Smaller Property Unavailable

nannytone_2

so thats ok.... as long as all disabled people are in !!!!!

bright_side

Tell them to get on their local property exchange site asap.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

so thats ok.... as long as all disabled people are in !!!!!

So you are and were fine for any disabled who didn't live in SH to pay, but now it's not OK? We need to create equality and there hasn't been any equality.

If your argument is that the PR should be equalised to SH then that is fair enough, but you can't have one group affected and the other not.

SkyeKnight

rogerblack wrote: »

In many cases, doing so will result in a higher outlay to the taxpayer - as rents in the private sector are larger.

Let's see.... family in two bed private rental move into two bed social housing. People in two bed social housing move into one bed private rental. How is this a higher outlay??? There are plenty of arguments against this fee but claiming it's going to cost taxpayers more is not one of them.

nannytone_2

princessdon wrote: »

So you are and were fine for any disabled who didn't live in SH to pay, but now it's not OK? We need to create equality and there hasn't been any equality.

If your argument is that the PR should be equalised to SH then that is fair enough, but you can't have one group affected and the other not.

it bever was fine. but social housing is plentiful in my area.... just not of the one bedroomed type. we have no choice, but its not costing you so who cares! you have your extra room> walk in wardrobe.
un aware tat you look after a beuce and thats admirable.
but financially it isnt much of a concern. lets see you happi;y losr 20% of your houshold income ...

nannytone_2

lets play to the lowest common denominator .... because thats how the people that arent reliant on benefits to any degree see it.
lets all live 10 to a roon, because thats what we deserve because we are unable to make our situations better.
we arent all workshy scum. a lot of ua cant improve our conditions.... does that mean we should be going cap in hand for every crumb?

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

it bever was fine. but social housing is plentiful in my area.... just not of the one bedroomed type. we have no choice, but its not costing you so who cares! you have your extra room> walk in wardrobe.
un aware tat you look after a beuce and thats admirable.
but financially it isnt much of a concern. lets see you happi;y losr 20% of your houshold income ...

I lost a lot more than 20%, my OH took a £27K drop in salary following redundancy and I lost 10% when I went term time.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

lets play to the lowest common denominator .... because thats how the people that arent reliant on benefits to any degree see it.
lets all live 10 to a roon, because thats what we deserve because we are unable to make our situations better.
we arent all workshy scum. a lot of ua cant improve our conditions.... does that mean we should be going cap in hand for every crumb?

No but what happens is that people only ever argue for themselves. If they argued for disabled to have an extra room (private or social) then there would be 2 groups, twice as strong and twice as many families who would support this with their MP.

At the moment you have people who have never once objected to this change. If they never allowed the lowest denominator to be there then it can't be lowered.

Once you accept a lowering it's always going to follow that others will go down. When WE and yes that is everyone, the country allowed them to make the cuts to Private Rental and to penalise disabled people who lived in them, this was always going to happen.

I wasn't aware of the issues (didn't come on here and my world isn't affected), but if I was I'd have fought.

And yes I do feel for disabled people and no I don't think it's right - but at the end of the day, it was passed years ago really when they allowed PR to happen, and I can't see them backtracking now. I have spoken to my MP and he basically said as such - the outcry from PR would be huge if they altered it.

The way to go is to get the change the way disabled people are treat in ALL rentals, not saying SH tenants need preferential treatment.

nannytone_2

i fought when i didnt affect ne .... when they changed LHA to the £)th oercebtike,,,, and wgeb they chabges the age ti 35.
it didnt affect me but i fought because it was unfair,
oeiole like you are finding it hard, but still not struggling.
when you struggle, who will support you>
no one, because you couldnt see the injustice and fight for us that are on the bottom of the pile.
i dont wish harm on anyone/ but when youre struggling ... think of us that you cast aside

Morlock

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Let's see.... family in two bed private rental move into two bed social housing. People in two bed social housing move into one bed private rental. How is this a higher outlay??? There are plenty of arguments against this fee but claiming it's going to cost taxpayers more is not one of them.

That sounds great in theory, but allocating social housing does not operate in that way. it is very unlikely that a family in private rental would be offered social housing. The property would be offered to the next eligible party on the list, which could well be another single tenant.

And claiming that the overall housing benefit bill could increase is a valid argument, there is no guarantee that it won't as a direct result of tenants moving in to the private sector.