Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

barnaby-bear wrote: »

It's mixed, tried to rent in Germany and yes security of tenure but 3 months rent agent fee - 3 months rent up front - very few landlords willing to accept less than 3 year contract - PLUS the fittings like the kitchen are the tenants responsibility so £3k to the previous tenant or they take the kitchen :eek: once in you have security but are well stuck... people quote continental renting as good tenure and yes it is but expensive up front (once in rent rises controlled) and you are locked in ! The AST is flexible but after 6 moves in 4 years and trying to find anything in the same school/work area - on 2 months notice it's tough and there is always an overlap plus you can't really expect repairs - however after 9 years on the social waiting list (starting 7 years from the top) we are now 12 years from the top for the local area :-D we have actually bought out of area and commute 120 miles a day but still eligible thankfully to move back to home... in 12 years!

The German model works because renting is so widespread and the high initial costs well recognised. So, much like high car insurance for younger drivers, people expect and budget for that cost.

barnaby-bear

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Oh, the 1988 Housing Act, which created the AST, was introduced under Thatcher, not Brown.

Trust me I was there - listening to him bleat about "flexibility"...

1997 very much the year of nu-labour!

All tenancies which started on or after 28th February 1997 are now automatically Assured Shorthold Tenancies

Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg

All tenancies which started on or after 28th February 1997 are now automatically Assured Shorthold Tenancies

Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg



Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg

All tenancies which started on or after 28th February 1997 are now automatically Assured Shorthold Tenancies

Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg

All tenancies which started on or after 28th February 1997 are now automatically Assured Shorthold Tenancies

Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg



Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg



Read more: http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm#ixzz2CtfQpojg

http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/assured-shorthold-tenancies.htm

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/assured_shorthold_tenancies

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

the rules now state ... mixed sex under 9 can share.
same sex under 16 can share
over 16 they get their own room.

why would she make them share when they can have a room each?

my mum shared a room with her brother and sister until they were 23. 21 and 19. just because people did it , doesnt make it desireable. after all we used to burn witches!

she doesnt work because she is disabled, and although she would like to get to work, at the moment she is only managing alone with the chilldren with considerable help from family and friends

All siblings, regardless of age or gender, CAN share. The age and gender stipulations you mention are regarding ENTITLEMENT. No-one would force a family to move just because they don't comply with these stipulations.

As for the question....

nannytone wrote: »

why would she make them share when they can have a room each?

.... For any number of reasons. She gets on well with the neighbours? The garden is on the larger side? Transport and shops are nearby? She loves the view from the kitchen? She could do without the aggro? etc etc etc

nannytone_2

just for the record ... my 2 bed flat was offered to 2 families before io had an offer.
they both turned it down as it was too small and didnt have a garden.

three is sufficient social housing for families in my area, with no one waiting more than 6 months, and thats only if theyre bery picky about where they want to live.

i live in a large rurl council .... i live in one of the villages... and people from the nearby towms, dont want to move here and be so isolated. there is no work here and the larger percentage of the population is over retirement age. yet still they are building family sized homes and nothing for singletons/couples.

because of this, the vast majority of private lets are family sized too.

as i mentioned in a previous post .. in the past 18 months only one 1 bed property has come up for rental in the private market ... and that haas raised its price to £110 a week. to be honest the fact that it has been advertised to let at least 4 times during this period, leads me to believe there is either something wrong qith the flat, or the area that it is in is putting renters off.

as a disabled person i wouldnt want to even consider this ... as i would still have to top up the rent adn have no seccurity and likely to find out that there are other troubles associated with it.

barnaby-bear

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The German model works because renting is so widespread and the high initial costs well recognised. So, much like high car insurance for younger drivers, people expect and budget for that cost.

that's the key - "expect" - it's all down to what we consider the normal... it sort of works - people are more industrious and harder working in Germany but for the young it's high pressure expectations; claim benefits and you have no privacy and will be out in your day-glow jacket tidying the park and people will question a young mum on benefits openly. The middle-aged / taxpayer expect to question your lifestyle and work ethic. A landlord will go through your bank account details for 10 years, ask for your marriage certificate, have your boss' direct phone number...

lighting_up_the_chalice

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Trust me I was there - listening to him bleat about "flexibility"...

1997 very much the year of nu-labour!

AST were INTRODUCED by the 1988 HA (See S20)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/20

barnaby-bear

nannytone wrote: »

just for the record ... my 2 bed flat was offered to 2 families before io had an offer.
they both turned it down as it was too small and didnt have a garden.

three is sufficient social housing for families in my area, with no one waiting more than 6 months, and thats only if theyre bery picky about where they want to live.

i live in a large rurl council .... i live in one of the villages... and people from the nearby towms, dont want to move here and be so isolated. there is no work here and the larger percentage of the population is over retirement age. yet still they are building family sized homes and nothing for singletons/couples.

because of this, the vast majority of private lets are family sized too.

as i mentioned in a previous post .. in the past 18 months only one 1 bed property has come up for rental in the private market ... and that haas raised its price to £110 a week. to be honest the fact that it has been advertised to let at least 4 times during this period, leads me to believe there is either something wrong qith the flat, or the area that it is in is putting renters off.

as a disabled person i wouldnt want to even consider this ... as i would still have to top up the rent adn have no seccurity and likely to find out that there are other troubles associated with it.

Why does being blind exclude you having lodger? Is it in case they leave stuff around to trip over? I coul see the right lodger could be beneficial to deal with things that are harder if you can't read a leaflet drop etc? You circumstances are soemwhat exceptional and I think the policy needs refinement but the general idea doesn't seem that bad...

barnaby-bear

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

AST were INTRODUCED by the 1988 HA (See S20)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/20

1997 was when they became the default and yes I did march against it

"You automatically have an assured shorthold tenancy if all of the following apply:

• you moved in on or after 28 February 1997"

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/assured_shorthold_tenancies

lighting_up_the_chalice

barnaby-bear wrote: »

1997 was when they became the default and yes I did march against it

"You automatically have an assured shorthold tenancy if all of the following apply:

• you moved in on or after 28 February 1997"

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/assured_shorthold_tenancies

Yes. Under the 1996 Housing Act. Introduced under John Major.

Morlock

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011-ia.pdf

In essence, the government are targeting the most overcrowded, least under-occupied sector of the housing market with an 'under-occupancy tax'. This bears no relation to more efficient use of housing stock, particularly when considering that areas with the highest rates of over-occupancy are the same areas as those with the lowest rates of under-occupancy.

In short, the policy does nothing to address the problem of over-crowding or homelessness. It can be argued that it will have a direct result of increasing homelessness in areas where under-occupancy is not generally a problem in the local housing market.

It is very difficult to find any logic in its implementation, considering that 81% of claimants affected only under-occupy by one bedroom, it is not likely to have much positive effect, just more hardship for benefit claimants.