housing benefit, family of 5 are we entitled to a 3 bedroom please?

Gleeful

dcems wrote: »

Yes, your first comment is fair enough-it goes the same for those in social housing as well. if you already know you are overcrowded then accept the consequences of increasing your family.

However, as a home owner the sole responsibilty for the condition of their home is down to them! As they own it! If you rent from a l/l, social or private, that responsibilty is down to them as the owners,as they have a duty of care towards their tenants.

I'm sorry, but if we had to house every single family who owned a property in the UK because they were overcrowded then the impact would be catastrophic.

Totally ridiculous to expect this country to fund homeowners every time there's an issue with their own property!

I think you completely missed the 'tongue in cheek' of this posters' first comment on the thread...

real1314

DX2 wrote: »

Not strictly true, it's due to the gender of the children and the age of the children.

It's the number though.

You could take gender out and still have a 3 bed LHA rate. You could take the ages all to below 10 and still get a 3 bed LHA rate.

The ages and gender could be anything from 1 to 17 and they could be 3 boys or 3 girls or whatever else, but 3 kids are not expect to share, any ages, any gender.

Marisco

real1314 wrote: »

but 3 kids are not expect to share, any ages, any gender.

You've got to be joking!!!! :eek: So someone with 3 kids should have a 4 bed house????? God almighty, makes you wonder how people managed years ago!!!!! When did that daft rule come in?

suelees1

Both theshadow and mazy_m's friend are in overcrowded property.

Dave you need to contact your social housing landlord. I'd say stay with them if you can as you've more security than with a private landlord.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/ Ring these on Monday and they'll advise you without charge

DX2

Marisco wrote: »

You've got to be joking!!!! :eek: So someone with 3 kids should have a 4 bed house????? God almighty, makes you wonder how people managed years ago!!!!! When did that daft rule come in?

Human rights have a lot to answer for I remember myself and two sisters shared a room and parents shared another, two rooms. These days it would be three rooms (only if you were in social housing of course)

Oldernotwiser

real1314 wrote: »

It's the number though.

You could take gender out and still have a 3 bed LHA rate. You could take the ages all to below 10 and still get a 3 bed LHA rate.

The ages and gender could be anything from 1 to 17 and they could be 3 boys or 3 girls or whatever else, but 3 kids are not expect to share, any ages, any gender.

Unless the 3 children are living without their parents, surely someone is going to be sharing in a 3 bed house?

dcems

Gleeful wrote: »

I think you completely missed the 'tongue in cheek' of this posters' first comment on the thread...

Hmmm, Im gonna have to watch that !:T
3 children wouldnt be expected to share 1 bedroom,but definately wouldnt be getting a 4 bed house under normal circumstances.

Anubis_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Child molesters often live in the private sector as well!

Yes, I am fully aware of that, but you don't tend to get a mix of child molester's, gangs, heavy drug dealers, burned out cars etc in such a small area of the private sector.

I live on a small street of terraced houses - not had one bit of trouble in 15 years. My disabled friend (who has since passed) could visit and leave her electric wheelchair at my front door (no garden, front door leads on the street) and it would still be there hours later.

Where I used to live, locking the wheelchair in a shed wasn't good enough because it would still have been targetted, burned, or stolen.

erdd2

Just a thought,

Courts do not grant access if there isn't separate room re gender and ages, and law surpasses policy albeit many authorities disagree until they are "hit" with it.

Anubis_2

I did say in one of my posts, a massive change on circumstances may make a difference and it sounds as though she had just that

And here is where we agree, because I did state that if the Landlord sells, and the family are deemed homeless, this is why the massive change in cicrumstances would mean they would be entitled to rise on the list of social housing which was my original point - just because they move to private housing, doesn't mean to say they will not be allowed back in social housing, especially if they had a drastic change in circumstances.

Now, if the private housing fitted their needs, and the Landlord was not selling, then yes, of course, they may have to wait years to get back in social housing because their housing needs are met, but I was talking from the point of view of Landlord selling after a year/or them losing the private house after a year.

Fine, but don't expect to place a few bids and be back in a social tenancy, as it doesn't happen like that!

I am FULLY aware that it doesn't happen like that - however, if the family where made homeless then it would happen like that to some extent.

Hence why I put "Even if you do have to move for whatever reason, you then go back to council or housing association, and if your landlord is selling, you will go to the top of the list, staying in the area your kids go to school in - so what is the issue?" because really there is no issue.

If you moved to privately rented accommodation - for one, you have chose the area, which is going to be a sure bet to be a better area than you already live in - secondly, you have (hopefully) done extensive homework on landlords, lettings, secure tenancies etc for private housing (you can get secure tenancies in private housing) and long term rentals. Both of these factors means that the chances of you wanting to move are going to be next to zero - and certainly minimizes the "want" - however, it does not take away the fact that you may "need" to move out - a change in circumstance such as the landlord selling would mean that you are in desperate need of being rehoused and therefore you would be awarded more points and then given a certain timescale you could go back in social housing (depending on area, local council structures etc)

Therefore the move to private rented is much less of a risk providing:

Homework is done
You sign up to a secure long term tenancy if you are planning to stay there

Social housing is as secure a tenancy as you can get, so yes I would say it is 'secure'. In what way isn't it, out of interest?

Because nothing in life is "secure" - what happens when they decide to knock down the properties? What happens when there is a relationship breakdown, and, for whatever reason, one of the neighbours decides to make your life a misery? These things can happen anywhere at anytime in any tenancy.

If you have a long term secure tenancy with a landlord, then, the main way you are put at risk is if the landlord has to sell (assuming you don't break tenancy rules, which goes for any housing). If the Landlord sells, then, you are considered homeless, and in need - just like my friend who had a relationship breakdown and had to go back to social housing. However, in some cases you would be allowed to stay in the property (just like we have.)

Our previous landlord was so brilliant that he the condition of the sale was that the person who purchased had to agree to let us stay as tenants. This was five years ago. We are still here, been h.ere 15 years in total, although I do wish I had my old landlord back because he was so great. I am going to have to move though which is a shame as I don't want to, but I know that I am going to have to, so I am on the list for social housing and I am also looking at private housing - there is no major rush just yet, thank the Lord.

If you don't do your homework, you can be left high and dry - that much is true, but I will say that if you do your homework and find a decent landlord with a good tenancy, then it is worth the risk. I am pretty sure that if I had carried on living where I was, I would now be dead due to the stress (as I have a life threatening heart condition as one of the things I suffer from).

At the end of the day though IF you can stay in social housing and get somewhere you want, then you are fine. There is nothing worse though than being in social housing and living a nightmare because of it. I do still think that the OP should try and stay in the social sector, and, if they do decide on the private sector, they MUST do their homework - it is essential, otherwise they could be moving out of the frying pan into the fire. :eek: