mortgage but have been given a council house no work!

HappyMJ

woodbine wrote: »

Sorry but i flatly refuse to believe anyone would get social housing in the circumstances the OP outlines,there just isnt any social housing left

I suppose it's possible but I doubt it as well. The twins don't even count in the overcrowding calculation until they are 1 year old then they only count as half a person each so they could live in a 1 bedroom flat with a lounge that can be used as a bedroom at night and not be overcrowded until the twins turn 10.

Eager_Elephant

This happens all the time in my area - if people have a mortgaged property which they cannot afford and are at risk of repossession (and are a priority need) and do not meet the criteria for Mortgage Rescue then they are given a high banding for a council/HA property as this then prevents homelessness.

If the council waited until the house was repossessed they would have to go into a homeless hostel which would cost more so it is easier to let them move straight from one to another.

I am 99.9% sure that the OP has no equity otherwise they would have recommended selling and renting privately.

paddygirl

There are many issues as to why people loose their owner occupied homes-quite often there is an intentionality element which means they wouldnt be given a higher band.
if if at risk of repossession that in itself can take some time if hardship options havent been considered, so if not homeless or threatened with it within 28 days i dont see how priority banding can be given if an application for housing is made under homeless legislation. even if exceptions were made,the likelihood of getting social housing and having to avoid tempoary housing if near on impossible for most.
Just doesnt make sense

t0rt0ise

paddygirl wrote: »

There must be some kind of fraud involved to get social housing prior to losing your home in the circumstances posted.

I don't think accusing the OP of fraud is acceptable. You are pretty disgusting.

Gothicfairy

Whenever I hear of people wanting bigger houses on the state because they had more kids it always makes me wonder how we use to manage.
I am not all that old and remember brothers / sisters sharing rooms without all this stuff about it not being right for different sex children to share etc.

I am a grumpy thing and was raised to believe you deal with what you have and if you have more kids then room , who is to blame ? It is not like some medical condition that you can't do anything about.

I am not saying repossession and the like don't happen cos I know they do and that there is little you can do to stop it if you don't have the cash but why not live in the house until it is repossessed and then go from there ? Or rent something ?

It seems that the op wants to keep up with the mortgage until the property is sold and also get a new house with housing benefit from the council ..or am I misreading something ?

Wee_Willy_Harris

paddygirl wrote: »

There must be some kind of fraud involved to get social housing prior to losing your home in the circumstances posted.

Social housing is meant to be for those in greatest need.

Not at all. Owner occs can get priority for any number of reasons, in the same way anyone else can. Overcrowding, unsuitability, affordability etc.In many areas, social housing is still frequently allocated to applicants without any priority banding, such is the demand in that area.

Wee_Willy_Harris

HappyMJ wrote: »

I suppose it's possible but I doubt it as well. The twins don't even count in the overcrowding calculation until they are 1 year old then they only count as half a person each so they could live in a 1 bedroom flat with a lounge that can be used as a bedroom at night and not be overcrowded until the twins turn 10.

But you're applying the 85 act and it's definition of overcrowding. Housing providers will have their own policy and definition of overcrowding, most of which will be far more generous than the absolute definition given by the 85 act. Many will count children as a whole person even before they are born, many will assume that different sex siblings don't share, very few would regard a living room as sleeping space, etc etc etc.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Whenever I hear of people wanting bigger houses on the state because they had more kids it always makes me wonder how we use to manage.
I am not all that old and remember brothers / sisters sharing rooms without all this stuff about it not being right for different sex children to share etc.

And we used to shove 11 year old children up the chimney, but we don't do that anymore. It's called progress. The examples you give above would have seemed like luxury to the generations before, but that doesn't make progress wrong.

Gothicfairy wrote: »

I am a grumpy thing and was raised to believe you deal with what you have and if you have more kids then room , who is to blame ? It is not like some medical condition that you can't do anything about.

Which is why the statutory legislation is only applicable at the point of let. The usual expansion of a family would not, in itself, create statutory overcrowding and/or any legal duty. If you rent a 1 bed flat to a family of 8, you are breaking the law. If you rent a 1 bed flat to a couple who then have 6 children, you aren't.

Gothicfairy wrote: »

I am not saying repossession and the like don't happen cos I know they do and that there is little you can do to stop it if you don't have the cash but why not live in the house until it is repossessed and then go from there ? Or rent something ?

Because, as you said, they "don't have the cash".... ie the property is unaffordable. Why leave it until expensive emergency action has to be taken?

Gothicfairy wrote: »

It seems that the op wants to keep up with the mortgage until the property is sold and also get a new house with housing benefit from the council ..or am I misreading something ?

Seems reasonable enough.

Wee_Willy_Harris

paddygirl wrote: »

There are many issues as to why people loose their owner occupied homes-quite often there is an intentionality element which means they wouldnt be given a higher band.
if if at risk of repossession that in itself can take some time if hardship options havent been considered, so if not homeless or threatened with it within 28 days i dont see how priority banding can be given if an application for housing is made under homeless legislation. even if exceptions were made,the likelihood of getting social housing and having to avoid tempoary housing if near on impossible for most.
Just doesnt make sense

Not every area experiences the same demand for social housing that some of the bigger authorities do, such as those in London. In many areas, the number of bidders for family accommodation is frequently in the single figures and allocations are frequently made to applicants with no priority status.

Gothicfairy

I am glad it sounds reasonable to you..I wish we lived in a world where everyone could have their own home and mortgage and a council house paid for out of taxes.

They could be trying to sell this house for years and still get a council house on us...They didn't say they were not living there because they could not afford it ( although it is clear it is a push) they said they want a new place because they are over crowded.

Who's fault is that ?