Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

Sorry, what's OM?

Sorry dunroamin, thought I had already covered that earlier, my old mammy :rotfl: It may have been in another thread.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And you are suggesting that a disability has an impact on mobility from a housing perspective and that the extra bedroom may assist in the provision of care.

Maybe in some instances. But in this area it's because there is too long a list for one of the properties suitable for the disabled. Dinnae get me wrong, my dd is managing in her flat at the moment. But every day she gets closer to needing that wheelchair. Already uses it outside,well a scooter, so it's only a matter of time.

Trust me, all you need to know is out there. You just need to know where to look for it.

I've looked and looked and can't find it. However, most housing up here is turned around quite quickly and the council are meeting targets. Which is why I'm maybe thinking they are going to do the needed renovations before letting.

The letter they get as part of the discharge of the homeless duty clearly states that they can appeal against an offer even if they move into the property pending the outcome of that appeal. If successful, they remain a priority and the current accommodation is treated as temporary.

Well I can assure you. I received nothing like this when I came off the homeless list after leaving an abusive husband. Granted it was a few years ago. In all honesty I was absolutely thrilled to get my 3 bedroom flat, even if it was in the gods.

Scottish housing may be different but I certainly didn't receive anything like that.

princessdon wrote: »

problem is if no one moves then there will never be anything available.

If every under 25 went shared, more 1 beds etc.

Remember they are also planning on removing housing benefit from under 25s. Although it would be a solution to the lack of 1 bed properties. Although maybe not as most of them are oldies flats? Again I do agree with you on the fact that if no one moves then there will never be anything available, I believe in it so much I moved myself.

For those of you who don't know my dd's story, she approached the council, when in work, to apply for a flat that had been empty for a while. It was in a right state. Used her savings to do a lot of work to it. Had a few problems with depression and her knees, lost her job, then was struck down rather quickly by HMS, just 2 years ago she was bouncing about like tigger on speed. At the grand old age of 21 she's now facing life in a wheelchair.

In an ideal world, she'd move back home with her OM (yes I use that for me too :rotfl:) but because I downsized when she moved out, she can't.

ijwia

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The letter they get as part of the discharge of the homeless duty clearly states that they can appeal against an offer even if they move into the property pending the outcome of that appeal. If successful, they remain a priority and the current accommodation is treated as temporary.

do you live in the real world

in the real world when people are homeless they are only too happy to take whatever the housing offer! and if that happens to be a 2 bedroom flat they will 99% of the time take it

why should they then be punished for taking what was offered it's up to the social housing organisation to provide the correct property for their needs.

are you seriously saying they should stay homeless until a 1 bedroom flat comes up

if the government were going to really address the problems they would have put a state of grace in play for the difficulty that some social housing tennants were obviously going to encounter

i mean are you seriously trying to tell me the government didn't know that social housing organisations were putting 1 person in 2 bedroom flats in a huge amount of areas as there weren't any suitable 1 bed flats

ill thought out policy that provides nothing for the single tennants in these 2 bed flats except for a housing benefit deduction as in majority of cases there isnt going to be suitable 1 bedroom accomodation.

it does seem to me sipping up the champagne that you are a policy maker or a tory party activist by the energy you have defended this policy.

in an ideal world we would all live in the appropriate sized flat for our needs

maybe if the maggie hadn't sold of the social housing in that ridiculous RTB scheme or at least if they had earmarked the money to be spent by the councils in new build properties we wouldnt be in this position

lighting_up_the_chalice

ijwia wrote: »

do you live in the real world

in the real world when people are homeless they are only too happy to take whatever the housing offer! and if that happens to be a 2 bedroom flat they will 99% of the time take it

why should they then be punished for taking what was offered it's up to the social housing organisation to provide the correct property for their needs.

are you seriously saying they should stay homeless until a 1 bedroom flat comes up

if the government were going to really address the problems they would have put a state of grace in play for the difficulty that some social housing tennants were obviously going to encounter

i mean are you seriously trying to tell me the government didn't know that social housing organisations were putting 1 person in 2 bedroom flats in a huge amount of areas as there weren't any suitable 1 bed flats

ill thought out policy that provides nothing for the single tennants in these 2 bed flats except for a housing benefit deduction as in majority of cases there isnt going to be suitable 1 bedroom accomodation.

it does seem to me sipping up the champagne that you are a policy maker or a tory party activist by the energy you have defended this policy.

in an ideal world we would all live in the appropriate sized flat for our needs

maybe if the maggie hadn't sold of the social housing in that ridiculous RTB scheme or at least if they had earmarked the money to be spent by the councils in new build properties we wouldnt be in this position

In the real world, CBL has been active in most areas for a number of years, so for the majority of tenants who have occupied 2 bed flats as singles in recent years (and the average SH tenancy duration is only 7 years) have done so through CHOICE.

Those that were allocated under the older points based system have had ample opportunity to mitigate this change. However, many, like you, have decided to bury their heads in the sand, do nothing about downsizing and then whinge like merry hell when what everyone and his wife has said will happen, happens.

As for ring-fencing the proceeds of RTB to support the cost of new build SH, that policy has already been introduced, by the current government. It seems (again) that it's YOU who is supporting Tory policy, not I.

plum2002

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

In the real world, CBL has been active in most areas for a number of years, so for the majority of tenants who have occupied 2 bed flats as singles in recent years (and the average SH tenancy duration is only 7 years) have done so through CHOICE.

Those that were allocated under the older points based system have had ample opportunity to mitigate this change. However, many, like you, have decided to bury their heads in the sand, do nothing about downsizing and then whinge like merry hell when what everyone and his wife has said will happen, happens.

As for ring-fencing the proceeds of RTB to support the cost of new build SH, that policy has already been introduced, by the current government. It seems (again) that it's YOU who is supporting Tory policy, not I.

Actually that was introduced by the RTB policy team in the (now defunct) Deputy Prime Ministers Office in 2004

Heycock

plum2002 wrote: »

Actually that was introduced by the RTB policy team in the (now defunct) Deputy Prime Ministers Office in 2004

That'll be the same Deputy prime minister who encouraged the demolition of tens thousands of viable upgradeable Victorian/Edwardian terraces under the Pathfinder scheme when he knew the money wasn't there to build new homes in their place. Proud prole who always poohpood the House of Lords at every opportunity but couldn't wait to put on his ermine on at his boss's bidding.

lighting_up_the_chalice

plum2002 wrote: »

Actually that was introduced by the RTB policy team in the (now defunct) Deputy Prime Ministers Office in 2004

Try the Housing Strategy announced in Nov 2011.

plum2002

It was in the RTB revision white paper 2004, written by the RTB policy team

ijwia

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

As for ring-fencing the proceeds of RTB to support the cost of new build SH, that policy has already been introduced, by the current government. It seems (again) that it's YOU who is supporting Tory policy, not I.

so you yourself don't think that money recieved from RTB sales should be re-invested in social housing ?

well good on them nice tories :thumbsup:

but why did they not do this at the time RTB was introduced ?

idiotic or was the policy to deliberately get rid of social housing ? and not have any.

they got rid of nearly everything else publically owned didn't they ?

it seems government don't want to be responsible for/to the people that elect them

seven-day-weekend

ijwia wrote: »

so you yourself don't think that money recieved from RTB sales should be re-invested in social housing ?

well good on them nice tories :thumbsup:

but why did they not do this at the time RTB was introduced ?

idiotic or was the policy to deliberately get rid of social housing ? and not have any.

they got rid of nearly everything else publically owned didn't they ?

it seems government don't want to be responsible for/to the people that elect them

Margaret Thatcher, who brought the RTB legislation in, DID want rid of social housing.

However, you will notice that no later Government has changed it. , although I believe that Cameron has now said that proceeds can be ploughed back into social housing.

lighting_up_the_chalice

ijwia wrote: »

so you yourself don't think that money recieved from RTB sales should be re-invested in social housing ?

I have no idea how you have drawn that conclusion from a comment about who brought the policy in. But, since you mention it, my personal opinion is that RTB should never have been brought in at all.