Welfare Reform

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

They are rented out by housing associations. Mostly to low income working people, with preference given to people working in essential services. They don't go to non working people.

This isn't the system in my area. Social housing is allocated on the basis of need, so the homeless, families on benefits, people with disabilities or mental health issues, people with addiction problems and so on. That's why healthy working people never get into social housing. As far as this government is concerned they can look after themselves.

dktreesea

Growurown wrote: »

This isn't the system in my area. Social housing is allocated on the basis of need, so the homeless, families on benefits, people with disabilities or mental health issues, people with addiction problems and so on. That's why healthy working people never get into social housing. As far as this government is concerned they can look after themselves.

Up here, there are reserved places in sheltered housing for vlunerable people, like drug addicts, people with disabilities etc. But if you were unemployed and trying to get social housing, you wouldn't have a chance compared to low income working people going for the same flat or house.

In theory, a certain amount of housing is reserved for social housing by housing associations. In practice, most of it goes to people in this category:

"Edinburgh Mid Market Rent
Mid-rent properties may be more suitable for you if you're working but can't afford market rent prices. The rents are set at a level between market rent and those charged for councils and housing associations. These properties are supplied with floor coverings and curtains or blinds. A security deposit is payable.
Are you eligible?
Applications are prioritised for:

• current tenants of housing associations and councils
• applicants on registered social landlord or council waiting lists
• key workers providing essential public sector services such as in teaching or health care
• applicants with local connections.

You need to earn a minimum of £1,000 a month or have a maximum income of £36,000 per year."

Working people on council waiting lists get first dibs for these properties. And very nice some of them are too.

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

Working people on council waiting lists get first dibs for these properties. And very nice some of them are too.

Just out of curiosity where do all the non vulnerable unemployed live?

ifstar

I'm somewhat surprised by that dktreesea. I work in the Muirhouse/Pilton area of Edinburgh and there has been quite a few new developments around that way. There are most definitely quite a lot of people living in the social housing properties that don't and haven't worked and some of them are a complete nightmare for the decent folk who are unfortunate enough to have them as their new neighbours.

I presume this will be covered by the "applicants on registered social landlord or council waiting lists" as them being from council waiting lists as some but not all will be registered drug addicts.

dktreesea

Growurown wrote: »

Just out of curiosity where do all the non vulnerable unemployed live?

From what I can see, a lot of them are still living with their parents, so over 16, non-dependent as far as CTC, CB and the like goes, unable to find work but also unable to find their own places to live, even though they are in families where the parents haven't finished having their own families.

Being unemployed can be quite a temporary situation. For a lot of the ones I know, work comes and goes. It's as if, once you get beyond education, there's no commitment to helping these people get into a one bedroom flat or even their own studio apartments. The ones who can't cope in their increasingly overcrowded parents houses move onto the street, sofa surfing, and, if they are lucky, get a spot at a hostel. Not much of a life accommodation wise.

dktreesea

ifstar wrote: »

I'm somewhat surprised by that dktreesea. I work in the Muirhouse/Pilton area of Edinburgh and there has been quite a few new developments around that way. There are most definitely quite a lot of people living in the social housing properties that don't and haven't worked and some of them are a complete nightmare for the decent folk who are unfortunate enough to have them as their new neighbours.

I presume this will be covered by the "applicants on registered social landlord or council waiting lists" as them being from council waiting lists as some but not all will be registered drug addicts.

We've had a look at some of the ones down near the waterfront, from Granton towards Muirhouse. Some of the development is set aside for sale, but a significant part of the properties that the housing association has for rental, even when it's going to people on council houses, seems to be reserved for mid market rentals.

While I realise part of the idea behind social housing is to provide affordable housing to people in work but on lower incomes, "mid market" starts at £1000 a month, which seems to preclude anyone on the minimum wage, and most definitely if they are younger. There are plenty of working people on council waiting lists, and I can understand they would all like a cheaper place to live. I'd like a places where the bathroom and kitchen got re-done every 20 years as well. But these are not homeless people. They are all more than capable of standing on their own two feet and depending on their own resourcefulness to source housing, evidenced by the fact that they already have a place to live.

How does it make sense to provide housing to "decent folk" at preferential rates, people who can presumably already afford their current private rentals, when we have so many homeless in Edinburgh, plus people living in crowded circumstances who are desperate for a decent place to live?

ifstar

That was the very places I was talking about and I know from experience that there are quite a lot of people in them who haven't and won't work.

Yeah I get what you are saying about people who are working and why should they get preference with new places, however they are probably more responsible and better neighbours. I've been to see numerous people in the new builds who's life is made hell because of terrible neighbours. I don't think they should necessarily be getting preferential rates, if it's a step up in house then it should cost a bit more and this would free a house that they move out of. I just don't see why someone who does nothing and contributes nothing financially should be rewarded with one of these new flats in a new development ahead of others.

dktreesea

ifstar wrote: »

That was the very places I was talking about and I know from experience that there are quite a lot of people in them who haven't and won't work.
.......

I just don't see why someone who does nothing and contributes nothing financially should be rewarded with one of these new flats in a new development ahead of others.

That's what scares me the most, our brave new world, where we think it is okay to judge whether people should have access to affordable decent quality housing, including new builds based on their financial contribution.

I've met quite a few young people, some of them already in their twenties, who would love to work but can't get paid work. Plenty of volunteering/slave labouring available, but no paid work.

I can understand owners of small businesses. Why take on someone at the minimum wage, albeit for quite low for 16 and 17 year olds, when the local job centre has an unlimited supply of workfare volunteers available at no charge? But I don't think it then follows that they should have access to social housing ahead of people who have fallen through the cracks and are having trouble getting back onto their feet.

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

That's what scares me the most, our brave new world, where we think it is okay to judge whether people should have access to affordable decent quality housing, including new builds based on their financial contribution.

In a time before benefits your ability to pay meant the difference between having somewhere to live or being destitute. I don't think most of society wants to go back to that situation.

If someone isn't able to work due to a disability should they be denied decent housing because they haven't contributed financially? Most people would say no, but what if their disability is self inflicted? Drug addict, alcoholic, smoker, grossly overweight - what then?

It isn't easy to make the distinction between those who 'deserve' housing and those who don't. It brings us back to the idea of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving poor'.

Yes it may seem unfair that those who haven't contributed get housed, especially in a nice brand new home, but how do we decide who gets those homes and those who don't, and if we ever get to the position where we do decide who gets the houses what happens to the ones who don't?

Depth_Charge

Hi

The evidence I am seeing is that more people are enquiring about DHPs as they receive their new Housing Benefit calculations showing required or increased payments.

More people enquiring about their council tax bills again as they receive their 2013/14 bills showing payments are now required or increased payments as a result of the changes.

Im still not convinced at all that the majority of people affected realise what is going on with their rent and council tax benefit and it will only be when the threatening letters or later stages of council tax recovery (Liability Orders & biliffs etc) and rent possession proceedings start to come through that the full impact of this will be felt.

The other welfare reform changes that are in the pipeline can only make finances worse in many cases and we could be heading for more people with debt problems.

Whatever your view there are going to be problems that will need addressing on the debt and budgeting front, the problem is going to be for some is that that their financial bottom line just wont add up.

Its going to take time for people to adjust if they ever really can as these are significant cuts in already low incomes for some.

In its present and proposed form I cant see this all working to be honest or at least it wont really be cost effective in a number of areas.

Mind you its early days and there just might be a U turn or two along the way or at least a few 'delays'

The advice agencies and food banks are going to get a hell of a lot busier

Just to balance things a little heres another BBC news article -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22045008

Just my take