some advice on housing association flat

suelees1

Mojisola wrote: »

......separated fathers who end up in a shared house. There are a lot of mothers who are going to refuse to let the children stay over with their fathers in shared accommodation.

They don't have to move into shared accommodation but will only be paid that rate.

It's very, very unfair change to HB

Mojisola

suelees1 wrote: »

They don't have to move into shared accommodation but will only be paid that rate.

I think, realistically, that many men who are paying CM and having to find somewhere to live themselves won't have the choice of topping up the HB to the price of a flat.

Marisco

Mojisola wrote: »

I think, realistically, that many men who are paying CM and having to find somewhere to live themselves won't have the choice of topping up the HB to the price of a flat.

If we can come up with all different scenarios, makes you wonder why the gov can't!!! Why can't the gov see how unfair this policy is, we can!!!:( Not everyone wants to live like students, when they have had their own place for years, I can think of nothing worse than having to share a bathroom with strangers, especially after being used to having your own.

I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you went into shared accommodation straight from home, but as you say, who would want to have a kid to stay in shared housing, and what PWC would allow it? I don't think I would unless I knew the others!! And even then it would be awkward with shared bathroom/kitchen etc!! They need to go back to the drawing board with this one!!!

BigAunty

I think the move to LHA from HB and the introduction of tax credits has inadvertently resulted in some (note the some) benefit claimants having equal or greater standards of living than those in full time employment. This has created it's own problems in terms of the resentment it creates in the working poor.

This is one reason, apart from the burgeoning LHA bill, for the significant changes to the HB system to cap allowances, sizes of properties and raise the age threshold for self-contained properties.

For every very moving hard-luck story, there is the equal and opposite criticism - why should a professional in an expensive rental area have to suffer from only being able to afford shared digs while there are benefit claimants who have their own place?

Marisco

BigAunty wrote: »

I think the move to LHA from HB and the introduction of tax credits has inadvertently resulted in some (note the some) benefit claimants having equal or greater standards of living than those in full time employment. This has created it's own problems in terms of the resentment it creates in the working poor.

This is one reason, apart from the burgeoning LHA bill, for the significant changes to the HB system to cap allowances, sizes of properties and raise the age threshold for self-contained properties.

For every very moving hard-luck story, there is the equal and opposite criticism - why should a professional in an expensive rental area have to suffer from only being able to afford shared digs while there are benefit claimants who have their own place?

I agree, I've seen the horror stories of families living in huge mansions at vast expense, which is why I don't think they have thought it through sufficiently! A one size does not fit all, and why should social housing claimants be exempt from the 35 rule? Why should the op's niece be allowed to stay in a 2 bed flat, when a 20 year old in private accommodation cannot?

I think they need a rethink on this. I bet there will be more under 35's in trouble, than there are people getting benefit for expensive houses/flats. Maybe they should do a survey to see if it's worth the hassle, surely it would be more efficient to shift families in expensive areas to cheaper ones, than forcing others in already established homes to move? I wouldn't have thought there would be that many living in £1000 pw mansions!! Or better still, force LL's of private housing to charge realistic rents!!!

Mupette

lets just clear some myths up here.

A single person will not be given a 3 bed house. They will not be rattling around whilst equally a single person renting privately will get single room occupancy.

They only way i can see that happening is if 3 people live in a council house 2 being the parents of the other adult who has lived there all their life, and their parents are killed/ die of old age.

oh dear seems a lot of bitter people out to play to day, is it too cold out?

suelees1

Once of the basic premises of LHA was to set a market rental for the area so everyone would know exactly what HB would cover. There are some exceptionally greedy landlords out there who would charge extortionate rents if they thought the LA would cover the full cost.

When LHA started claimants were allowed to keep up to £15pw if their rent was less than the max LHA or choose to move to cheaper accommodaton so they would be better off. Guess what, the majority of landlords whose rents were less than the max LHA soon increased them.

Social housing rents have always been seen as a reasonable and of course they are compared to private accommodation so it has never been necessary to restrict this. There is nothing unfair about this.

There would be a lot more social housing if people hadn't and don't continue to exercise the right to buy. You can't have it both ways.

That said I think it's appalling to restrict rent to certain groups of people.

BigAunty

suelees1 wrote: »

..

That said I think it's appalling to restrict rent to certain groups of people.

Whereas I think it would be bizarre for a school leaver, for example, to swan into a 1 bedroom property and get full LHA for it.

It would be very hard for a youngster accustomed to having 'free rent' for their own pad to then be able to pay for it fully through full time employment, creating a benefit trap there.

Marisco

BigAunty wrote: »

Whereas I think it would be bizarre for a school leaver, for example, to swan into a 1 bedroom property and get full LHA for it.

This wasn't quite what I meant. I was thinking more of under 35's who are already in a property and will only be eligible for shared accommodation when the new policy comes in. What would be fairer is if they said that from a certain date this is what will happen, then, anyone who chooses to get a self contained will know that they won't get the full rate. But it's not really right to force people out of their homes if they cannot afford the top ups.

BigAunty

Marisco wrote: »

This wasn't quite what I meant. I was thinking more of under 35's who are already in a property and will only be eligible for shared accommodation when the new policy comes in. What would be fairer is if they said that from a certain date this is what will happen, then, anyone who chooses to get a self contained will know that they won't get the full rate. But it's not really right to force people out of their homes if they cannot afford the top ups.

It's a tough one, I agree.

Those affected will have to undergo a huge upheaval and a definate drop in their standard of living, moving from their own self contained, private accommodation, into a house share or lodgings.

Perhaps you're right, they should have ring-fenced those currently in larger and more expensive accommodation and just set it to affect all new claims from x date.

Perhaps the policy makers had done the maths and thought it was unaffordable to extend it to future claims only and wanted this retrospective change, or perhaps they cynically feel that it might lever some people back into employment, knowing their state support is about to be slashed.

After all, a lot of the changes made to the HB system apply to all claimants, not just new ones, such as the cap of maximum room size, the drop of the percentile from the 50th to the 30th, etc. There is some transitional period but the changes affect all recipients.

I suppose it's the same thing with the migration from IB to ESA which will see only a small percentage retain a similar status. Currently, there are millions of people who are long term IB claimants who would have absorbed the message that was sent to them that they were fully unemployable. Now the majority are being told that they can do either full or some sort of supported employment - another big rug removed.

Presumably there are those that are being put onto JSA from IB AND losing their self contained properties, too. They've spent years in their own places with no requirement to seek work, now their in receipt of a benefit with conditions to get a job, and know that they have to move into shared digs. I expect we'll see a lot more posts on this on MSE going forward.