housing benefit reduction. a solution but the council is blocking it!

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

so its ok for someone to start a bew tenancy in a property too big as long as they pay their rent?
then the poor overcrowded families dont count anymore?

The purpose of the HB reduction is to cut the benefits bill so obviously people who pay their own rent aren't affected. The fact that this will, in some cases, free up underoccupied housing is a beneficial side effect, as is the fact that some people will be encouraged into (more) employment.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

so its ok for someone to start a bew tenancy in a property too big as long as they pay their rent?
then the poor overcrowded families dont count anymore?

But those paying their own rent have been paying a "bedroom tax" for decades. I didn't see too many protests then.

lighting_up_the_chalice

wozearly wrote: »

On the note of the council prioritising someone who is homeless, that's to be expected - being homeless places you pretty near the top of the priority list, (rightly or wrongly) above people who are in social housing but may not be able to afford their current property after the housing benefit cut.

That homelessness should be raise is very interesting. If a home is demonstrably unaffordable, there is an argument that homelessness is the appropriate avenue. Of course, it tends to be a "one offer" policy and allocations include the wider local authority area. But this may be an option worth considering if the minimal financial penalty is genuinely unaffordable!

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think that things have changed, with sharers having separate tenancy agreements, although sharing as you describe was certainly the norm in the 70s when I was sharing. Nowadays, even student houseshares are normally with separate tenancy agreements.

Amusing that chalice "thanked" you for this. S/he must be on partisan auto-pilot. Whatever,

I lived in both types of housing in the 60s/70s, as well as in bedsit houses. The first kind is rarer, now.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Amusing that chalice "thanked" you for this. S/he must be on partisan auto-pilot. Whatever,

I lived in both types of housing in the 60s/70s, as well as in bedsit houses. The first kind is rarer, now.

I "Thanked" because I agreed with it. Simples.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

Amusing that chalice "thanked" you for this. S/he must be on partisan auto-pilot. Whatever,

I lived in both types of housing in the 60s/70s, as well as in bedsit houses. The first kind is rarer, now.

Which is exactly what I said!

FBaby

1. waiting for an exchange is futile as there are NO 1 bed properties in my area, apart from the 2 i mentioned ( one is currently vacant. until now they were classed as supported housing for young people and have just been reclassified as general housing.

It wouldn't be futile as as you are currently experiencing, against your expectation, two properties DID become available. It might be unexpected luck but it still did happen, so can't see how what you would lose from being on the list.

i know what my council have told me. i can apply but would be given no priority when it comes to banding as i am adequately housed and not in need
they cant put you on a list for something that doesnt exist!

But maybe you might not need to be a priority. It's all about offer and demand. The offer might be low as you keep going on about it, but similarly, the demand might be very low too. You've said yourself that there is no homelessness in your area, so that's already one priority that won't hold you back.

The deal is that the council has to show they are prioritising appropriately, so going through the ticking exercise, but that doesn't mean you have no chance because you are not high in the priority. Surely you would feel better you got the property fairly knowing no-one else needed more than you, than getting it because you were allowed to cheat the system?

neverdespairgirl

nannytone wrote: »

i cant bid. i was removed from the list when allocated this property. when the benefit reduction was announces i was told there was np point in applying as there was no alternative accomodation available ( size wise) and no plans to allow any to be built ( council policy is that 2 and 3 bed homes give them more options)

Which council is it?

neverdespairgirl

mazza111 wrote: »

As said a thousand times before, we have surplus 2 bedroom properties. We have a shortage of 1 and 3+ bedroom properties. So why shouldn't those who need them occupy a 2 bedroom?

They can occupy it. And the state will pay most of hte rent if they can't afford it themselves.

neverdespairgirl

mazza111 wrote: »

So if it happened to you or someone you cared about you would sit quietly and take it?

No, I wouldn't. But my personal solution wouldn't be to sit around and be "vocal" in the hope that someone else would cough up, it would be to help my daughter financially, or practically.