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

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

HA properties are allocated on a basis of need (in theory) problem is that the definitions of need can be rather skewed. For example, a medical condition can increase eligibilty, which seems OK until you realise that being an alcoholic or hard drug user counts as a medical condition.

Ah, but it would need to be a housing related medical condition which would make the current property unsuitable. For example, a wheelchair user in a 5th floor flat is clearly in need and may qualify for priority. However, the same wheelchair user in an adapted bungalow wouldn't be. Alcohol/drug use wouldn't automatically grant priority. In fact, the only way I can think that it might would be if they were in high density housing (ie a flat) and presented a fire risk.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I live in the north west and have worked on many estates throughout the north west.

The immigrants usually get the fully furnished house and the british tenants get a house but can get free white goods and such in special circumstances ie they spent the money for a cooker on beer and weed so now they cant cook the kids tea so its classed as a crisis and they end up with a free cooker, this causes problems on the esatates because the british tenants think they are entitled to more stuff than an immigrant, why that is ill never know because if you are a council tenant who doesnt work and has never worked and will never work then in my opinion you should get absolutely nothing.

You clearly have only a limited understanding of how the system works in reality. Under certain conditions, a social care grand/loan may be available. But the idea that this would be sufficient to furnish a property from any shop other than the local charity shop is very wide of the mark. In a crisis, and in order to protect children from suffering, Social Services MAY assist. But if you had any idea about the process of getting money from the Social Services budget, you would understand how far from the truth your assumption is. For a cooker? You'd be looking at £30 if you were lucky.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Yes, but as I mentioned in a previous post, this has nothing to do with the LA or HA, money for such things in a 'crisis' as described, will come in the form of a budgeting or crisis loan, or community care grant- all from dwp, or from a re-settling or children charity or social services perhaps.

It doesnt really matter what association or department the money they get comes from does it, the point is the councils or whoever are wasting money by constantly looking after people who can look after themselves but choose not to.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

It doesnt really matter what association or department the money they get comes from does it, the point is the councils or whoever are wasting money by constantly looking after people who can look after themselves but choose not to.

What choice does the child have?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

What choice does the child have?

NONE, yet the mothers and fathers are still allowed to keep having children knowing full well that they have no means or intention to support them.

ILW

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

NONE, yet the mothers and fathers are still allowed to keep having children knowing full well that they have no means or intention to support them.

There is part of the problem, they are not only allowed to keep having more children, they are rewarded for it with cash and better housing.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

An electrician/gas installer with access/control over rent accounts? What a strange position your dad had.

The cost is usually added to the rent account. If it remains unpaid, the tenant will be unable to transfer, exchange, upsize, or re-apply if they cease to be a tenant. It would also effect any RTB application. Should they become eligible for a disturbance grant (usually if they are forced to move due to regeneration) the outstanding balance would be recovered from that. They also risk the demotion of their tenancy. Ultimately, civil recovery action is also an option and IS used.

And again, can you explain were this rent money comes from when the tenant has no job and has never had a job so does not contribute anything to the rent account.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

NONE, yet the mothers and fathers are still allowed to keep having children knowing full well that they have no means or intention to support them.

ILW wrote: »

There is part of the problem, they are not only allowed to keep having more children, they are rewarded for it with cash and better housing.

Allowed? What ARE you suggesting?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

And again, can you explain were this rent money comes from when the tenant has no job and has never had a job so does not contribute anything to the rent account.

From the same safety net that we all have access to when the need arises, regardless of tenure.

ILW

Allowed is the wrong word, incentivised would be better.