Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

But you convinced me that there was no inextricable link between bidding and entitlement:

Then you have a very active imagination.

Morlock wrote: »

Property size being the number of bedrooms to which they are entitled.

Indeed.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

so we should gibe up a secure tenancy with a HA to take a 2 bed property with no cesurity from a private landlord?

That's the relevant point nannytone - How much is that secure tennancy worth? For those in private without the security they think you already (not you personally just HA tenants) get the security AND lower rental.

I honestly don't see many moving as they realise the benefits that such a secure tennancy gives. I have security as I own my own home (or have means to pay it off if needed).

Most other people (Private rental and mortgaged) are not secure and many situations can force a move.

All it would take for mortgages is an interest rate rise (I remember paying 15%) or those in PR to face insecurity.

My Gran now has a LA flat that is perfect for her needs and waited many and I mean many years for this, despite being severly disabled.

She'd not give it up without a fight as knows the true value.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Then you have a very active imagination.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Very few allocation policies (in fact, I know of none) will specify who can bid for what in terms of property size.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

...no-one will be able to bid for that which they are not entitled to. So, bidding and entitlement are inextricably linked.

So, we are in agreement that candidates can only bid on properties which match the size that they are entitled to occupy. In which case, shared care parents who are considered to be single, and therefore only entitled to one-bedroom, cannot bid on two-bedroom properties which they are not entitled to occupy. Which was my original point.

Heycock

In most areas(anecdotally) CBL seems to mirror LHA rules in that bidding is only allowed on properties that meet the bidder's LHA bedroom criteria.
This isn't statutory however and individual authorities can show some flexibility. Hence although LHA in my case is at the one room rate, I am allowed to bid for two roomed property for care reasons not accepted by LHA rules. It is then up to me to prove i can make up the difference.
This illustrates part of the problem and the solution.
Different LA's have different approaches....so move to an area that accomodates your need. (allowing for some not being able to move by dint of disability).
This must be the first generation in the history of mankind that thinks it has the right to stay put. Historically man goes where the work is, where the space is, where the opportunity is. The only people who have aright to stay put are the elderly,the infirm and those who look after them and even that concession would raise eyebrows in our parents' generation. (If you're over 50!)

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

So, we are in agreement that candidates can only bid on properties which match the size that they are entitled to occupy. In which case, shared care parents who are considered to be single, and therefore only entitled to one-bedroom, cannot bid on two-bedroom properties which they are not entitled to occupy. Which was my original point.

You've made a schoolboy error, Morlock. Entitlement is established with the advert, not the allocations policy.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Or pay the modest shortfall for your spare bedroom. It's those choices again. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

the modest shortfa;; is 1/7 if my total income ...
u qish you had some appreciation of how hard it is to live on benefit

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Entitlement is established with the advert, not the allocations policy.

Are you saying that a lot of two-bedroom properties are advertised as a single person's accommodation? That would be ridiculous considering the high demand on two-bedroom properties that you claim, not convincing at all.

nixe

princessdon wrote: »

The problem is those "lines in the sand". Where do you draw them?

All those who claim DLA, certain groups only, those with mobility, those with Mental Health. What about those not claiming DLA but have disabilities?

Then you get the other side of the line drawn. Those on £71 pw who think that those with disabilities have the means to stay as they get more money (they feel that they have to move and have no choice to stay). They are also been hit with Coucil Tax whilst disabled don't pay, so have less money.

What would your proposals be?


Someone can stay until the first suitable home (private or SH) is available within 20 miles?

10 miles?

SH only?


There is no policy that can ever be immplented that won't cause pain and hardship to others or unfairness to those in Private Rental.

very good post, you are correct in that it is gonna hurt peeps.
so why not start with not giving europe any money for a year and get some much needed houses built jobs created.
or the companies to pay share of taxes
or govenment to give up there second homes in london and perks they have.
i was not always ill neither hubby i had no intentions of being a burdon on the tax payers but it is what it is now.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Are you saying that a lot of two-bedroom properties are advertised as a single person's accommodation? That would be ridiculous considering the high demand on two-bedroom properties that you claim, not convincing at all.

I said that a quantity are. You said that was untrue ("Absolute rubbish"). I provided links to adverts which confirm what I said.

Can I make a suggestion? Do a little research before you post. It would save me a lot of time if I didn't have to keep correcting you.

princessdon

nixe wrote: »

very good post, you are correct in that it is gonna hurt peeps.
so why not start with not giving europe any money for a year and get some much needed houses built jobs created.
or the companies to pay share of taxes
or govenment to give up there second homes in london and perks they have.
i was not always ill neither hubby i had no intentions of being a burdon on the tax payers but it is what it is now.

I fully agree with you (posted the same yesterday on DT), they NEED to tackle business not paying, EU and overseas donations, immigration, larger families and many other things.

I do think it's wrong the disabled are hit (see my post when I expained to OP prior to your arrival on this thread) and the need for 2nd bedrooms.

But ... Uncle Jack alone as mother left the tenancy in a 4 bed house when the tax payers are paying £1800 pm rental privately for a family is wrong. Families where 4 children have their own room as opposed to sharing is wrong.

I always feel that dolphins get caught in a shark net with all changes and do not feel happy about that. Despite the way I come over at times I am not "happy to live in my ivory tower" but the reality always is for each winner there is a loser. Changes to anything are never individual.

If they raised fuel tomorrow - I'd not be affected as out all day and run round like a headless chicken and don't even use heating so not affected with a high income, leccy and I'd be whalloped as I use so much.

Everyting in life has winners and losers .... It just sucks when you are on the loosers (not beneficiary) side.