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

adwyer

DizzyDasher wrote: »

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?)

Good luck!

I understand what your saying mate, but they won't move me as they have implemented the welfare reform act, but have not changed their other policies in accordance with it, so at this moment in time I have no housing need and they don't care that the house is under occupied and don't see moving me to a appropriate size property as priority, even though it would be more suited to a bigger family.

Werdnal

OP, whether its the rules that are wrong, or people's interpretation of them is incorrect, you personally are not going to change that situation any time soon.

Prevaricating and arguing with posters here will not really help your practical, real-life situation either.

What matters here is you, your future and your family. You need to find a job and are happy to move in search for that work - admirable for a start. The system, however unfair, is not going to change just for you, so you need to take the initiative and make the moves necessary to get your life in gear and make this new start.

Have you widened your search for exchange properties? Just because you want to relocate to Plymouth, you could look within an hour's commute of the city - even down here in the sticks the road network is pretty good, and you can easily travel 60-70 miles in less than a hour.

The other option as I suggested in my earlier post, is for you to make the move on your own, and your family to sit tight until things are sorted for you. Infact, I feel this is the better option, as even though you seem set on Plymouth being your chosen destination, if it doesn't work out, you have have gone to the expense and hassle of a total reloation - uprooted your kids from their schools, friends, social lives etc, only to find its not for you, and you'll wish you'd never done it!

If you already had a secure job to move to, it may be a different scenario, but from what you are saying here, you don't actually have a position to take up when you move. I'd want to keep my options open incase this doesn't work out quite as you planned!

If you really want to make a new start, take control of your life NOW, and stop moaning about the system holding you back!

adwyer

Werdnal wrote: »

OP, whether its the rules that are wrong, or people's interpretation of them is incorrect, you personally are not going to change that situation any time soon.

I agree with most of what you have said and funnily enough I have got a job interview there for the middle of next week, I have contacted my Local MP and local Councillor in the area, explaining the situation and they are fully supportive of my view and I am awaiting a phone call from the local housing association manager, who is also now actively looking for a solution, so as you can see I have been pretty busy this morning trying to remedy a fix

propertyman

I have not assumed anything, you are living in an HA house currently at a " social rent".

The laughable notion that social housing is making a profit ( and that it is in the hands of politicised idiots treating it as their constituency) suggests that you are sucking on the "Kool Aid" of the left.
You have not hit on a shortcoming of the Act at all but the perverse and ridiculous housing allocation policies of social landlord's.

The idea as suggested is downsize now, reducing the rent and drain on savings, and look to move or exchange.

If I have read correctly your family are quite young, then is it wise to move to a smaller house that may fit your needs today but not when they are much older? It is unlikely that you will qualify for a larger house in time to come as no government of any stripe or coalition is going to have the funds to build them at anywhere the need.

And as to why two 16 years old girls can't share a room... oh boy are you in a for a surprise

carefullycautious

Have you tried advertising in the local free paper of the area you want. Not everyone has a computor to see homeswapper.

In some respects it would probably be easier if you were trying to downsize within the area you now live.

I have recently downsized from a 2 bed to a 1 bed bungalow as our local council are desperate for more 2 beds. I was told via the tenancy officer that the old bidding system is not working and that is why they are using Homeswapper. It allows the council to see who needs what and try to match people up.. I gained more points for under occupancy.

I am amazed that your LA/HA isnt falling over themselves to rehome you into suitable accommodation for your needs. It may be easier as someone above said to move locally and then try for a move to another part of the country.

Good luck

adwyer

propertyman wrote: »

I have not assumed anything, you are living in an HA house currently at a " social rent".

The laughable notion that social housing is making a profit ( and that it is in the hands of politicised idiots treating it as their constituency) suggests that you are sucking on the "Kool Aid" of the left.
You have not hit on a shortcoming of the Act at all but the perverse and ridiculous housing allocation policies of social landlord's.

The idea as suggested is downsize now, reducing the rent and drain on savings, and look to move or exchange.

If I have read correctly that your large family are quite young, then is it wise to move to a smaller house that may fit your needs today but not when they are much older? It is unlikely that you will qualify for a larger hosue in time to come as no government of any stripe or coalition is going to have the funds to build them at anywhere the need.

this is not my post, but it proves my point

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/03/socialhousing.tenanttax

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_infopage.cfm?KWord=finance

"The confusion comes from the terminology banded around to misuse. But up until a couple of year's ago the treasury was a net contributer to the cost of social housing.

Even so, this is not as straight forward as it may seem as the cost of housing benefits has not been fully compensated for many years now, meaning that local communities have been locally subsidising themselves in increasing levels.

The current situation is that housing benefit is part funded from local collections and the cost of housing subsidy is completely met and exceeded by the rents paid.

Capital investment and development costs are not subsidy, but because these are grant funded or loan supported, they are sometimes referred to as subsidy by those who want to make it look as if the social sector is getting something it is not in reality, or at least no greater than other parts of society, private and public. The government underwriting of private debt, as we now know, is far greater.

It is not really a great conspiracy, but the disinformation sourced from Tory Central Office and perpetuated by the press and those stupid enough to swallow it all without question is dangerous. The latest demonisation campaign by the disgusting crowd we currently have governing us was reported today as being the suspected cause of the massive increase in hate crimes against the severely disabled.

The policies are bad enough, but the tactics must be exposed and stopped. A step in that is to challenge the ignorant, be they honest or deliberate, to stop spreading the demonisation falsehoods. In so doing at least something is being done to stop our nation from descending into to unknown horrors.

Much truth has come out this month, like the complete failure of the privatised is best lie. Now watch the forces of evil that are our government and media come together to make that a distant memory. Soon we will have loads of stories remembering the bad old days when unions ran the local council services and held the nation to ransom (but without mentioning how little we all paid back then, how much better off workers were, and how much smaller the private economy was as it could not compete either in terms of cost nor efficiency.)

Holding onto the little snippets of council housing is bad because it was subsidised avoids the debate of 'and what is so bad about subsidy if it means people can afford to work for lower wages and yet still have a decent quality of life. Ultimately, any subsidy paid by the State benefits business as the health and wellbeing of the workforce is what they depend upon.
Unless private enterprise is prepared to pcik up the decency bill it will always fall to the State to do so on their behalf. The State has no resources of its own so it needs to raise them from somewhere. That means taxation and the spending means subsidy. The decision area is therefore how much to tax and whom, and how much to spend and where.

I think there is a fair argument that a reasonable proportion of the taxation should fall on those who benefit but refuse to take responsibility, namely business. If they will not invest in the health and wellbeing of their workforce then they can contribute to a central pot and have the State do it for them.
If you want to answer the subsidy question, look to who ultimately benefits from it and you will be on your way.

Social housing receives less 'investment, loans, grants, financial guarantees or central government funds in any shape or form' than commercial businesses and private landlords. Indeed, per capita the front benches of both sides of the commons receive more. Why are you not attacking those sectors?

Your insinuation is that tenants get an unfair handout is unfair and wrong. Worst it is dangerous as it feeds into the current campaign that is seeing hate attacks against this governments demonisation targets increasing. You strike me as a civilised soul, so perhaps you would chose to stop adding to the culture of real attacks and real abuse being carried out against the most vulnerable sections of our society.

I did warn you that this would be the outcome, but you seem to have been blind to the historical lessons raised. You are adding to the modern day hate crimes of the right wing - is this what you want to be achieving?

council tenants do not get a handout - that is the point - and you insistance that they do is adding to the right-wing demonisation of tenants campaign. If you are happy to share responsibility for the outcomes of this hate campaign by the Tory Party and Press then that is for your conscience, but do not take humbridge because someone calls you on it.

Personally I find hate politics disgusting, and get very unhappy with myself when a fall into its grasp - but at least that is better (in my opinion) than wriggling away from responsibility for one's own actions and statements, or denying their effects.

if subsidy is interpreted as the loss of potential profit.

Does that mean that when Tesco sell you a Bogof that the tax payer is losing out from the missed VAT so is subsidising the private company?

The reality is that the total rent paid by tenants exceeds the housing cost and the treasury (tax payer) keeps the excess - there is no subsidy.

The market cost of something is not its true cost, but is the cost plus whatever profit level can be made. Market cost has nothing to do with subsidy and it is false to represent it as such.

Mrs_Arcanum

Contact your MP and the MP for where you want to move to and get them earning their money.

The rules were supposed to make it easier for those in social housing to move to where they could get a job and still have the benefit of social housing.

Now to be fair anyone who would give up social housing which provides a secure long term home would be considered foolish to say the least.

The OP is not asking for more accommodation than they need, but less than they have at the moment. Why then are so many blaming them for a situation not of their own making?


Oh and for those who say HA's do not make money, they do, and do so very nicely thank you.

propertyman

adwyer wrote: »

this is not my post, but it proves my point

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/03/socialhousing.tenanttax

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_infopage.cfm?KWord=finance
.

And you produce two examples of the "kool aid" of the left.

Now I dealt with several stock transfers in 2005 as the advisor to the ESG's and frankly even the died in the wool working bloke could see that the figures, let alone the offer documents being produced were the products of internal metrics and politics.

As to the fevered dreams of DCH and their ilk, the last two suffered and finally ruined the transfer of the last two, those residents ( who call on me for pro bono advice through their TRA's) moan that their sister estates that did transfer have been transformed and that they were mislead by the those touting such propaganda.

But I will stop now, your intention for starting the post is clear.

adwyer

propertyman wrote: »

And you produce two examples of the "kool aid" of the left.

Now I dealt with several stock transfers in 2005 as the advisor to the ESG's and frankly even the died in the wool working bloke could see that the figures, let alone the offer documents being produced were the products of internal metrics and politics.

As to the fevered dreams of DCH and their ilk, the last two suffered and finally ruined the transfer of the last two, those residents ( who call on me for pro bono advice through their TRA's) moan that their sister estates that did transfer have been transformed and that they were mislead by the those touting such propaganda.

But I will stop now, your intention for starting the post is clear.

Yeah feel free to stop, just because the political party I don't support says something negative about your political party, I am sucking 'kool aid' of the left, luckily for me its not 'warm aid' or I would be paying 20% more to drink it.....oh hang on a minute I won't because your right wing pals have........drum roll...performed another U-turn, Simply because they act first and think about the consequence later.

theartfullodger

Gents: If you want a forum where other postings are to your liking you are likely to be disappointed hereabouts.

People say a whole spectrum of things about what I post - that's part of what this place is like. If you only want replies you are happy with suggest, politely.. you look elsewhere.

And no, no reason to take any notice of what I say & no I have absolutely no authority to say anything...

Cheers!

Artful