Council house debate

divastrop

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

It sounds like mrs h lives round my way because what she says is what happens in my area.

And you have proof that these girls/women got pregnant (with no help?!) just to secure social housing? There really is nothing else going on such as high unemployment being a factor in drug/alcohol abuse/domestic violence which may cause relationship breakdown and a general lack of self esteem contributing to a high number of single parents in the area?

wrightk

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I think you need to read the thread again

i think you need too.

you said that if you were to stop working and get a 'slapper' knocked up you'd be more likely to get a council house, contradicting your earlier statement about your 'friends' who also have kids and were apparantly told to private rent because they have no chance. so whats the issue here. employment?

you have already been told employment is not taken into consideration when allocating or even applying for social housing. WWH made the point that employment can actually work in your favour with many houses employing an s106 policy to ensure the house goes to a local person (usually if you have been living in the area for 5 or more years or employed for 3 or more). I know in my area for example that people who are in the lowest banding possible have been successful getting properties because of that very s106 policy. In future, particuarly new build houses and HA houses will mostly have s106's on them to ensure the housing stock goes to the local people where the land was bought and the houses were built.

Jimmy_31

divastrop wrote: »

And you have proof that these girls/women got pregnant (with no help?!) just to secure social housing? There really is nothing else going on such as high unemployment being a factor in drug/alcohol abuse/domestic violence which may cause relationship breakdown and a general lack of self esteem contributing to a high number of single parents in the area?

If you class one night stands as a relationship then it might become a bit clearer as to where the problem lies.

You must have heard the old chat up line..........do you wanna go halfs on a council house darlin.

Jimmy_31

wrightk wrote: »

i think you need too.

you said that if you were to stop working and get a 'slapper' knocked up you'd be more likely to get a council house, contradicting your earlier statement about your 'friends' who also have kids and were apparantly told to private rent because they have no chance. so whats the issue here. employment?

you have already been told employment is not taken into consideration when allocating or even applying for social housing. WWH made the point that employment can actually work in your favour with many houses employing an s106 policy to ensure the house goes to a local person (usually if you have been living in the area for 5 or more years or employed for 3 or more). I know in my area for example that people who are in the lowest banding possible have been successful getting properties because of that very s106 policy. In future, particuarly new build houses and HA houses will mostly have s106's on them to ensure the housing stock goes to the local people where the land was bought and the houses were built.

Oh right, so how does that explain the majority of the houses in my area are occupied by none working people and also the majority of the houses i have worked on over the years are occupied by none working people.

Saying and doing are two different things

wrightk

im making a point that if they are unemployed this has no bearing on their priority for council housing, whether they are employed or unemployed is neither here nor there

Wee_Willy_Harris

divastrop wrote: »

Really? Where in the North West is that, then? I live in the North West and my private rented house costs twice as much as the Housing association property I lived in two years ago. I had to move, though, as anti-social behavior was making my families lives hell and I could never have moved on in my life living where I was, sadly

I didn't say ALL privately rented houses were cheaper. But Bolton is always a good place to start. Typical Social housing rents are about £80 for a 2 bed house (£346 pcm). Rightmove currently has 11 privately rented 2 beds for £350 and below.

Jimmy_31

wrightk wrote: »

im making a point that if they are unemployed this has no bearing on their priority for council housing, whether they are employed or unemployed is neither here nor there

And im making the point that this doesnt seem to be the case, so i think we will just have to disagree.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I work hard enough thankyou and i can afford to move.

Then move. You'll be so much happier.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I didn't say ALL privately rented houses were cheaper. But Bolton is always a good place to start. Typical Social housing rents are about £80 for a 2 bed house (£346 pcm). Rightmove currently has 11 privately rented 2 beds for £350 and below.

And i never said all council tenants are unemployed.

wrightk

so your accusing the councils now? sit down and read through your councils banding criteria and you tell me where it says anything about being unemployed