some advice on housing association flat

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

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.

In most cases, yes. Which is why I only considered those who had been accepted as owed the main homeless duty (ie not considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless).

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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

I have done no such thing. Quite the contrary, in fact. Using only one source, I found 3 properties of a type and within an area that was entirely your choice.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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.

Even using just that one source, I found 3 suitable properties within the area. Which area/property type are you thinking of with just the one property available?

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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.

And what do you think this limit should be?

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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?

Which would be the same issue if the LHA rate were any different.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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?

Again, not an LHA issue. If the property isn't there, no amount of LHA will change that.

tomjonesrules wrote: »

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.

You've provided no evidence whatsoever, just a view on an unlinked report. I've offered you every opportunity to prove me wrong, and you are yet to do so. But admitting that you are wrong is, at least, a start.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I have done no such thing. Quite the contrary, in fact. Using only one source, I found 3 properties of a type and within an area that was entirely your choice.





Even using just that one source, I found 3 suitable properties within the area. Which area/property type are you thinking of with just the one property available?



And what do you think this limit should be?



Which would be the same issue if the LHA rate were any different.



Again, not an LHA issue. If the property isn't there, no amount of LHA will change that.



You've provided no evidence whatsoever, just a view on an unlinked report. I've offered you every opportunity to prove me wrong, and you are yet to do so. But admitting that you are wrong is, at least, a start.

You can't even see the glaring contradictions in what you have posted. I really would give it up now.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

You can't even see the glaring contradictions in what you have posted. I really would give it up now.

Why don't you point them out to me then? Or is yours just the usual, non specific comment made by a poster who has reached the limits of their own abilities?

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

In most cases, yes. Which is why I only considered those who had been accepted as owed the main homeless duty (ie not considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless).

A lot of the framework which has been set in place has yet to realise a noticeable effect.
Many local housing authorities where LHA limits and caps will exhibit the most drastic consequences are still in a transitional period, having offered transitional protection to tenants.

The raising of the shared accommodation rate from 25 to 35 commences in Jan 12 which will have a huge impact mostly on single men under 35, a lot of whom will be forced to move into shared accommodation where it is available or become homeless.

Stating that the reforms have not affected homeless statistics, and therefore must be working, is extremely short-sighted.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Why don't you point them out to me then? Or is yours just the usual, non specific comment made by a poster who has reached the limits of their own abilities?

I have pointed them out, and all you have done in response is contradicted yourself further. You are tying yourself up in knots.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tomjonesrules wrote: »

I have pointed them out, and all you have done in response is contradicted yourself further. You are tying yourself up in knots.

You can't then. I thought not.

tomjonesrules

Here you go, if you want specifics:

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

everyone can afford a property to meet their needs

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/

So I suggested that this supported the fact that some were unable to find an affordable rent.

You then wittered on about these people doing it in order to get a council house:

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.

Then when Morlock reminded you that those making themselves intentionally homeless would not qualify for a council house, you stated:

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

In most cases, yes. Which is why I only considered those who had been accepted as owed the main homeless duty (ie not considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless).

Which would not support your assertion that this 3% all did it intentionally, because they would not fall into this group!

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

A lot of the framework which has been set in place has yet to realise a noticeable effect.
Many local housing authorities where LHA limits and caps will exhibit the most drastic consequences are still in a transitional period, having offered transitional protection to tenants.

The raising of the shared accommodation rate from 25 to 35 commences in Jan 12 which will have a huge impact mostly on single men under 35, a lot of whom will be forced to move into shared accommodation where it is available or become homeless.

Stating that the reforms have not affected homeless statistics, and therefore must be working, is extremely short-sighted.

The truth is that the change to the 30th percentile actually made very little difference to the LHA rates in real terms. It's been in place for long enough to have had an impact on the last quarters homeless stats, yet there has been a greater increase in acceptances as a result of mortgage arrears, which points to factors outside changes to LHA rates alone as the cause.

Whilst the change to under 35 for the shared room rate will, undoubtedly, have an impact, it may not be the nightmare many are suggesting. At the end of the day, there are still single person units needing tenants. If a significant number of those tenants are no longer available, the market becomes very competitive, with landlords chasing fewer available tenants and forcing rents to fall. At the same time, competition among tenants for shared accommodation will push those prices (and the 30th percentile) up.

tomjonesrules

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The truth is that the change to the 30th percentile actually made very little difference to the LHA rates in real terms.

Truth can always be backed up with some kind of stats, can it not?