Is this right?

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

True and whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion I’m undecided at the moment. But the causes are immigration and life expectancy not birth rate. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think people should be able to have as many children as they want and expect the state to pick up the bill at least we can agree on that..

Took a while to get there didnt it.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Took a while to get there didnt it.

I've never said I thought people should be able to have as many kids as they want and expect the state to pay I think that was your argument with willy.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Why would I issue an appology for stating the truth?

So my friends are now back to being liars are they.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

I've never said I thought people should be able to have as many kids as they want and expect the state to pay I think that was your argument with willy.

I am aware of that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So my friends are now back to being liars are they.

Well, what they've told you isn't the truth, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, what they've told you isn't the truth, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

So what about the council employee on the tv program, he discourages people from putting their name on the housing list, the same as my friends were discouraged from putting their name on the list, so are my friends liars and the tv program does not exist.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So what about the council employee on the tv program, he discourages people from putting their name on the housing list, the same as my friends were discouraged from putting their name on the list, so are my friends liars and the tv program does not exist.

No. What you said was that your friends wouldn't get social housing because they were working. I've told you that's not true, shown you a number of providers in your area where you would qualify not just for the list (as with all providers) but for actual re-housing within a very short timeframe, shown you how the priority system works, shown you that there is no priority for being unemployed and even suggested that you approach a provider if you wish to secure social housing. All of which you have chosen to ignore. You would rather listen to your "friends" than hear the truth of the matter from anyone who might actually be in a position to tell you that truth.

Employment is no bar to social housing. Fact.
Social housing lists are open to all. Fact.
Working people are allocated social housing. Fact.
No priority is given based on worklessness/unemployment/benefit dependancy. Fact.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. What you said was that your friends wouldn't get social housing because they were working. I've told you that's not true, shown you a number of providers in your area where you would qualify not just for the list (as with all providers) but for actual re-housing within a very short timeframe, shown you how the priority system works, shown you that there is no priority for being unemployed and even suggested that you approach a provider if you wish to secure social housing. All of which you have chosen to ignore. You would rather listen to your "friends" than hear the truth of the matter from anyone who might actually be in a position to tell you that truth.

Employment is no bar to social housing. Fact.
Social housing lists are open to all. Fact.
Working people are allocated social housing. Fact.
No priority is given based on worklessness/unemployment/benefit dependancy. Fact.

I have said that my friends were discouraged from putting their name on the housing list because they were told it was highly unlikely they would be given a house and so they were advised to go for a private rent.

I also said that the program on tv shows people being discouraged from putting their names on the council list because its is highly unlikely they will be given a house.

Here is what you have written in response to that.....

And yet the length of the waiting list is a considerable factor in the award of grants for new builds. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that? Unless Jimmy's friends are telling porkie pies.

You are saying me and my friends are liars and the tv show turns out not to be a factual documentary but a complete work of fiction.

DO THE COUNCIL DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM PUTTING THEIR NAME ON THE WAITING LIST, YES OR NO ITS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I have said that my friends were discouraged from putting their name on the housing list because they were told it was highly unlikely they would be given a house and so they were advised to go for a private rent.

I also said that the program on tv shows people being discouraged from putting their names on the council list because its is highly unlikely they will be given a house.

Here is what you have written in response to that.....

And yet the length of the waiting list is a considerable factor in the award of grants for new builds. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that? Unless Jimmy's friends are telling porkie pies.

You are saying me and my friends are liars and the tv show turns out not to be a factual documentary but a complete work of fiction.

DO THE COUNCIL DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM PUTTING THEIR NAME ON THE WAITING LIST, YES OR NO ITS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Well, I'll jump in there and say it does happen, it is very common here.

Although Harris is correct that the waiting lists have an influence on funding.

Also, housing advice bureaus / housing allocation depts (whatever the name of them throughout the country, these are basically a team within the borough council who manage the waiting lists) have targets to meet.

I guess as already described, two obvious ways to do that:

Get as many on the list as possible, then try and obtain funding for more properties to house them within, due to the proven demand

or

Be 'economical with the truth' in order to put off as many perspective tenants as possible.


I think which way it goes in any given area will be down to

• Whether the borough council still provide the social housing in the area, or whether it is provided by independant housing associations
• If they are proper 'council' houses, what the local accounts are like (would it be profitable to have more tenants)
• What the geographical area is like -do the majority of residents want green meadows being built on, or is there lots of brown field eyesores in need regeneration
• What are the local demographics like, and how might providing more SH might effect that
• Maybe even how corrupt the local management team are, and what their relationship is like with private landlords, the planning commitee etc

Matt1977

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The existing tenants (someone I work with is one) will be realocated houses.

Seems fair enough.

BUT. The person I work with, at a guess, must be 55-60 years old. Her childrenm moved out nearly 10 years ago, and she has a 3 bed home. She is therefore entitled to another 3 bed home, so she says, when the new ones are built, which will be a kind of rolling programme. She was saying shes learnt that they will get temporarily housed inbetween (assume the houses have to be knocked down and then the land reclaimed).

4 of us were in the office when she was, quite openly talking about this, and having what I'd describe as a polite moan about being temprarily housed, and a polite moan that she is being asked to move to a 2 bed, which she thinks is "victorian rule" in her own words.

Yet she states she is perfectly entitled to like for like.

The lady should count herself lucky. If it was in my area then I am sure that it would be a 1 bedroom flat or otherwise find her own property to move to on the private market.