some advice on housing association flat

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Here you go, if you want specifics:

So I suggested that this supported the fact that some were unable to find an affordable rent.

You then wittered on about these people doing it in order to get a council house:

Then when Morlock reminded you that those making themselves intentionally homeless would not qualify for a council house, you stated:

Which would not support your assertion that this 3% all did it intentionally, because they would not fall into this group!

I never said they did it intentionally. I stated that, once in that position, they did nothing to solve the issue themselves. Hence the homeless accept. With almost one in three properties falling within the extent of LHA rates, anyone who is living in a property which is no longer affordable has a choice. They can either secure alternative private rent, or they can do nothing and get social housing. Fortunately, the second option is soon to change.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Truth can always be backed up with some kind of stats, can it not?

The rates are all published. Google away, my friend.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The rates are all published. Google away, my friend.

The rate for my area has gone from £105 to £90 per week. That's a £15 shortfall. For someone on JSA, that is approximately 20% of their weekly income.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I never said they did it intentionally. I stated that, once in that position, they did nothing to solve the issue themselves. Hence the homeless accept. With almost one in three properties falling within the extent of LHA rates, anyone who is living in a property which is no longer affordable has a choice. They can either secure alternative private rent, or they can do nothing and get social housing. Fortunately, the second option is soon to change.

See the contradiction?

Your one in three figure is irrelevant, as it fails to take into account what properties are available to rent. We have already established that one in three properties are not available to rent.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

The rate for my area has gone from £105 to £90 per week. That's a £15 shortfall. For someone on JSA, that is approximately 20% of their weekly income.

Is that the single bed rate? If so, it's MUCH larger than average. Would you care to identify the area?

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Is that the single bed rate? If so, it's MUCH larger than average. Would you care to identify the area?

Oddly enough, I am not identifying where I live. What is the average?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

See the contradiction?

No. But I see that you don't understand the current homeless legislation. Let me give you a typical example and see if that helps. Mum, dad, son (14) and daughter(16) are living in their 3 bed house. It costs slightly more than the LHA 3 bed rate, but they like the area so afford the shortfall. Daughter decides to move in with her boyfriend and leaves the family home. LHA paid falls to the 2 bed rate as a result and the family start to accrue arrears. They could move to a cheaper 2 bed and solve the issue. However, the homeless legislation places no onus on them to do so and as long as they can establish the affordability issue, the arrears and subsequent threat of eviction will almost certainly lead to a homeless accept and social housing.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Your one in three figure is irrelevant, as it fails to take into account what properties are available to rent. We have already established that one in three properties are not available to rent.

Not sure what you are getting at here. One in three people aren't tenants. One in three people don't rely on LHA. One in three people aren't looking for accommodation. What's your point?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Oddly enough, I am not identifying where I live. What is the average?

Overall, the average change across all property types was £9 a week.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. But I see that you don't understand the current homeless legislation. Let me give you a typical example and see if that helps. Mum, dad, son (14) and daughter(16) are living in their 3 bed house. It costs slightly more than the LHA 3 bed rate, but they like the area so afford the shortfall. Daughter decides to move in with her boyfriend and leaves the family home. LHA paid falls to the 2 bed rate as a result and the family start to accrue arrears. They could move to a cheaper 2 bed and solve the issue. However, the homeless legislation places no onus on them to do so and as long as they can establish the affordability issue, the arrears and subsequent threat of eviction will almost certainly lead to a homeless accept and social housing.

They would not qualify for council housing, they had options and chose to ignore them.

You are still referring to those falling into arrears as having made an active choice to do so. What about all those that don't?

Not sure what you are getting at here. One in three people aren't tenants. One in three people don't rely on LHA. One in three people aren't looking for accommodation. What's your point?

You've contradicted yourself again - it was you that referred to the one in three figure, yet now you are saying it is irrelevant!

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Overall, the average change across all property types was £9 a week.

And your point of reference is? I don't know many people in receipt of JSA that have a spare £9 each week!

You've had three people point out fundamental flaws in your argument. I get the feeling that you don't even know what your argument is anymore!

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

They would not qualify for council housing, they had options and chose to ignore them.

You're simply wrong. If "not moving" could justify an intentional decision, there would be NIL homelessness. All the homeless officer would need to do would be show an advert for another property, and I've already shown how simple that is. The current homeless legislation puts no onus on applicants to move. You may not like that, you may not agree with it, but that is the current legislation.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You are still referring to those falling into arrears as having made an active choice to do so. What about all those that don't?

I'm just pointing out that viable alternatives are available. If people choose not to take them and they can demonstrate that the current property is/was unaffordable, they get social housing.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You've contradicted yourself again - it was you that referred to the one in three figure, yet now you are saying it is irrelevant!

No. I quite clearly said that I didn't see what you were getting at. I can only assume you meant that there were fewer than 1 in 3 properties available for the LHA rate or less? If that is what you meant, I shall remind you that I only looked for properties available via Rightmove. Even Rightmove won't have ALL available properties.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

And your point of reference is? I don't know many people in receipt of JSA that have a spare £9 each week!

That's the average drop in LHA rates when the 30th percentile was implemented, not the average cost. Many will have moved, changed circs, renegotiated their rent etc etc etc.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You've had three people point out fundamental flaws in your argument. I get the feeling that you don't even know what your argument is anymore!

The minority must be wrong, huh?