BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

catkins

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If it's the truth, it should be easy enough to evidence. I don't doubt that your friends have been told that they have no chance of securing social housing given their current circumstances. That is a product of limited stock and inflated demand. However, their employment is not a factor in either. Like I say, if you can be bothered to do a little research, you will find a more reliable version of the truth.

Whose truth? Yours? It seems you live in a world where people are going around lying all the time but you only ever tell the truth

Wee_Willy_Harris

catkins wrote: »

Maybe because they don't pay for it? The majority do not even work so have not even contributed in this country.

If you moved into a house with a washing machine that was only 6 months old but were given a brand new one would you complain?

Your argument makes no sense at all but, as I said previously, I think you are a social housing tenant who has received all these things which is why you think it is ok

We would ALL like these things, regardless of our tenure. But Social Housing tenants, like the rest of us, will not just get them in the way you describe. For example, very few (very specific, usually supported) social tenancies come with a washing machine, new or otherwise, provided. The provision of such a device, and it's subsequent replacement, is the tenants responsibility. In fact, it is the private tenant who is more likely to have a washing machine included in the terms of the tenancy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

catkins wrote: »

Whose truth? Yours? It seems you live in a world where people are going around lying all the time but you only ever tell the truth

Not me. The housing provider. I get it straight from the horses mouth, rather than some disgruntled mate down the pub who's stamping his feet because he didn't get his own way. I find it a more reliable source. Maybe you should try it sometime. Might stop that vein from throbbing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

catkins wrote: »

They were told it is because they both work.

Oh no they weren't.

sjaypink

catkins wrote: »

They were told it is because they both work.

Well I won't lie :D, its not unknown for some 'advisors' to verbally tell potential tenants certain things to put them off. However, believe me you will not have got the same response in writing!

In fact, since the housing market has taken a dive, a lot of new builds have been bought by HAs, although originally intended for private sale. (I assume) as a condition of buying up whole blocks or streets on private estates, the HAs are required to limit the no. of households NOT in permanent employment.

If you look at many of the choice-based lettings ads on LA websites, they will specify 'over 25' '1 child' 'no pets' etc in the same way that private ads do.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I think we would all like a better washing machine, lower housing costs, bigger house, nicer area, more amenities, etc etc etc. Why should social housing tenants be any different?

Because most of us do not expect others to pay.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Because most of us do not expect others to pay.

Expectation and delivery are two very different things. But you can't blame anyone for expressing a desire. Where would the national lottery be without it?

neverdespairgirl

sjaypink wrote: »

My facts in this case are from a published report investigating the issue, I provided a link to the same.

It clearly states that less than 10% of social housing tenants are non-UK born.

Which does indicate, to me, a higher than average current allocation to non-UK born people.

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Which does indicate, to me, a higher than average current allocation to non-UK born people.

Only if you choose to ignore every factor which is an indicator of the likelyhood to be a tenant, or even social tenant. Peers, for example, are grossly under-represented as social tenants.

Graham_Devon

Who set the lefty loose?