Bedroom tax and private rent

nannytone_2

im registered blind.
anything out of my local 'known' area would be like a foreign ountry.

people here are aware that i struggle ... and they help/

20 miles aa where no one knows me, and i know no one ..?

you arent disabled.
sont under estimate how important community is for people with additional problems.

take my disabuility away and id have no issue.

if i had to move 20 mukes away, my life would be an existance, no friends, no social life ....

do i have the opportunuty to maake my life better? no i dont.

so keep your opinions to yourself until you understand the effect your wordss habe on people less fortunate

onceuponatime_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

Anyone who lives in social housing that has more room than they need should be forced to leave and find a property that is more suitable to them, this then frees up properties for larger families who are more suitable. This should apply even if they can find the shortfall in the rent if the depend on benefits

Dissagree!!!!! What a nieve view. So dont do what i do , do as i say kinda attitude.

nannytone_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

Anyone who lives in social housing that has more room than they need should be forced to leave and find a property that is more suitable to them, this then frees up properties for larger families who are more suitable. This should apply even if they can find the shortfall in the rent if the depend on benefits

you are totally clueless!

my property was offered tto 2 different families with kidss that turned it down because it had no garden!

so i should go into an inferior 1 bed private let because i am disabled and have no prospect of paying my own rent?

am i not entitled yo any degre of security?
i dont choose not to support myself. despite 2 uears or searching, i am still looking for an employer that wants a registered blind employee.

mayve i should just crwl inder a rock rather than expect any quality of life?

sniggings

paddedjohn wrote: »

Anyone who lives in social housing that has more room than they need should be forced to leave and find a property that is more suitable to them, this then frees up properties for larger families who are more suitable. This should apply even if they can find the shortfall in the rent if the depend on benefits

don't fall for the Tory bull cr*p, the real issue is mortgages too high, rents too high, a shortage of social housing and people trying to make ends meet on the min wage, the answer is not getting an old dear to move from her family home to free it up for someone else, apart from the fact the old dear is excluded from this rule anyway.

I'm not saying under occupancy isn't a problem but fixing the bigger stuff first is what is needed, not having one social group turn on another, whilst the rich sit back and get richer.

paddedjohn

nannytone wrote: »

you are totally clueless!

my property was offered tto 2 different families with kidss that turned it down because it had no garden!

so i should go into an inferior 1 bed private let because i am disabled and have no prospect of paying my own rent?

am i not entitled yo any degre of security?
i dont choose not to support myself. despite 2 uears or searching, i am still looking for an employer that wants a registered blind employee.

mayve i should just crwl inder a rock rather than expect any quality of life?

No, you should go into a 1 bed property because that is all you need. Why should you have a subsidised property that is more than you need. Even if you earned £1k a week and lived there I would say the same.

nannytone_2

i would love a 1 bed flat , but there are none!!!
why dont you understabd wgat i am saying?

on current listings, there i one 1 bed flat to let pribately .... ay a rent £20 higher than the local LFA rate. and with no security!!!!!

ok, i accept i am iver ccupying, but there are no social housing 1 bed properties within 20 miles!

i dont understand why you are struggling to inderstand what i am saying,


it seems pretty clear to me/B]

onceuponatime_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

No, you should go into a 1 bed property because that is all you need. Why should you have a subsidised property that is more than you need. Even if you earned £1k a week and lived there I would say the same.

You need to look at the bigger picture because you are subsidising things that would make you think twice on the comments you have made so far. You need to look at the bigger picture.

paddedjohn

I'm not going to get into your arguments about your problems, all I'm saying is that rather than charge for under occupancy you should be forced to move, if that means moving to another town or to private rental then so be it, it frees up council properties for more needy cases.

bright_side

paddedjohn wrote: »

I'm not going to get into your arguments about your problems, all I'm saying is that rather than charge for under occupancy you should be forced to move, if that means moving to another town or to private rental then so be it, it frees up council properties for more needy cases.

If 'freeing up council properties for more needy cases' is the bottom line, then this new ruling should apply to EVERYONE in social housing and not just those in receipt of housing benefit.

paddedjohn

bright_side wrote: »

If 'freeing up council properties for more needy cases' is the bottom line, then this new ruling should apply to EVERYONE in social housing and not just those in receipt of housing benefit.

Exactly what I said in post 46