some advice on housing association flat

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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?

If they were topping up their rents, they would not have arrears. Overcrowding isn't homelessness. Unsuitable accommodation and care needs tends to be dealt with outside the homeless legislation.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If they were topping up their rents, they would not have arrears. Overcrowding isn't homelessness. Unsuitable accommodation and care needs tends to be dealt with outside the homeless legislation.

I asked about debt, not arrears. If you are getting into debt by paying for something, that is not affordable, is it?

If someone is in unsuitable housing they are not in a property that meets their needs. All the legislation means is that you will get your name on a housing list of indeterminate length. In the meantime, you are still in housing that does not meet your needs.

But according to you neither of these groups exist, do they?

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

I asked about debt, not arrears. If you are getting into debt by paying for something, that is not affordable, is it?

Then perhaps they should look at securing more affordable accommodation. LHA is there to provide such an alternative. If the debts are such that LHA will make no difference, then I would suggest that the debts are such that social housing wouldn't help either.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

If someone is in unsuitable housing they are not in a property that meets their needs. All the legislation means is that you will get your name on a housing list of indeterminate length. In the meantime, you are still in housing that does not meet your needs.

How this relates to LHA rates in any way, I have no idea. If there is no suitable property immediately available, how is this a benefits/affordability issue?

tomjonesrules wrote: »

But according to you neither of these groups exist, do they?

Of course they do. But we weren't discussing them. Neither of us has mentioned astronauts either..... but I'm sure we both acknowledge their existence.

londonbabe73

Since when has a council house on a dingy estate been attractive, anything decent has been snapped up by the right to buy and all that's left is mainly the tower blocks / flats or new builds ( which will be crap in 5/10 years because the build quality is so poor).

The social rents are climbing to approx £6/700pcm for a 2/3 bed , and there are approx 1000 families chasing each 3 bed on the locata system each fortnight in my local authority.

As for op the daughter would be allowed to stay but will prob be asked to downsize to a studio or 1 bed which is reasonable as she can't expect to keep a 2 bed flat when there are families waiting for properties.

But then it's amazing people who have council houses are quick to judge when they are sitting on a comfortable secure tenancy ( big mistake ) its amazing how many secure tenants moan about their kids not being able to get a place while they occupy 3/4 bed houses with spare rooms but you suggest downsizing and you get the its my home speech but IMO it's a trap because unless you do rtb you will never get out of the social system as the gap between social housing and a mortgage is pretty wide and why buy when you can rent and you know even if you lose your job you will never have to leave the property as hb will cover the rent
regardless unfortunately as a homeowner you don't get that luxury

I'd rather have the financial pain now , pay my mortgage and dictate where I want to live and if I'm lucky even have a nest egg at the end of it.
Btw I've worked in social housing for 8 years , and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy ......

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Then perhaps they should look at securing more affordable accommodation. LHA is there to provide such an alternative. If the debts are such that LHA will make no difference, then I would suggest that the debts are such that social housing wouldn't help either.



How this relates to LHA rates in any way, I have no idea. If there is no suitable property immediately available, how is this a benefits/affordability issue?



Of course they do. But we weren't discussing them. Neither of us has mentioned astronauts either..... but I'm sure we both acknowledge their existence.

Perhaps they have looked and no suitable alternatives are available? Or are you still suggesting that they all move into that one room you found? The debts are incurred because LHA is not enough for their needs. I did specifically refer to debt incurred as a result of topping up their rent.

Higher LHA would mean that those in unsuitable accommodation would be able to expand their search options, no?

Finally, you admit that there are people who, despite being in receipt of LHA, are unable to secure affordable accommodation that meets their needs. That wasn't difficult now, was it? :T

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Perhaps they have looked and no suitable alternatives are available? Or are you still suggesting that they all move into that one room you found?

It was YOU who asked for the one bed property. I gave you complete freedom to choose whatever you wanted, wherever you wanted.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

The debts are incurred because LHA is not enough for their needs. I did specifically refer to debt incurred as a result of topping up their rent.

No. The debts are incurred because they live in a property they cannot afford. To mitigate this situation is simple. Find accommodation that is affordable. It really is that simple.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Higher LHA would mean that those in unsuitable accommodation would be able to expand their search options, no?

Until you reach the point of limitless LHA, that will always be the case, yes. But even you must accept that there has to be a limit. At present, it's set at the 30th percentile meaning 3 out of every 10 properties in a given area will charge the same (or less than) the local LHA allowance for a suitable family.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Finally, you admit that there are people who, despite being in receipt of LHA, are unable to secure affordable accommodation that meets their needs. That wasn't difficult now, was it? :T

I accept that for some people their accommodation may be unsuitable and alternatives difficult to source. But I was thinking of those with specific needs, such as mobility etc. I do NOT consider affordability in this category as it is easily remedied.

Killmark

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Oh no. We can't touch those who own their own homes. Social tenant under occupying the home they have lived in (and paid rent for) for 30 years? Tough. You'll have to live in a flat. But the O/Occ in the same position..?? Beyond reproach. In fact, they should be subsidised by the very people they are forcing into "retirement flats".

Renters get squeezed at every opportunity while those lucky enough to have secured a place on the ownership ladder are sheltered from such concerns. Such is the hypocrisy within the housing "market". All these "accidental" landlords whining because they cannot make their tenant homeless at the click of their fingers (despite not bothering to research the subject).

We live in a have/have not world, where owners are protected and the rest are thrown to the wolves. And God help anyone here who suggests that Social Housing may help, for they shall have scorn poured upon them from the O/Occ brigade who regard security of tenure for the few as some affront to their own, personal fiefdom.

Tax owner/occs who under occupy till the pips squeak. Tax empty properties till it hurts. Only then will the property "market" reflect the truth.

Got to love communists.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Killmark wrote: »

Got to love communists.

We're all in this together.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It was YOU who asked for the one bed property. I gave you complete freedom to choose whatever you wanted, wherever you wanted.

I proved a point that the supply of affordable property was far short of any reasonable demand. You have since confirmed this point.

No. The debts are incurred because they live in a property they cannot afford. To mitigate this situation is simple. Find accommodation that is affordable. It really is that simple.

But if there is only one property available in any area, where are all these getting into debt going to find it? Please do give us the 'simple' answer, as clearly thousands of people, housing charities and the government have missed it.

Until you reach the point of limitless LHA, that will always be the case, yes. But even you must accept that there has to be a limit. At present, it's set at the 30th percentile meaning 3 out of every 10 properties in a given area will charge the same (or less than) the local LHA allowance for a suitable family.

Again, you confirm that your assertion, that you have since stated you stand by, is wrong.

I wholly agree that there should be a limit. I have never said otherwise.

Again you confirm that your original statement is wrong - what about the seven families that are not living in accommodation under the LHA rate? What if some (or all) of the lower priced properties are taken by those who do not claim LHA?

I accept that for some people their accommodation may be unsuitable and alternatives difficult to source. But I was thinking of those with specific needs, such as mobility etc. I do NOT consider affordability in this category as it is easily remedied.

Those with conditions affecting their mobility find that any problems are easily remedied? Is that why some wait years for adaptations, and have to go through appeals and involve their MPs to get funding?

OK, I've got to do some work now, so I'll declare an interest here. I have read the impact assessment, and whilst I do not always agree with government decisions, these reports tend to be very accurate. They identified that this measure could cause significant problems for some, and backed this up with evidence. I was interested to hear your arguments, but to be honest you've provided absolutely nothing that counters the solid research offered by the above report.

There is a point when it's better to simply admit that you were wrong.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

People who's circs change and know that if they do nothing, they'll get a council house.

Tenants evicted for rent arrears are very unlikely to meet the criteria needed to even register for council housing. Those tenants would likely be considered intentionally homeless.