So I`m losing my home... :(

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

This is why it's so disgraceful IMO! They seem to think a "one size fits all" will do!! Don't expect much sympathy OP, when I posted something about how wrong this policy was (it doesn't affect me one jot, but I still think it's all wrong!!) answers varied from "well, they'll have to move" to "lot's of professionals do it in London"!! Just because the rentals are so high down South, it's no reason to penalise everyone in the rest of the UK!!

I work for the public sector and so earn exactly the same salary in the SE than my counterpart in the NE, yet my mortgage for the same house is probably almost double as is childcare costs, going out etc.... So in addition to workers getting better disposable income for the same job because they live in the North, those on benefits should also be able to stay in 2 bedrooms paid for whereas it is acceptable that in the SE, they should share???

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

Maybe so, but can you not see how some PWC's will use this as an excuse not to let NRP's see their kids? Apart from that it's just plain wrong, if someone has been somewhere for years, put in the work on a place, why should they have to "up sticks" and move? The age limit IMO is far too high, 25 is more than adequate. Plus, not only do you have to move, you also (if you have kids) have to find "room mates" who are "child friendly". Not everyone want kids running round the place every weekend!! I certainly wouldn't!!

Plenty of NRPs see their children regularly without having to stay overnight and, in my experience, having the children for the weekend is often for the benefit of the PWC's social life rather than for any benefit to the children, who would generally prefer to sleep in their own home.

"Putting the work in" for rented accommodation is an unusual situation and many people would say that it was a pretty silly thing to do.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

"Putting the work in" for rented accommodation is an unusual situation and many people would say that it was a pretty silly thing to do.

Why? If someone doesn't expect to move, as we don't, then of course we are going to make it how we want it! I think there is a lot of snobbery about renting v buying. I've done both, and the only difference is (in my case, I agree not all are the same) is that I won't have anything to leave the kids! But that's just tough!:D And before anyone comes up with "but it belongs to someone else and they'll get the benefit" by that time I'll be long gone, so couldn't care less!

MissMoneypenny

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I really cannot see why people in decent jobs are prepared to share but people on low incomes and on benefits think they have a right to their own place.

Both my children are on high wages and share houses: they love it. A hangover from happy student days perhaps?

OP, there are jobs in Coventry. My cousin has just gone to Warwick Uni, has a rented house in Coventy and found a job, as has many of her student friends. It may not be a job that you want to do, but it will pay the rent.
Once you have a job, any job, you can then look for something better.

When you keep yourself, you are in charge of your own life and won't have to jump through anymore welfare hoops. Don't let others control your life.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It's not just a question of "lots of professionals in London" do it but sharing at 30 is far more common generally in the south east and cities, where people often earn the most. I really cannot see why people in decent jobs are prepared to share but people on low incomes and on benefits think they have a right to their own place.

The OP's in his twenties, has been mainly unemployed for 2 years and during this time has had the rent paid for him on a two bedroom house, which strikes me as totally unnecessary!

I agree, but they should leave people who are already in a place that they might have been in for years, and say "right from Jan 2012, anyone who gets a place of their own will only be paid the shared room rate" That way people will know the situation up front, and it will then be up to themselves if they want to struggle on their own. But it shouldn't be retrospective, I can see it causing no end of problems, and why is it only for private rentals? Surely to be fair, it should apply to social tenants as well? Why should they be "allowed" to rattle around in a 3 bed property on their own?

outtawork

I am currently in a council property with 2 bedrooms on ESA/JSA my daughter is at Uni & comes home maybe once a month, the rent is about £75 a week, what is the liklehood that I will have downsize or take in lodger.I am 55 years old.

Digital_Lulu

locutus12 wrote: »

If your both right about tennancy agreements (and provided the LL will say yes, if its too difficult i can see him dumping me for the student market ) that may be a solution! But how to find/pick someone ? :think:

The indiviual tenancy agreements will work.

There are lots of reputable room share places online such as roomshare, there's also one for people just looking for weekday rooms called Monday to Friday dot com. Once you find someone, get your landlord to check them out thoroughly.

Also, you might be eligible for a grant depending upon your profession, or parental professions. Check this out at turn2us dot org dot uk.

These housing changes are despicable, not every unemployed person is a workshy layout. I hope you get a break soon.

zzzLazyDaisy

lynnysinger wrote: »

i may be wrong but if you get a joint tenancy then the dwp will look at it and you may need to then make a joint claim for your other benefits.

This applies to people living as man and wife. If the landlord agrees to take another tenant owing to the change in the LHA rules on shared housing for under 35's, OP shouldn't have too much difficulty on this score. An inspection of the house will show they have separate rooms, and this is going to crop up more and more as the changes go through.

if your landlord agrees to getting in someone else to share the house with another tenancy agreement then he may have to apply for planning permission to do so, as it then becomes a multiple occupancy and different laws apply.its classed as two households, so the facilities have to be to a certain requirement i think.

This is not correct. You can have up to three unconnected people living in a property. After that it becomes a HMO.

is it because you are underoccupying now that the hb is being reduced? how much is the lha for your area for a single person of your age?

It is nothing to do with under occupying. The LHA rules are changing, and people aged under 35yrs will only be allowed the rate for a room on a shared house, regardless of their current housing situation. Many under 35yr olds will lose their homes as a result of this change. OP is not on his own.

Without wishing to be rude, your comments show that you have little knowledge of LHA and/or the private rented sector. I am sure you mean well, but OP needs accurate information.

Sixer

BigAunty wrote: »

The context to these swingeing changes that were brought in is because the LHA bill doubled to £20 billion under labour who ended up paying out more in benefits, allowances and credits than employees paid in income tax.

While it's true the LHA bill increased exponentially, the vast majority of the fault has to be levied at macroeconomic policy, not individual claimants. There aren't suddenly millions more people claiming for ever more luxurious properties. While I am keen to see welfare dependency decrease, I do get fed up with the constant implication (not particularly you, BigAunty, but the general zeitgeist) that it's all the fault of claimants.

Successive governments have encouraged the bubble in house prices, not least because it gave people the illusion of wealth and disguised the underlying macroeconomic problems. Also because governments are terrified of homeowners. Also because the illusion of wealth extended an already unftettered and irresponsible credit market - creating an explosion in BtL landlords and pushing up rents even further.

To the OP: I shared a rented house until my husband and I decided to hitch ourselves to each other for life when I was 28. We bought a place, got married, and had kids (in that order) over the following five years. I was happy sharing. I had a good time doing it and I lived in nicer houses than I would have had I had to rent alone. There is nothing you can do about the impending shared rate applying to you. It seems to me, what with all the work you've done on/in the house, your landlord must value you as a tenant and is likely to look favourably on a tenancy-share option. I think it's your best option.

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

Why? If someone doesn't expect to move, as we don't, then of course we are going to make it how we want it! I think there is a lot of snobbery about renting v buying. I've done both, and the only difference is (in my case, I agree not all are the same) is that I won't have anything to leave the kids! But that's just tough!:D And before anyone comes up with "but it belongs to someone else and they'll get the benefit" by that time I'll be long gone, so couldn't care less!

I grew up in a privately rented flat that my parents had for over 40 years but, apart from decorating, they wouldn't have dreamed of doing home improvements on it just to put money in the LL's pocket!

It still seems to me to be a remarkably silly thing to do when you can lose your home (and the improvements you've made on it) at any time.