Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Did she live in her scooter?

dont ne stipod ... dhe also received hogh rate care. i provided a lot of that care free of charge!

isnt it supposed to be dependant on need?

she had a comprehensive care pacjage whicj i topped up for free.

biw i need help... i have to pay from a meagre existsance

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I stated that the highest demand was for 2 beds and indicated that the demand was DRIVEN by first time mums. That's a very different statement from your interpretation of it above.

Surely if demand is driven by first time mums, most of the demand is from first time mums. What makes you think that demand for two-bedroom properties is 'driven' by first time mums?

Morlock

Heycock wrote: »

Well, Morlock...you've got me beat. My 21 years working in and serving the housing estates of one of the most socially deprived areas in the UK and seeing how people live, seeing how the families I served grow and change, seeing who got given the new houses, who got offered the substandard ones, all this first hand experience .... is trumped by your statistics. You win. I'm off to the pub.

But none of the statistics I posted relate to your claim, nor have I used them to contradict your statement. How can my statistics trump your anecdote when they bear no relation?

Heycock wrote: »

Just one final thing...ever read Jean de Florette? A fiction maybe but a salutory lesson to those who believe in the sanctity of statistics. Partly about how an obsessive reliance on the validity and reliability of statistics rather than local experience leads to the ruin of an honest man.
BTW. I studied statistics for 3 years as a major part of my degree so I know that interpretation is 95% of the exercise, but no i don't have the statistics to back that statement up. Enjoy your evening in with the Guardian. I'm off to the pub with the chelsea fans.

I simply asked if you have any proof to back up your statement that insinuates first time mothers are the demographic that secures the majority of two-bedroom, social housing properties. But you insist upon ranting about unrelated statistics and the Guardian.

sniggings

ijwia wrote: »

yeah

and there was me thinking that this website trys to help people in need by giving advice

i never new it had lots of members who take satisfation out of peoples hardship

which is what i would call princessdon's post

and

again lighting up the chance's post on this thread also has no point other than being antagonistic

is there an moderators on the forum or does this trolling and antagonising go on unabated ?

you can report the post by clicking the report button and also click ignore, click their name then scroll down to the ignore option, sad I know but some people hang round here to slag of people on benefits.

nannytone_2

i totally understand that people not on benefits will judge people that are.
but there are those of us that have no choice, and we are the ones that are being dingled out.
i may be ib ny 40's but i could still give birth!
but i sont want another child because im not in a position to support it


excuse me ... i can have babies that i cant support but im not allowed to be disabled

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Surely if demand is driven by first time mums, most of the demand is from first time mums. What makes you think that demand for two-bedroom properties is 'driven' by first time mums?

Um, because second, third and forth time mums tend to be after bigger properties for their 2, 3 and 4 child families? Is it really that difficult?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

I choose Bradford.

Bradford. Lets for the last full month where results are available (October 2012):

2 bed houses = 3 houses attracting a total of 245 bids.

3 bed houses = 15 houses attracting a total of 619 bids.

Average number of bids per 2 bed = 81.7.

Average number of bids per 3 bed = 41.3.

2 beds attract almost double the number of bids than 3 beds do.

http://www.openmoves.co.uk/category/uncategorized/

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Um, because second, third and forth time mums tend to be after bigger properties for their 2, 3 and 4 child families? Is it really that difficult?

Ah okay, you are just guessing, that makes sense.

nannytone_2

[Bsearck got me
1 bed [rp[erties in shirebrook derbyshire.... oh rgwewa ibe ib a block rgar no one wants lo live in cos the mail boxes are broken into and the front door is kicked in .... just the place for a visually impaired person






[/B]

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Ah okay, you are just guessing, that makes sense.

No, I'm not guessing. Same as it wouldn't be a guess if I said "mice haven't walked on the moon" before I looked up the stats.

As 2 bed houses tend to be let to families with 1 or 2 children, simple logic dictates that there will be a significant proportion of first time mums among their number (ie with 1 child). The same logic would indicate that 3/4/5 bed houses, which tend to be let to families with 2, 3 or 4+ children DON'T go to first time mums (apart from the very few who have twins/triplets etc).