Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

as ive said previously, i live in a 2 bed flat in a block of 6.
everyone living in the flats was nominated by the council, and only one was taken by its original 'viewr'.

4 of the flats are occupied by single people and the other 2 by childless couples.
all apart from 1 receives some degree of housing benefit.

so much for holding onto properties needed by families ...
the families turned them down!

the alternative would have been that they stood empty, whilst 3 of the 6 tenants rented privately getting more LHA than they do now in hb, and the other 3 would be homeless or over occupying with extended family!

Then the site could have been re-developed to provide the kind of properties people needed. Happens all the time.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because the band values would all change but, by and large, the same properties would stay in the same bands. A pointless and costly exercise bound to just p people off.

For some I agree (espcially the younger generation), gosh I sound like an old granny am not yet 40.

But my banding is based on 20 odd years ago. House values have changed. I'd accept that.

What I would not accept is because I spent £70K converting a 3 bed into a 6 bed I should pay more.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Heycock wrote: »

Posted by Lighting up the chalice....In most areas, the highest demand in Social Housing is for 2 bed properties. All those first time mums, see?

At last. The Elephant in the room. And on this I need no stats, certainly not lazy stats from the Guardian (Yawn!), Morlock.
Seriously, Morlock...is the Guardian the only paper you read?

I've worked the badside of my neck of the woods for 20 years and I KNOW exactly what group of people have received the pick of the social housing in that time. They've been my customers and put bread on my table.

30 year old mother living with 15 year old daughter in 2 bed council house. Don't get on. Daughter has baby...house now over-occupied. Priority list for rehousing. Gets automatic place in new 2 bed house built by local LHA/HA partnership.
One house now becomes two.
Do the maths as they say....and don't insult my intelligence with your Guardian stats. I've lived and worked amongst them, Polly Toynbee hasn't.
And no, I'm neither Tory nor a Daily mail fan...Libertarian anarchist if you want to be picky

Try not to confuse Morlock with the real world... It upsets his chakras.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Then the site could have been re-developed to provide the kind of properties people needed. Happens all the time.

it should have been, but that isnt the tenants fault!

there are no 1 bed social housing propertires here... but a glut of 2 beds.

the builder only got permission to redevelop the site if they vuilt 6 2 bed flats, with useless and unsuitable air source heating units ( ive had no heating or hot water for the majority of the 14 months ive been here) and 1 solar panel per flat ( which weve been told is all but useless)

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

For some I agree (espcially the younger generation), gosh I sound like an old granny am not yet 40.

But my banding is based on 20 odd years ago. House values have changed. I'd accept that.

What I would not accept is because I spent £70K converting a 3 bed into a 6 bed I should pay more.

If you've increased the value of your property over and above local housing inflation, that may well be the case. Much as the unfortunate ones who had done the same just prior to the last valuation. But the government really don't want to p off a whole load of people for no real gains.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

because a lot of people bought before the property boom and now live in a house thaat they couldnt afford to re buy at todays prices.

a lot of these people are elderly and own million pound plus homes that they bout years ago.
they would be exempt anyway!

I agree and that is why a rebranding based on today's values would give more income to Local Authorities.

I have never been a hypocrite and admit I could not buy my home in today's market.

Does owning your own home make you less accountable for the housing market?

Even if only £20 pm, most would pay and even things out.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

it should have been, but that isnt the tenants fault!

there are no 1 bed social housing propertires here... but a glut of 2 beds.

the builder only got permission to redevelop the site if they vuilt 6 2 bed flats, with useless and unsuitable air source heating units ( ive had no heating or hot water for the majority of the 14 months ive been here) and 1 solar panel per flat ( which weve been told is all but useless)

That's because demand showed that no-one wanted a 1 bed flat when they could have the 2 bed and still get all the rent paid by HB. These changes may well alter the demand for 1 beds making them viable to build.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If you've increased the value of your property over and above local housing inflation, that may well be the case. Much as the unfortunate ones who had done the same just prior to the last valuation. But the government really don't want to p off a whole load of people for no real gains.

That's my issue would it P people off. If people paid £10 pw more would it P them off?

I cannot be 100% subjective as my LA are making redundancies and I am always on the "at risk" register. If they charged every home that is out of bracket this it would save jobs.

I feel guilty that I pay a small amount of CT and gained from higher prices, but DO know that not all are in the same position.

Perhaps if they had a banding based on home value AND income it would work??

No easy answers I know.

Morlock

Heycock wrote: »

Posted by Lighting up the chalice....In most areas, the highest demand in Social Housing is for 2 bed properties. All those first time mums, see?

At last. The Elephant in the room. And on this I need no stats, certainly not lazy stats from the Guardian (Yawn!), Morlock.
Seriously, Morlock...is the Guardian the only paper you read?

Statistics that summarise the Chartered Institute of Housing's UK Housing Review, perhaps you could post some better, related statistics.

Heycock wrote: »

I've worked the badside of my neck of the woods for 20 years and I KNOW exactly what group of people have received the pick of the social housing in that time. They've been my customers and put bread on my table.

30 year old mother living with 15 year old daughter in 2 bed council house. Don't get on. Daughter has baby...house now over-occupied. Priority list for rehousing. Gets automatic place in new 2 bed house built by local LHA/HA partnership.
One house now becomes two.
Do the maths as they say....and don't insult my intelligence with your Guardian stats. I've lived and worked amongst them, Polly Toynbee hasn't.
And no, I'm neither Tory nor a Daily mail fan...Libertarian anarchist if you want to be picky

Ah, yes, the anecdotal statistic, that is far more reliable evidence. Don't insult my intelligence, post some real statistics that prove demand for two-bedroom properties is dominated by 'first time mums', then I might give your statement some credibility.

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

I agree and that is why a rebranding based on today's values would give more income to Local Authorities.

I have never been a hypocrite and admit I could not buy my home in today's market.

Does owning your own home make you less accountable for the housing market?

Even if only £20 pm, most would pay and even things out.

But it won,t make a massive difference as the distribution between bands would remain much the same. If, for the sake of simplicity, they budget for 20% of houses being in each A - E band, then the cheapest 20% will still be in the lowest band, even if house values in the area have rocketed.