Welfare Reform Act, making it difficult to move and take a job

adwyer

Southend1 wrote: »

OP I fear I am going to come in for criticism for saying this because it is probably not what you want to hear but....

The law is not stopping you from moving. You have the same options everyone else does. I.e. private rented, buy your own place, stay with friends, become a paying guest in someone's home etc.

However if you stay where you are, you have the option of staying put in a massively subsidised home which is larger than you really need. This luxury is one many (including myself!) do not/would not have. You really are very lucky to have social housing.

So.... If you look at it like this, then you just need to weigh up whether it's better for your family for you to be in work sooner and living somewhere else in non social housing, or possibly to be out of work longer and stay put. I hope you will realise you are lucky to have the luxury of this choice, as most of us would only have the option of moving to the first place they could find work.

I hope you will see this as constructive advice, as this is how it is intended, although it may not be what you want to hear right now.

I appreciate it mate , I have no problem with hearing difficult things and will always consider advice of logic and reason, something you have shared.

I don't think the law is stopping me from moving, I think it has been interpreted to literally and is providing no room for people to downsize to a smaller property, without finding a massive family of up to 10 people that are overcrowded in a 3 bedroom house.

I do feel the word subsidised is being used wrongly, council housing has been making a profit since 2008 (and I have been paying my own rents), people who
say that social housing is "subsidised" arguments are based on lower rent charges then market rents that are known to be massively inflated and if the rents where overinflated like the private sector the costs would place a massive burden on the welfare budget

"The "economic subsidy" of social rents is worth some £7bn annually. But this will fall gradually as the government's new affordable rents start to take effect, pushing up the cost of housing benefit support.

It could be argued that the economic subsidy for social housing is as artificial as the implicit tax reliefs for homeowners, given that no government is likely to raise social rents to full market levels. Council housing charges low rents in part because of historic subsidy for the loans to build it, but in fact much of this has now been paid off; the average council debt is only about £17,000 per home and few new homes are being developed.

In fact, council housing has been making a profit since 2008, which has been paid to the Treasury. When council housing becomes fully self-financing on 1 April, all subsidy to existing homes will cease. Councils will actually take on extra debt at that point, to reflect the future surpluses they would have paid to the Treasury. This cost will be met from rents."

So from my point of view paying the actual price in rent of what a property is worth is not receiving a subsidy due, to the fact I opt out of paying extortionate overinflated prices in the private sector.

DannyboyMidlands

I don't see the big deal. Go down there, find a job and then move the family down. Into private rented if necessary. Who cares who moves into your current home?

propertyman

Why not downsize now?

Social housing landlords will pay you to do that.

The hassle of moving and a quick redecorate should be easy if you are unemployed as they will allow an overlap.

You can then exchange far more easily.

adwyer

propertyman wrote: »

Why not downsize now?

Social housing landlords will pay you to do that.

The hassle of moving and a quick redecorate should be easy if you are unemployed as they will allow an overlap.

You can then exchange far more easily.

I'm trying to mate , for some reason because I am not homeless I have no social need and if I do a house exchange they want a family fitting a strict criteria to move to mine (see original post), but I don't know any families with 8 kids of a specific sex with a certain amount of 16 year old's :P its really stupid.

Dunroamin

adwyer wrote: »

I'm trying to mate , for some reason because I am not homeless I have no social need and if I do a house exchange they want a family fitting a strict criteria to move to mine (see original post), but I don't know any families with 8 kids of a specific sex with a certain amount of 16 year old's :P its really stupid.

You're misunderstanding the point that was being made.

adwyer

Dunroamin wrote: »

You're misunderstanding the point that was being made.

"Why not downsize now?"

I'm trying to mate

"Social housing landlords will pay you to do that."

For some reason because I am not homeless I have no social need (basically the HA won't do anything)

"The hassle of moving and a quick redecorate should be easy if you are unemployed as they will allow an overlap."

fair point if I can move

"You can then exchange far more easily."

If I do a house exchange they want a family fitting a strict criteria to move to mine (see original post), but I don't know any families with 8 kids of a specific sex with a certain amount of 16 year old's :P its really stupid. (The problem is not me moving, the problem is finding a suitable family (up to 10 people) to move to my house, that are stuck in a 3 bedroom house for the HA to allow any swap to go ahead (what's the chances?)

I understand what he said, I don't see how I've missed his point???

DizzyDasher

I think he's saying you can do it in two steps.

1) stay where you are and just downsize to the right size house (which presumably you don't have to swap to do - you could just give up the bigger house in return for a smaller one - presumably the Council will want to do that at some point anyway?)

2) do the house swap to the new area: at which point you'd just be trying to swap two houses the same size in different locations: so you just need to find another family the same size as yours who want to make the opposite move.

Obviously more hassle and expense as it means moving twice, but it's another option worth considering, given that doing the direct swap doesn't seem really feasible, and you don't seem very keen on the idea of going down there first to get settled in a job, with your family to follow later?

Good luck!

tbs624

adwyer wrote: »

I appreciate it mate , I have no problem with hearing difficult things and will always consider advice of logic and reason, something you have shared.

I don't think the law is stopping me from moving,..

So you have apparently changed your mind since your OP in which you said

The welfare reform Act is actually stopping me from moving to find work.

As Werdnal says, there are other options open to you. Fixating on the shortcomings of rules on house exchange and pontificating on your perceived wiseness as in

I opt out of paying extortionate overinflated prices in the private sector.

are merely diversions.

propertyman

I opt out of paying extortionate overinflated prices in the private sector.

And instead opt into having my housing provided for , cheaply , by tax payer subsidy from those paying

a: paying

extortionate overinflated prices in the private sector

.
and
b: those taxes....:(

adwyer

tbs624 wrote: »

So you have apparently changed your mind since your OP in which you said As Werdnal says, there are other options open to you. Fixating on the shortcomings of rules on house exchange and pontificating on your perceived wiseness as in are merely diversions.

I made it clear that the interpretation of the Act is what's causing the problems, so even though the law is sound, the law is being interpreted incorrectly, thus peoples interpretation of law is causing a problem.

Again I am open to suggestions, but people seem to comment without understanding the short comings of the system, or in your case troll. Clearly you have nothing useful to add so feel free to go away, I have been grateful to the people who have actually helped and thanked them for their posts

propertyman wrote: »

And instead opt into having my housing provided for me, cheaply , by tax payer subsidy from those paying

a: paying.
and
b: those taxes....:(

You can see countless times in my earlier posts I am actually NOT on benefits and am currently paying my own rent (with my limited savings), but feel I may soon end up on benefits if I don't find work soon, additionally I have also posted that rents below over inflated market value does not make a house subsidised (like I said from 2008 supported housing has been making a profit). Up until recently I have been paying tax, what do you even base your assumptions on?