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

sjaypink

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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

Yes, but as housing is allocated on need you would need to know the stats as to how many UK and foreign born people had applied to the join the housing register, how many had been made homeless, the circumstances behind their application etc to make assuptions as to whether the figures are disproportionate

DexterA

sjaypink wrote: »

Yes, but as housing is allocated on need

No, it's not. It's based upon (a) who in the council you know, (b) the number of lies the individual can get away with, (c) the number of points you score - very loosely correlated with need.

sjaypink

DexterA wrote: »

No, it's not. It's based upon (a) who in the council you know, who knows what circumstances = 'need'' (b) the number of [STRIKE]lies[/STRIKE] *cough* imaginitive ways the individual can [STRIKE]get away with[/STRIKE] clearly display their current vulnerability, therefore boosting (c) the number of points you score - very loosely correlated with need.

It is on paper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who set the lefty loose?

Not me this time!

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Why shouldn't a tenant, ANY tenant, be offered the choice over the style of kitchen to be fitted? Why shouldn't they be offered a quality product which will last the test of time? Why shouldn't they be encouraged to take a pride in their home? And why, if they so choose, should they not be offered the chance to live in an undecorated house if that is what they want. I'm glad not to live in your totalitarian state!

Tenants should not have any say in what materials are used when refurbishing a council house as it is not their house.

I have spent nearly ten years working on these properties and can tell you that all this shiny stuff doesnt last 5 minutes and the councils would get better value for money if they chose to fit a bog standard solid plywood construction kitchen.

The estimated lifespan of a kitchen that i used to fit was generally 4 to 5 years and then i would be going back to the same house and fitting another kitchen due to the tenants not even attempting to look after anything within the kitchen.

If we go by your way of thinking ie give them what they want and let them do whatever they want then nothing is going to change is it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DexterA wrote: »

No, it's not. It's based upon (a) who in the council you know, (b) the number of lies the individual can get away with, (c) the number of points you score - very loosely correlated with need.

Most social housing allocation systems are now largely based on Choice Based Lettings (CBL). As such, there are no longer "points". CBL also tends to be transparent so, if you don't get a particular property, you can usually look up online the circumstances of the person who did so that you can make a direct comparison with your own. Sadly, people do lie to gain advantage. But that is the same with any system. However, there will be a reporting mechanism in place for anyone to complain if they feel they have been treated unfairly. Ultimately, this could end up in court. No other system of property allocation is so heavily regulated as the allocation of social housing.

Jimmy_31

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?

Yes you are right, im perfectly happy if a council tenant who does not or will not work wants all the good things in life, what bothers me is when they get given the good things in life.


Have you ever stepped foot on a rough council estate ?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Most social housing allocation systems are now largely based on Choice Based Lettings (CBL). As such, there are no longer "points". CBL also tends to be transparent so, if you don't get a particular property, you can usually look up online the circumstances of the person who did so that you can make a direct comparison with your own. Sadly, people do lie to gain advantage. But that is the same with any system. However, there will be a reporting mechanism in place for anyone to complain if they feel they have been treated unfairly. Ultimately, this could end up in court. No other system of property allocation is so heavily regulated as the allocation of social housing.

No other system of property allocation is so heavily regulated as the allocation of social housing.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Tenants should not have any say in what materials are used when refurbishing a council house as it is not their house.

But it is their home.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I have spent nearly ten years working on these properties and can tell you that all this shiny stuff doesnt last 5 minutes and the councils would get better value for money if they chose to fit a bog standard solid plywood construction kitchen.

The estimated lifespan of a kitchen that i used to fit was generally 4 to 5 years and then i would be going back to the same house and fitting another kitchen due to the tenants not even attempting to look after anything within the kitchen.

How strange. One of the reasons for the introduction of the decent homes standard was because the average age of a kitchen in the social housing sector was 30 years. Many properties didn't even have central heating/double glazing and the standard of repair had fallen so far behind what could reasonably be expected that many councils simply couldn't afford to bring their stock up to the minimum standard and had to sell them off in Large Scale Stock Transfers or pass them to Arms Length Management organisations.

As for the choice of kitchens? I really don't see why the choice of pine effect over oak effect, with no price impact, should be of concern to anyone but the individual tenant. It gives people a sense of ownership, which is a good thing for all of us.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If we go by your way of thinking ie give them what they want and let them do whatever they want then nothing is going to change is it.

Quite the contrary. What the Decent Homes Standard was intended to do was to change the perception of social housing from accommodation provided at the lowest common denominator, to a higher quality product of intrinsic value.

idea of just doing everything on the cheap is one of the reasons social housing carries the stigma it does.

RuthnJasper

chucky wrote: »

you'll find that where parents have benefited from the benefits system, their children will probably follow suit and not feel any responsibility social or even personal.

this is more deep rooted and engrained in culture than many people realise; most people believe benefits are an entitlement and not a privilege. it won't be changing in the current generation IMO, especially with the high number of unemployed both young and old.

Sadly, yes. As the saying goes - "the face of the abuser is in the abused". Something has gone seriously wrong somewhere - and anyone who tries drastic measures to put things right tends, generally, to be branded as a troublemaker or an "extremist".

The simplest solution, of course, is to cut off the source of ALL benefits (yes, ALL) for trouble-makers and instead of/as well as punishing bad behaviour with ASBOS, rewards should be introduced for GOOD behaviour and GOOD claimants. That way, the scum lose out and the quiet, law-abiding, decent folk are the winners.

Won't happen in MY lifetime, though, I suspect (and I'm only a young lady).

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But it is their home.



How strange. One of the reasons for the introduction of the decent homes standard was because the average age of a kitchen in the social housing sector was 30 years. Many properties didn't even have central heating/double glazing and the standard of repair had fallen so far behind what could reasonably be expected that many councils simply couldn't afford to bring their stock up to the minimum standard and had to sell them off in Large Scale Stock Transfers or pass them to Arms Length Management organisations.

As for the choice of kitchens? I really don't see why the choice of pine effect over oak effect, with no price impact, should be of concern to anyone but the individual tenant. It gives people a sense of ownership, which is a good thing for all of us.



Quite the contrary. What the Decent Homes Standard was intended to do was to change the perception of social housing from accommodation provided at the lowest common denominator, to a higher quality product of intrinsic value.

idea of just doing everything on the cheap is one of the reasons social housing carries the stigma it does.

Right it is their home, so if it is their home then why arent they buying their own kitchen, is putting a roof over their head free of charge not enough help ?

Giving tenants the choice between having 2 glazed doors on 2 wall units is more expensive than just having a normal door. Guess which doors they pick.

You clearly do not understand the cost of materials, i could go and make a kitchen and fit it tomorrow that would easily last 50 years and at nowhere near cost of a shiny kitchen, it wouldnt look pretty but so what it does what its supposed to do.

Fitting a new kitchen for a tenant doesnt give them a sense of ownership, they know they are never going to leave that house (unless they get given one thats bigger and has a kitchen thats really shiny) because they dont have to, they dont have to do anything, they will have their ar5es wiped for them their whole lives.