advice regarding council housing/gateway to homechoice

Wee_Willy_Harris

If you voluntarily leave a property that met your needs (your current address) and move into one that doesn't (your mums), you will be deemed to have worstened your own circumstances. As such, you will NOT be awarded extra priority as you have put yourself in this position (Some CBL schemes would even consider suspending your application).

However, there may be another avenue to explore. The homeless legislation (and code of guidance) makes specific provision for homelessness to be considered on the basis of affordability.....

"One factor that must be considered in all cases is affordability. The Homelessness

(Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No.3204) requires the housing
authority to consider the affordability of the accommodation for the applicant. The
Order specifies, among other things, that in determining whether it would be (or
would have been) reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, a
housing authority must take into account whether the accommodation is affordable for
him or her and must, in particular, take account of:
(a) the financial resources available to him or her;
(b) the costs in respect of the accommodation;
(c) maintenance payments (to a spouse, former spouse or in respect of a child); and

(d) his or her reasonable living expenses."

...... Obviously, the LA will have a close look at your income and expenditure and will expect you to be taking the necessary steps to optimise your position (ie claim LHA). Welfare Rights , Money Advice or even CAB may well be able to assist you with this process, but the LA have a DUTY to investigate your circumstances with regard to homelessness and the burdon of proof is on them to establish that you do not meet the criteria. There are other factors that will be considered (priority, intentionality etc) but we'll cross one bridge at a time.

It is, however, important to remember that the homeless route is a brutal route into re-housing. LA's have a one offer policy, can use adjoining estates and will bid on your behalf. A full homeless accept may well result in an offer of a sh1tty house in a sh1tty area. But at leaast the rent will be cheaper. Of course, in order to prevent your homelessness, the LA may award priority under a different heading, which leaves the (reasonable) choice to you.

Your first step should be to seek advice regarding your income/expenditure and claiming LHA. The LA may argue with you, but they won't argue so much with an independant body and their decision.

omen666

puddy wrote: »

zero


The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

To get round this just type your word for example "No" and then hold down the space bar for about the length of the screen and then press the full stop button and click submit

omen666

No .

squinty

wwh are you sure you have this right?

I had understood the legislation you refer to as being an issue only when the authority is discharging its duty under homlessness legislation (ie after accepting someone as homeless they must consider if an offer of accommodation is affordable).

You seem to be suggesting that unaffordability (if that is a word) is a route into homlessness.

Can you clarify ?

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

wwh are you sure you have this right?

I had understood the legislation you refer to as being an issue only when the authority is discharging its duty under homlessness legislation (ie after accepting someone as homeless they must consider if an offer of accommodation is affordable).

You seem to be suggesting that unaffordability (if that is a word) is a route into homlessness.

Can you clarify ?

Gladly. One of the definitions of homelessness within the legislation is that a person(s) is homeless if it would be UNREASONABLE for them to continue to occupy their current property. That could be for a number of reasons.... court/eviction action, violence, repairs... and affordability. Of course, it is expected that the tenant has made every effort to mitigate the affordability, such as maximising income (inc LHA) and minimising outgoings (No more Sky sports!). But, if it is shown that a property is unaffordable, then it is unreasonable for them to continue to occupy and the tenant is, by definition, homeless.

Code of guidance.. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf
See 8.29

squinty

WWH

Thanks for that.

It is interesting that the same SI is referred to also in the code of guidance under section 17.39 which is to do with the offer of affordable accommodation including b&b.

Are you aware of any case law which provide more guidance on this? Or is it up to each HA to determine? (PM me if you prefer)

In this case the OP mentions loans and credit cards - if these are the reasons why the property in unaffordable it is difficult to see how these would be taken into account as they are not mentioned within the SI

t0rt0ise

maria08k wrote: »

Thankyou for all your advice everyone. The housing benefits form we had to fill out also went to our landlord to sign,he point blank wouldn't sign it saying he would not accept benefits?!?! We have no idea what's "allowed and what isn't" so we just left it and didn't push for a reconsideration.

I just looked at the form. You don't have to get your landlord's signature unless you want the payment to go directly to them which you don't. The council asks for permission to contact your landlord and you can refuse. The form says "It will not affect your claim if you do not give us permission to discuss your claim with your landlord."

You should get a claim sent in immediately or you will lose even more benefit. You should also explain your mistake and ask for backdating which they probably won't agree to but it's worth asking for.

The form is for download near the bottom of this page. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926

Wee_Willy_Harris

The loans etc should be looked at as "reasonable living expenses". But it would also be reasonable for someone on a fixed income to do whatever they could to minimise them. If the applicant approached someone like Money Advice, CCCS, CAB and got the minimum payments negotiated down, I think the LA would have trouble arguing that they weren't "reasonable living expenses" and that the tenant had, through omission, made themselves intentionally homeless.

There is case law, but I'm at home right now so can't direct you to it from here.

MrsE_2

Of course if neither of them worked & they rented a 2 bed house the government would be happy to pay HB at quite a high rate.

Its a real crock all this.......

Wee_Willy_Harris

MrsE wrote: »

Of course if neither of them worked & they rented a 2 bed house the government would be happy to pay HB at quite a high rate.

Its a real crock all this.......

One of the issues is that their LL doesn't want them to claim HB. So, if they weren't working, they would be IN a crock.