some advice on housing association flat

Killmark

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.

Personally I think its a good idea if people downsize if they have to, the policy is only really going to affect single people without children. Yes its a change to go from renting a flat to renting a room but I've done it because I knew it would be for a short a time as possible.

The problem a single person in high rental areas such as London face is that they limited their employment options as they are restricted by the minimum salary they can accept to be able to continue their existing standard of living.

People have spoken on this thread about it being fine for students and your profs to live in shared accommodation but they miss the obvious, these people live in shared accommodation because most students can't get LHA and your profs might be saving for a house deposit.

If anything under 35's who end up in shared accommodation will be a lot more motivated to find employment that will allow them to live in a place they aspire to, even if this means they might take a poorer paid job to be able to live with privacy before they find work that returns them to a level nearer their lifestyle.

Marisco

Killmark wrote: »

Personally I think its a good idea if people downsize if they have to, the policy is only really going to affect single people without children. Yes its a change to go from renting a flat to renting a room but I've done it because I knew it would be for a short a time as possible.

The problem a single person in high rental areas such as London face is that they limited their employment options as they are restricted by the minimum salary they can accept to be able to continue their existing standard of living.

People have spoken on this thread about it being fine for students and your profs to live in shared accommodation but they miss the obvious, these people live in shared accommodation because most students can't get LHA and your profs might be saving for a house deposit.

If anything under 35's who end up in shared accommodation will be a lot more motivated to find employment that will allow them to live in a place they aspire to, even if this means they might take a poorer paid job to be able to live with privacy before they find work that returns them to a level nearer their lifestyle.

I see what you are saying, but not everyone can get a well paid job, someone has to do the NMW jobs! So do they have to continue to live in shared accommodation until they hit 35? I do understand the "reasoning" behind it, but it just seems so unfair on those people who are established in their own place. And it's really unfair that there are different rules for social housing!

neverdespairgirl

Marisco wrote: »

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!!!

this isn't about what people would like to do. It's about what is reasonable for people to expect others to pay for. Quite a different kettle of fish.

neverdespairgirl

Marisco wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but not everyone can get a well paid job, someone has to do the NMW jobs! So do they have to continue to live in shared accommodation until they hit 35? I do understand the "reasoning" behind it, but it just seems so unfair on those people who are established in their own place. And it's really unfair that there are different rules for social housing!

Even in London, you can live on a full-time NMW job and pay your own rent on a studio flat.

sammyjammy

I think people are missing the point somewhat with some of these changes that may seem arbitrary. If you don't have a national age cut off for this ignoring peoples circumstances do you have any idea how much extra money this policy would cost to implement? Means tested benefits cost massively in admin and long term management of the claims this is why things like Winter fuel allowance are given to all pensioners, its cheaper than means testing it.

The government are attacking the Public Sector from all sides and that now includes reducing the headcount by over 700,000. We, as a country don't have the money or the PS staff to implement a more "sensible" policy, alongside that the additional risk of fraud would be huge!

Killmark

Marisco wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but not everyone can get a well paid job, someone has to do the NMW jobs! So do they have to continue to live in shared accommodation until they hit 35?

The fact is not everyone will get a well paid job and it is a disincentive to try to if you know that it doesn't really matter because if you don't bother then the state will make up the difference.

As for social housing personally I believe if they got rid of it all (for non-pensioners) it would be a lot fairer and encourage social mobility. In my opinion this was destroyed by successive government policies leading to allocation by "need".

Marisco

Killmark wrote: »

As for social housing personally I believe if they got rid of it all (for non-pensioners) it would be a lot fairer and encourage social mobility. In my opinion this was destroyed by successive government policies leading to allocation by "need".

Well, they are doing their best, by the "right to buy"!!:mad: What other way should there be to allocate them? They should be for people who cannot afford to rent privately or get a mortgage.

BigAunty

Marisco wrote: »

..They should be for people who cannot afford to rent privately ....

Everyone can afford to rent privately because of the provision of local housing allowance! it's just that it's unpopular because it swallows up more of a household's disposable income and there's little security of tenure.

Private rental has other disincentives compared to social housing - like under 35s having a lower rate of LHA which will only stretched to a shared property while the same single person in social housing can have a 1 bed place to themselves, a social housing tenant can retain the original size property even if their kids leave home because HB will cover it whereas their LHA will shrink in a rental property and make it unaffordable.

Marisco

BigAunty wrote: »

Everyone can afford to rent privately because of the provision of local housing allowance! it's just that it's unpopular because it swallows up more of a household's disposable income and there's little security of tenure.

Private rental has other disincentives compared to social housing - like under 35s having a lower rate of LHA which will only stretched to a shared property while the same single person in social housing can have a 1 bed place to themselves, a social housing tenant can retain the original size property even if their kids leave home because HB will cover it whereas their LHA will shrink in a rental property and make it unaffordable.

It wasn't LHA I was thinking of, but the money you have to shell out up front. We coughed up just over £1000 for oh's daughter to move into her first flat, she wouldn't have been able to do it otherwise, there must be thousands of people like that! As she is under 25 she has to top up anyway, but she can manage that, it was the "up front" that she couldn't!

And that is all wrong as well, that is what I mean when I say it's unfair that social housing tenants get the better deal, it should be the same whether you're in private or social housing, that could encourage social housing tenants to "downsize" and leave larger properties for families.

Killmark

Marisco wrote: »

What other way should there be to allocate them? They should be for people who cannot afford to rent privately or get a mortgage.

But everyone has a need to housing, why should their be an inequality amongst renters, where some have to pay normal rents as opposed to those who have social housing.

With the way social housing is currently allocated their huge inequality between renters, take for example the other thread where a single parent has a net household income of £24,900 of which approx £5,100 is salary for working 16 hrs a week and has a rent of £280 pm.

You say people who can afford to rent privately shouldn't have access to social housing, which in affect severely limits their ability to buy their property due to difficulties with saving for deposits, it also means that often they will have to delay having children or expanding their family.

As opposed to people in social housing who are free to do so and may end up with a bigger property as a result.