some advice on housing association flat

suelees1

Killmark wrote: »

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.

I'm sure I must be misreading this as it seems that you're saying everyone should have access to social housing so they can buy it ???

Marisco

suelees1 wrote: »

I'm sure I must be misreading this as it seems that you're saying everyone should have access to social housing so they can buy it ???

I think he means that those in social housing pay less rent, so they can then go on to save a deposit, move out of social housing by buying their own. At least I hope that's what he means, and not what you said!!!!:eek:

@Killmark, of course everyone has a need for housing, but why should those who can afford private rent have social housing? It should be reserved for those who cannot afford to have a home, not those who can afford to rent privately. I rent privately and can afford it, would it be right for me to have social housing, when there are others in much worse positions than me? And I really don't think having to limit the size of your family is much of an excuse!! How on earth do you think people managed years ago, with large families and small houses? There is no law that says every kid should have their own bedroom!

lighting_up_the_chalice

Killmark wrote: »

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.

We have a system of housing related benefits (LHA) which factors in family size. As such, everyone can afford a property to meet their needs. In the same way that a social housing tenant may qualify for larger social housing if their family expands, the private tenant may also qualify for a higher rate of LHA which makes a larger property more affordable. Those who choose to delay having children are doing just that.... choosing.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Marisco wrote: »

It wasn't LHA I was thinking of, but the money you have to shell out up front.

There is ALWAYS a cost when you move. Almost all social housing is tenanted empty. No curtains, no carpets, no furniture, no utensils.... nothing. If you are lucky, there may be some paint on the walls. That is certainly not the case with renting privately.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

We have a system of housing related benefits (LHA) which factors in family size. As such, everyone can afford a property to meet their needs. In the same way that a social housing tenant may qualify for larger social housing if their family expands, the private tenant may also qualify for a higher rate of LHA which makes a larger property more affordable. Those who choose to delay having children are doing just that.... choosing.

That is a beautiful theory. Back to reality, supply and demand means that is simply not the case.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

That is a beautiful theory. Back to reality, supply and demand means that is simply not the case.

Not so. LHA is set with the local rental market in mind. As such, there will always be options within the locality. It may well be that you cannot afford to live exactly where you would like to, but you will be able to afford something nearby. Welcome to the real world.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not so. LHA is set with the local rental market in mind. As such, there will always be options within the locality. It may well be that you cannot afford to live exactly where you would like to, but you will be able to afford something nearby. Welcome to the real world.

You don't understand supply and demand do you?

LHA is set at the 30th percentile of representative local rents, hence only 30% of accommodation is 'affordable', and 70% unaffordable. The chances of everyone that claims LHA being able to find something within that 30% is about zero.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You don't understand supply and demand do you?

LHA is set at the 30th percentile of representative local rents, hence only 30% of accommodation is 'affordable', and 70% unaffordable. The chances of everyone that claims LHA being able to find something within that 30% is about zero.

You're confusing "affordable" with "covered entirely by benefits". I would say that a small shortfall for a family would be "affordable", which opens up the market considerably. The change to 30th percentile showed how small the gap was in cash terms between that and the 50th percentile. In most areas, the 50th percentile would still be "affordable" to most.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You're confusing "affordable" with "covered entirely by benefits". I would say that a small shortfall for a family would be "affordable", which opens up the market considerably. The change to 30th percentile showed how small the gap was in cash terms between that and the 50th percentile. In most areas, the 50th percentile would still be "affordable" to most.

Lots of assertions there - can you back any of it up with facts? Are you suggesting that someone who only receives JSA as disposable income can afford to top up their rent?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Lots of assertions there - can you back any of it up with facts? Are you suggesting that someone who only receives JSA as disposable income can afford to top up their rent?

Plenty seem to do so. But OK, we'll play it your way. Identify a place in England where there is no availability within the appropriate LHA rate without a top-up?

That's anywhere in England, the entire country. And I'll just use Rightmove as a reference. Can't be any fairer, can I?