Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. As the policy states, a "suitably sized flat". No definition of suitability is given in the policy and, as you have indicated, the policy is God. So we have adverts for 2 bed flats stating "Suitable for singles or couples over 18".

"Bids will be accepted on the basis of a suitable property size and type to meet the needs of the applicant’s size of family. However, where necessary, and at the discretion of the partners listed above, bids may be accepted for properties of a similar type and size to the one in which the household lives, where this is larger."

"The statutory bedroom standard has been adopted..."

"You can only bid for properties for which you are eligible."

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

"Bids will be accepted on the basis of a suitable property size and type to meet the needs of the applicant’s size of family. However, where necessary, and at the discretion of the partners listed above, bids may be accepted for properties of a similar type and size to the one in which the household lives, where this is larger."

Hence a single person can (and they do) bid on a 2 bed flat as that is deemed suitable. The exact suitability is decided at the point of advert. Nowhere in the allocations policy does it state that a 2 bed flat is unsuitable accommodation for a single person.

Morlock wrote: »

"The statutory bedroom standard has been adopted..."

The statutory bedroom standard, if you look at the sources for this policy, relates to Section 10 of the 1985 Housing Act. This section deals with overcrowding and is used as an assessment tool when awarding priority for overcrowding. I'm sure you will agree that a single person in a 2 bed flat would not be overcrowded.

Morlock wrote: »

"You can only bid for properties for which you are eligible."

Same question applies. Who decides eligibility? Where is it specified, with regard to 2 bed flats, within the allocations policy?

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Hence a single person can (and they do) bid on a 2 bed flat as that is deemed suitable. The exact suitability is decided at the point of advert. Nowhere in the allocations policy does it state that a 2 bed flat is unsuitable accommodation for a single person.

If, as you say, the social housing providers are offering a lot of two-bedroom properties to single occupants, what does that indicate about the demand for two-bedroom properties in those areas which Compass covers?

To me it suggests that under-occupancy is not a problem, as there is no demand for two-bedroom properties from suitable candidates who would not under-occupy, which contradicts your opinion that two-bedroom properties are in high demand.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

If, as you say, the social housing providers are offering a lot of two-bedroom properties to single occupants, what does that indicate about the demand for two-bedroom properties in those areas which Compass covers?

To me it suggests that under-occupancy is not a problem, as there is no demand for two-bedroom properties from suitable candidates who would not under-occupy, which contradicts your opinion that two-bedroom properties are in high demand.

It's not always that simple. Whilst demand for 2 beds in the Tees Valley is high, there is a belief within the region that children should have access to a garden. As a result, flats tend to be classed as "Non-family type accommodation" while 2 bed houses are "family type accommodation". Thus, a single person can bid on a 2 bed flat, but not a house, while a single child family can bid on the house, but not the 2 bed flat.

Eligability for "family type accommodation" is identified at the point of application and matched in the property advert. So, non families are blocked from family type accommodation, and families are blocked from non family accommodation.

However, this is just the Tees Valley, where demand for Social Housing is far lower than in some more heavily occupied parts of the country and the take-up of RTB has been traditionally lower than the national average..

nixe

Dunroamin wrote: »

I read it that there are two adult children at home, one working and one at university, which was why I couldn't understand the bother about paying a small amount of extra rent with four adults contributing. (Mind you, we could both be wrong.)

why dont you get it? its wrong simple.
just cause i can afford it
why dont you try looking round this site at the way
some cant afford to eat already, and now they will have to pay this or end up homeless.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nixe wrote: »

why dont you get it? its wrong simple.
just cause i can afford it
why dont you try looking round this site at the way
some cant afford to eat already, and now they will have to pay this or end up homeless.

They could move.

Dunroamin

nixe wrote: »

why dont you get it? its wrong simple.
just cause i can afford it
why dont you try looking round this site at the way
some cant afford to eat already, and now they will have to pay this or end up homeless.

But if you can afford it, why shouldn't you pay for it? If you don't who should?

nixe

Dunroamin wrote: »

But if you can afford it, why shouldn't you pay for it? If you don't who should?

i will pay it under protest,
but it dont make it right
they are just after everyone they think that is beneigh them,
a lot of there policies made people unemployed in the first
place and now those same people are being made to pay again.
funny how they aint going after the bankers.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nixe wrote: »

i will pay it under protest,
but it dont make it right
they are just after everyone they think that is beneigh them,
a lot of there policies made people unemployed in the first
place and now those same people are being made to pay again.
funny how they aint going after the bankers.

I think Bankers pay their own rent.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It unusual, to say the least, to get that kind of disparity in stock between the private and social sector. If, as you say, there is a glut of 2 bed Social Housing stock in the area, that would reduce demand for 2 bed private rents which will push rents down to attract those who get the 1 bed LHA rate.

Rents are pretty low here anyway in all honesty. How much the LHA rate is, I have no idea. I can only see what I see with my eyes, and I've covered most of the town as a postie. There are few social housing one bed properties and fewer private let one bed properties. We have no bidding system. You get what you're given. Apart from in the case of my dd, when she seen the flat down the road had been empty for about a year, she went chasing it.

princessdon wrote: »

So do you think advocating this to Local Authorities who have better knowledge of their own area would have been best?

In my area there are more 1 bed's than 2 on the bidding system (SH) so it's the 2 bed they'd want to target.

There isn't a lot of one bedroom properties up here. Most single people here who come of the homeless list are given a 2 bedroom property for the simple reason they council do not have many one bedroom places. This is where common sense should be applied imo. If a property is available then yes, as I've said repeatedly, by all means make the charges.

Just found the list to give you an idea:

1bed + bedsits in local area (SH) 600 (which admittedly is more than I thought, but still not a lot)

2bed 3000

3bed 1900

4bed 175

5bed 5

So u can see where the shortages lie. 30% of the 1 bedroom are sheltered housing or adapted for disabled. And 7 are available for private rent. If you add the HA that are there it takes it about a thousand, but this includes housing associations like Margaret Blackwood and Bield which are predominantly providing housing for disabled people.