The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

Wee_Willy_Harris

Brallaqueen wrote: »

I'd like to see social housing offered for a fixed term (5 years?) rather than on material wealth. 5 years is a decent amount of security and it sidesteps the issue of incentive to better oneself. Possibly offer incentives to thoe who wish to leave thier allocation early or downsize?

The entire ethos behind social housing is security of tenure. People bang on about lower rents, but tenants want the same as everyone else... security in their housing. Apart from anything else, the average length of a social housing tenancy is about 7 years, so it's hardly a major issue (if you avoid the Mail/Express). The main reason that the provision of social housing is being discussed is because there is a current lack of supply following the stall created when RTB was introduced. Wouldn't the better solution be to build more social housing, rather than to destroy it altogether?

ninky_2

i saw this story in the standard on friday i think.

the tenants were a brother and sister, both single parents and neither working. if you saw the photo of them you would say there was absolutely no reason that at least one of them couldn't have gone out to work. there they are living in the heart of the west end with loads of jobs available and nothing to pay out to commute and yet two young healthy adults are apparently choosing not to work.

the labour lady was equally shameful. can't say i felt either of them particularly deserved this social home.

housing associations have become increasingly dubious imho. most seem to be run like the worst type of business - riddled with corruption and not in it for the cause at all.

harryhound

If social housing is allocated on a "points" system to identify need and there is a shortage of social housing; then we get the situation where someone with a working family of mum dad and two kids and two poorly paid jobs will never qualify. There will always be someone on benefits with a greater need; that they resent as Q jumpers.

The problem with the original story of the two siblings and the well connected replacement tenant was that neither appeared to demonstrate true "need" other than to obtain a central London property on a lower secured rental, by gaming the system.

ninky_2

harryhound wrote: »

If social housing is allocated on a "points" system to identify need and there is a shortage of social housing; then we get the situation where someone with a working family of mum dad and two kids and two poorly paid jobs will never qualify. There will always be someone on benefits with a greater need; that they resent as Q jumpers.

The problem with the original story of the two siblings and the well connected replacement tenant was that neither appeared to demonstrate true "need" other than to obtain a central London property on a lower secured rental, by gaming the system.

personally i think it would be better for the points system to be skewed so that someone on a low wage got more points than someone on out of work benefits. the justification (if there needs to be one) is that that working person needs to be located in that area for their job whilst the person on out of work benefits has less need through greater flexibility. why is it considered that if you are working you need a home less than someone who isn't?

Wee_Willy_Harris

harryhound wrote: »

If social housing is allocated on a "points" system to identify need and there is a shortage of social housing; then we get the situation where someone with a working family of mum dad and two kids and two poorly paid jobs will never qualify. There will always be someone on benefits with a greater need; that they resent as Q jumpers.

The problem with the original story of the two siblings and the well connected replacement tenant was that neither appeared to demonstrate true "need" other than to obtain a central London property on a lower secured rental, by gaming the system.

Most, and soon to be all, social housing is now allocated via a system called "Choice Based Lettings" (CBL). This tends to be a banded priority system with, typically, 4 bands reflecting need and the time in an individual band dictating your place in the "queue". ie someone in band 1 would be above someone in band 2, someone in band 1 for 1 year would be above someone in band 1 for 6 months. It's simpler and more transparent for users to understand. Available properties are advertised and prospective tenants "bid" on the properties of interest to them. There is a limit to how many bids an individual can place each week. So, the applicant gets to choose the property thery go for. But, with this choice comes consequence. If you urgently need a house, you will be better off bidding on lower demand properties. If you can afford to be patient, you can wait for a more popular property. The old addage of "Quick, cheap, good.... which two of those do you want?" applies.

Whilst affordability MAY be an issue with priority, it isn't dependant upon either employment or benefits. So, the employed applicant with the same set of housing circumstances as the unemployed applicant will get the same level of priority.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

personally i think it would be better for the points system to be skewed so that someone on a low wage got more points than someone on out of work benefits. the justification (if there needs to be one) is that that working person needs to be located in that area for their job whilst the person on out of work benefits has less need through greater flexibility. why is it considered that if you are working you need a home less than someone who isn't?

It could equally be argued that the unemployed need to be nearest to opportunities for employment as they need them the most.

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It could equally be argued that the unemployed need to be nearest to opportunities for employment as they need them the most.

that wouldn't necessarily be the areas they are currently living. it would have to be adjusted for skillset. i don't suppose many would be happy to be moved on this basis. opportunities for employment exist in many areas whilst a pre-existing job is harder to replace.

harryhound

Back in the 1990 recession, I, as the daily commuting home counties dweller, had three freelancers working for/with me. One commuted daily from darkest Norfolk. The other two commuted weekly from Liverpool and South Wales. One was a family man, the other two were married but without kids.
To quote a Tory politician, they had "got on their bikes" and found work.

I wonder how many people with their rent paid by the local authority find the same urgency to find employment?

My local authority "Furrock" has a strange system that I don't understand. It categorises people as Gold Silver & Bronze and then lists available properties in the local free paper.
The rental prices are significantly lower than the free market ones.
The Gold Silver & Bronze people then "bid" for the empty property and the results are published in the paper.

I would think that any system of queuing would militate against mobility?

Wee_Willy_Harris

harryhound wrote: »

Back in the 1990 recession, I, as the daily commuting home counties dweller, had three freelancers working for/with me. One commuted daily from darkest Norfolk. The other two commuted weekly from Liverpool and South Wales. One was a family man, the other two were married but without kids.
To quote a Tory politician, they had "got on their bikes" and found work.

I wonder how many people with their rent paid by the local authority find the same urgency to find employment?

My local authority "Furrock" has a strange system that I don't understand. It categorises people as Gold Silver & Bronze and then lists available properties in the local free paper.
The rental prices are significantly lower than the free market ones.
The Gold Silver & Bronze people then "bid" for the empty property and the results are published in the paper.

I would think that any system of queuing would militate against mobility?

See #86 re CBL

harryhound

Presumably CBL still creates the reverse incentives - eg "If we are ever going to get out of this two bedroom maisonette into one of those nice semi's with a garden, we had better have another kid preferably of a different sex?"