one gave me anything, it was private housing not social so the housing wasn't subsidised. And just so you know I work, always have.

So, you accept that there was no "law" that prevented you from remaining in a 2 bed house. That's progress at least.

I assumed, as you said that the council were pulling them down, that you lived in one of their houses. An assumption on my part I am happy to have corrected.

Councils and HA's tend to have allocations policies relating to family size. Private landlords don't. With 2 children under 16, I doubt you would have struggled too much to find a private 2 bed. But you probably aren't in private anymore. Those being re-located for the reasons you describe tend to get priority with the council for social housing, hence the 3 bed thing. I also notice your use of the past tense when talking about renting privately. And, of course, you would have got your disturbance money as well.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Could you go and troll somewhere else please - like in the middle of the motorway?

I read this thread, and all the posters making outragious judgements, and thought it needed a bit of balance. I'm sure you would agree that balance in such a discussion can only be a good thing?

Fiver29

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, you accept that there was no "law" that prevented you from remaining in a 2 bed house. That's progress at least.

I assumed, as you said that the council were pulling them down, that you lived in one of their houses. An assumption on my part I am happy to have corrected.

Councils and HA's tend to have allocations policies relating to family size. Private landlords don't. With 2 children under 16, I doubt you would have struggled too much to find a private 2 bed. But you probably aren't in private anymore. Those being re-located for the reasons you describe tend to get priority with the council for social housing, hence the 3 bed thing. I also notice your use of the past tense when talking about renting privately. And, of course, you would have got your disturbance money as well.

Wrong again, we're in private housing, and letting agents follow the same rules as the council, so no we couldn't get a private 2 bed place. No idea what disturbance money is, but wrong again we didn't get any.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fiver29 wrote: »

Wrong again, we're in private housing, and letting agents follow the same rules as the council, so no we couldn't get a private 2 bed place.

You're talking twaddle. You know it. I know it.

Fiver29

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You're talking twaddle. You know it. I know it.

I'm afraid you don't know it, as you're completely wrong. But you carry on believing what you want to believe, don't let facts get in the way of a good troll.