New House Misery

seven-day-weekend

pulliptears wrote: »

To be honest I didn't think that there was anyone stupid enough that would need it explaining to them that you needed to be eligible first. Obviously I was wrong.

Or did you really think that its your god given right to be given a property even if you have millions in the bank?

THERE IS NO PRIORITY FOR THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL PROPERTIES

So who might not be eligible? I thought anyone could go on the register for social property. I appreciate that they might not be given high priority, but I thought it was open to all.

seven-day-weekend

My son and his girlfriend live in our house in the UK, they both work for minimum wage. They have been told they will NEVER qualify for social housing as they have no children and are 'adequately housed'.

Well I agree there are enough bedrooms whilst we are not living there. But what if we want our house back? Are we just supposed to all share?

They can't afford private rents even though they are both working and couldn't cope with renting privately anyway. The girlfriend has a diagnosed disability, but apparently it is only counted as a 'need' if it affects the type of housing she might require.

I believe these young people already have needs. They both have Aspergers' Syndrome. although my son has not been formally diagnosed, and could not cope with the constant moving, or threat of moving , that goes with renting privately. This is one of the reasons that they are living in our house, we will not chuck them out.

Again, it is how you define 'need'. The present way really is NOT fair as far as I can see.

mbga9pgf

There is only so much cash in the pot I am afraid. Why should the state provide when the family can?

seven-day-weekend

mbga9pgf wrote: »

There is only so much cash in the pot I am afraid. Why should the state provide when the family can?

Yes, OK fine. So why can't every family help? I'm sure other people in social housing have got families!

mustrum_ridcully

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My son and his girlfriend live in our house in the UK, they both work for minimum wage. They have been told they will NEVER qualify for social housing as they have no children and are 'adequately housed'.

Well I agree there are enough bedrooms whilst we are not living there. But what if we want our house back? Are we just supposed to all share?

Sorry, but at the moment they are adequately housed if they are living in your house either for no rent or very reasonable rent.

If you move back in it might be another matter. It depends on how overcrowded the house is, the situation for a 2-bed terrace would be different to that for a 4-bed detached house.

You could always evict them once you move back in, then they will have been made homeless (through no fault of their own) and would suddenly become high priority (though they may not like where they get put).

Even back in the 50's when council housing priority was given to workers on low wages your son + GF (unmarried & W/O kids) wouldn't have been top priority for a council house. There would need to be real overcrowding (a bit more that you+OH, son+GF - back then it wasn't that unusual for married couples to live with parents*) or they had been made homeless.

I not sure your son's situation would be that much better if council/social housing worked the way I'd like it to (low paid workers, pensioners and disabled have priority) due to the lack of social housing.



* just think back to TV in the 70's or even early 80's. Take early eastenders, the Fowler's + gran + kids lived in a terrace and the back room was both their living and dining room.

treetrunks

may have already been mentioned but have you spoken to the local housing association about these issues. We have a small amount of housing association properties on our estate, we get regular surveys from the local housing association to see how things are going. No real issues but we were able to clear up issues regarding parking and one neighbour who regularly dried her washing in the middle of a communal field/park type area.

Just because they rent through the housing association you shouldnt label them. I grew up in a council home, my parents worked every hour to give us everything they could. Just becuase it wasnt there home they were any less house proud.

seven-day-weekend

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Sorry, but at the moment they are adequately housed if they are living in your house either for no rent or very reasonable rent.

If you move back in it might be another matter. It depends on how overcrowded the house is, the situation for a 2-bed terrace would be different to that for a 4-bed detached house.

You could always evict them once you move back in, then they will have been made homeless (through no fault of their own) and would suddenly become high priority (though they may not like where they get put).

Even back in the 50's when council housing priority was given to workers on low wages your son + GF (unmarried & W/O kids) wouldn't have been top priority for a council house. There would need to be real overcrowding (a bit more that you+OH, son+GF - back then it wasn't that unusual for married couples to live with parents*) or they had been made homeless.

I not sure your son's situation would be that much better if council/social housing worked the way I'd like it to (low paid workers, pensioners and disabled have priority) due to the lack of social housing.



* just think back to TV in the 70's or even early 80's. Take early eastenders, the Fowler's + gran + kids lived in a terrace and the back room was both their living and dining room.

In the late 1960/early 70s every one of my schoolfriends had a Council house waiting for them as soon as they got married! (Most of them were pregnant though).

In 1972 my husband and I (no children) had a choice of two, two-bedroom flats from two different Councils.

My husband, an only child, was brought up in a series of Council properties, many of them with three bedrooms and most of them houses.

Even as late as the 1990s I know a couple (relatives) who were given a two-bed HA house.

So it wasn't always as you say.

I know that social housing now is a scarce resource and tbh we're quite happy to help my son and girlfriend with their housing. I just used them as an illustration. (BTW it is a small terraced house and they do pay rent).

But at least where I am from, it does seem as though the average Mr-and-Mrs-stable-working-family do not get allocated anything and have to rent privately. I do think that 'needy' needs to be redefined, that's all.

mustrum_ridcully

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

In the late 1960/early 70s every one of my schoolfriends had a Council house waiting for them as soon as they got married! (Most of them were pregnant though).

In 1972 my husband and I (no children) had a choice of two, two-bedroom flats from two different Councils.

My husband, an only child, was brought up in a series of Council properties, many of them with three bedrooms and most of them houses.

Even as late as the 1990s I know a couple (relatives) who were given a two-bed HA house.

So it wasn't always as you say.

I know that social housing now is a scarce resource and tbh we're quite happy to help my son and girlfriend with their housing. I just used them as an illustration. (BTW it is a small terraced house and they do pay rent).

But at least where I am from, it does seem as though the average Mr-and-Mrs-stable-working-family do not get allocated anything and have to rent privately. I do think that 'needy' needs to be redefined, that's all.

That's interesting, I guess it depends on where you are in the country and when the council housing stock was built.

I do agree with you though that the way needy is defined needs to be changed.

seven-day-weekend

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

That's interesting, I guess it depends on where you are in the country and when the council housing stock was built.

I do agree with you though that the way needy is defined needs to be changed.

The cases I quoted were mainly Staffordshire (older housing stock) and Shropshire (Telford New Town), although my husband was brought up in Wolverhampton (which came under Staffordshire at the time, I believe, although it is now in the West Midlands county).

I really do think 'needy' needs to be redefined, so that low paid working people get a chance at social housing.

I for one don't think that being a single parent (for example) automatically makes you 'needy'. There may be a two-parent family struggling along on minimum wage and barely making ends meet, why should these have lower priority?

According to one poster here, they don't, but I have yet to see this with the evidence of my own eyes.

ILW

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

That's interesting, I guess it depends on where you are in the country and when the council housing stock was built.

I do agree with you though that the way needy is defined needs to be changed.

We seem to have gone to a situation where the term "deserving" is now considered too judgemental.