some advice on housing association flat

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Well, as you are so keen on the "supply and demand" argument, the fact that I found ANY using only the one resource would indicate low demand.

No, it would indicate that they are absolute dives and/ or that they are new on the market. Unless you are suggesting that all areas that have properties available to rent are low demand?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

No, it would indicate that they are absolute dives and/ or that they are new on the market. Unless you are suggesting that all areas that have properties available to rent are low demand?

What I am suggesting is that the use of the 30th percentile means that there is availability in all areas. I thought I'd made that pretty clear.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Just to remind you of your original assertion:

And I stand by it.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that the use of the 30th percentile means that there is availability in all areas. I thought I'd made that pretty clear.

Availability for all claimants, or for one or two?

You have made assertions about the whole LHA claimant population, yet the only thing you can find to supposedly back up your argument is the fact that there are two properties available near a highlighted town. There are certainly far more claimants than two in Crosby.

Still time for you to refer to some proper figures if you want to ... or are you scared what they will prove?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Availability for all claimants, or for one or two?

You have made assertions about the whole LHA claimant population, yet the only thing you can find to supposedly back up your argument is the fact that there are two properties available near a highlighted town. There are certainly far more claimants than two in Crosby.

Still time for you to refer to some proper figures if you want to ... or are you scared what they will prove?

How about homelessness as a result of rent arrears? If all this private rent is unaffordable now that the 30th percentile is used, you would expect that to be pretty high, and rising. But it isn't. It's nice and steady at 3%, same as was when the 50th percentile was used.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/livetables/

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

How about homelessness as a result of rent arrears? If all this private rent is unaffordable now that the 30th percentile is used, you would expect that to be pretty high, and rising. But it isn't. It's nice and steady at 3%, same as was when the 50th percentile was used.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/livetables/

That actually counters your argument that LHA makes housing affordable to all, does it not? Do those 3% not count for your purposes?

It also does not reflect the fact that not everyone can afford housing that meets their needs, which you state they can.

That hole is getting pretty deep now! :T

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

That actually counters your argument that LHA makes housing affordable to all, does it not? Do those 3% not count for your purposes?

It also does not reflect the fact that not everyone can afford housing that meets their needs, which you state they can.

That hole is getting pretty deep now! :T

It's 3%. Same as it has been for years. People who's circs change and know that if they do nothing, they'll get a council house. If rents were £10 a week, there would still be those 3%. Luckily, changes announced in the Localism Bill mean they probably won't get social housing anymore.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It's 3%. Same as it has been for years. People who's circs change and know that if they do nothing, they'll get a council house. If rents were £10 a week, there would still be those 3%. Luckily, changes announced in the Localism Bill mean they probably won't get social housing anymore.

So now you are suggesting that everyone who is homeless through rent arrears chooses to get into that situation so they can get a council house?

Brilliant!

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

So now you are suggesting that everyone who is homeless through rent arrears chooses to get into that situation so they can get a council house?

Brilliant!

Well, you haven't been able to show that there was no other alternative, so how else would YOU explain it?

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Well, you haven't been able to show that there was no other alternative, so how else would YOU explain it?

People get into rent arrears for endless reasons, and whilst I don't doubt there are some who hope to get a council house out of it, the last thing most want is to lose their home.

Since you're so hot on anecdotal evidence rather than facts - look at the bankruptcy and debt boards on here, maybe ask them why they lost their homes? Maybe even suggest that they did it so they could get a council house? To make derogatory claims about people in desperation to prove your argument is pretty low, especially when they are entirely unsubstantiated.

Your 3% still fails to include those who are getting into debt in order to top up their rents, as well as those living in unsuitable accommodation, be it due to overcrowding, care needs etc. Are you going to criticise those now also?