mortgage but have been given a council house no work!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Gothicfairy wrote: »

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 ?

Social housing is allocated on the basis of need. Overcrowding IS a need. Nobody can predict twins at the point of conception, so who's fault is that?

paddygirl

The point is being missed, but I guess if everyone is happy then that justifies the allocation of social housing to someone who still owns a house!!!

Wee_Willy_Harris

paddygirl wrote: »

The point is being missed, but I guess if everyone is happy then that justifies the allocation of social housing to someone who still owns a house!!!

Would it make you happy if they were forced to wait until the day of eviction, placed in (very expensive) B+B, moved to (expensive) hostel accommodation, and THEN moved to social housing?

HappyMJ

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Would it make you happy if they were forced to wait until the day of eviction, placed in (very expensive) B+B, moved to (expensive) hostel accommodation, and THEN moved to social housing?

Yes that would make me happy. My council only has a couple of poeple each year that become homeless due to mortgage arrears. The council owns 2 fully furnished short term lets that they use instead of b and b's and hostels whilst waiting for a HA property to come up.

Wee_Willy_Harris

HappyMJ wrote: »

Yes that would make me happy. My council only has a couple of poeple each year that become homeless due to mortgage arrears. The council owns 2 fully furnished short term lets that they use instead of b and b's and hostels whilst waiting for a HA property to come up.

But would it not be better for those units to be used for someone with no alternative to B+B, while the owner/occ awaiting repo remains in their property until rehoused? That way, B+B/hostel use can be further reduced.

WhiteHorse

I know of a couple who, although fairly elderly, had no medical problems. They applied for and got a council bungalow, even though they owned the house which they were living in at the time. They then sold the house, kept £100,000 for themselves and gave each of their two children £50,000.

They will now be subsidised by the taxpayer till they die.

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I know of a couple who, although fairly elderly, had no medical problems. They applied for and got a council bungalow, even though they owned the house which they were living in at the time. They then sold the house, kept £100,000 for themselves and gave each of their two children £50,000.

They will now be subsidised by the taxpayer till they die.

A bungalow would only be allocated to a tenant with no medical issues if demand for such properties was low. Perhaps the council felt it better than funding an empty property.

Housing benefit will not ber payable with that level of capitol, so they won't be "subsidised by the taxpayer until they die".

WhiteHorse

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Perhaps the council felt it better than funding an empty property.

Key word: Funding.

Housing benefit will not ber payable with that level of capitol, so they won't be "subsidised by the taxpayer until they die".

I did not refer to Housing Benefit. Council rents are well below market rates. Ergo, they are subsidised.

System

paddygirl wrote: »

If your home is medically unsuitable then of course, you can be approved on medical grounds.

But if you own your home without a medical need then you shouldnt be getting social housing.

Loads of options to save your home,including Mortgage Rescue if the LA does that. Or selling and getting private if any equity.

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.

medical issues are the reason we are doing exactly that , we have priority status because of dds needs , we will sell our house once we have moved .

hjsmum

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Key word: Funding.


I did not refer to Housing Benefit. Council rents are well below market rates. Ergo, they are subsidised.

I'm not being sarcastic here, this is a genuine question. How are they subsidised? The council own the houses yes? Whether they rent them out for £100 a week or £1000 a week they are still making money from them to go into maintaining current properties or building new ones etc.