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

KxMx

I can see why some are calling Nanny selfish, and maybe she is being so, but sometimes you have to be selfish and look out for yourself because no-one else is going to do it for you! Being selfish is not necessarily a bad thing, there are times and places when it is the appropriate and right response to put yourself first.

But I suspect the haters will always hate, and people will slate Nanny for moaning about the BT, and slate her whichever way she tries to change the situation.

If I was in Nanny's shoes I would be trying every avenue to get that one bed too.

Call me selfish too if you want I don't care!

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Every bit of your entire post indicates that you do have the same issues as providers in the South East and London. Maybe not to quite the same extent, but if supply is so short that only the homeless, or those in priority need, get a look in, the issues are the same.

Offering overcrowded families greater priority ensures that those families can move to bigger properties, thus freeing up those properties for smaller families (or singles). You're on about single person accommodation, a resource for which you will never be in direct competition with an overcrowded household who need a bigger property. Seems fair enough to me.

We have no problems allocating 2 bedroom properties. We have them in abundance. We have 2 tower blocks that are ONLY for couples over 50, singles or people with mobility needs. They will never be allocated to families. The only time we have problems is for larger properties, 3+ bedrooms and 1 bedroom properties. Or for those with disability needs.

Yes we will have a wait for certain areas for 2 bedroom properties. And yes, families who are in need will always be given priority. But there is no incentive for people to downsize, 10 points of a possible 200 is a drop in the ocean.

Would it really hurt to use a bit of forward planning and work from a couple of lists for any council, rather than just one? Trust me, our situation is much different from those in the South East. From one who lived in Brighton for 14 years and now lives in sunny Scotland

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

We have no problems allocating 2 bedroom properties. We have them in abundance. We have 2 tower blocks that are ONLY for couples over 50, singles or people with mobility needs. They will never be allocated to families. The only time we have problems is for larger properties, 3+ bedrooms and 1 bedroom properties. Or for those with disability needs.

Again, that abundance of 2 beds will make it easier for the overcrowded to move out of their cramped 1 beds, freeing up a property for someone under-occupying social housng.

mazza111 wrote: »

Yes we will have a wait for certain areas for 2 bedroom properties. And yes, families who are in need will always be given priority. But there is no incentive for people to downsize, 10 points of a possible 200 is a drop in the ocean.

But a huge mountain if you aren't lucky enough to be occupying social housing and have those 10 points. Applicants in the private sector, unaffected by the bedroom tax, but still possibly paying a higher shortfall, won't even get the 10 points! Your focusing too much on everyone elses points instead of your own. Those with medical points won't be after a general needs property, those with overcrowding points won't be after a 1 bed property, etc etc etc.

mazza111 wrote: »

Would it really hurt to use a bit of forward planning and work from a couple of lists for any council, rather than just one? Trust me, our situation is much different from those in the South East. From one who lived in Brighton for 14 years and now lives in sunny Scotland

Apart from a handful of criteria (homelessness etc) allocations policies ARE set at a local level.

mazza111

There is no overcrowding in one bedrooms here. We don't have enough 1 bedrooms places. End of story!!!

There is such a lack of 1 bedroom properties that 9/10 of applicants are offered a 2 bedroom place. Around 90% of our one bedroom properties are either sheltered housing or ground floor flats like the one the dd was in. Really suitable for oldies, on a great bus route, close to town centre etc. The dd would have stayed there forever if adaptations could have been made to the property.

Policies may be set at local level, but I've never seen one that works with some forward planning, ie working from more than one list at a time.

If someone is under occupying a private rental they will get the same points as someone under occupying a LA house...

I'm focusing on my own area, not my own circumstances. I'm not over or under occupying. But I do find it unfair on those in 2 bedroom properties who CAN'T downsize. Nothing to do with my points whatsoever.

bigboybrother

mazza111 wrote: »

There are very few one bedroom places available in this entire county. 5 in this immediate town. 1 maybe suitable for people with limited mobility (only 1 ground floor flat, haven't seen inside, so it could be totally unsuitable.) We have 2 bedroom flats that aren't allowed children in them. So no good to families anyway. There is no priorities given to people who are over occupying in this area. I've been there and downsized before there was any mention of a bedroom tax. So you expect people to move away from their support networks? I guess you don't need anyone eh? You can't CHOOSE to downsize when the properties aren't available.

I've just had a look on Rightmove and within a 5 mile radius there are 125, 1 bed properties to rent ranging from £725 a month to £250 a month AND 121, 2 bed properties ranging from £850 a month to £400 a month.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

There is no overcrowding in one bedrooms here. We don't have enough 1 bedrooms places. End of story!!!

No-one living in a 1 bed gets pregnant? Ever? Really?

mazza111 wrote: »

Policies may be set at local level, but I've never seen one that works with some forward planning, ie working from more than one list at a time.

I don't understand your logic of having 2 lists? That would just mean 2 groups of people waiting twice as long.

mazza111 wrote: »

If someone is under occupying a private rental they will get the same points as someone under occupying a LA house...

Again, from the Allocations Policies I linked to earlier.....

http://www.gha.org.uk/content/mediaassets/doc/New%20Allocations%20Policy%20-%202_.pdf

6.1 Housing Needs Priorities
We give priority to the following categories of housing need.

(h) Under-occupation
Because we have relatively few larger properties (i.e. 3 bedrooms or more) we will award a priority to GHA tenants who are living in a three bedroom property or larger where the household is looking for a smaller property, for example an elderly tenant or younger tenant who has succeeded to a tenancy wants to move to a smaller property.
Amendment: Additionally, in order to assist GHA tenants directly affected by Welfare Benefits changes as referred to at 5.4; we will also offer this priority grouping to GHA tenants under-occupying 2 bedroom properties.

http://www.ardenglen.co.uk/documents/allocationspolicy2010.pdf

4) IF YOUR PRESENT ACCOMMODATION IS OVERCROWDED, OR IF IT IS TOO BIG
You can receive points at ONE of the levels shown below

You have
– Any number of extra bedrooms and you live in a 4
apartment or larger.
Only Ardenglen tenants who have lived in their present house for at least one year can receive these points. The
aim is to help us make the best use of our houses by freeing up larger houses that are in high demand.
– One or more extra bedrooms you don’t need
(tenants of any social landlord can receive these points, if they are willing to move from a house that is larger than
they need)

mazza111 wrote: »

I'm focusing on my own area, not my own circumstances. I'm not over or under occupying. But I do find it unfair on those in 2 bedroom properties who CAN'T downsize. Nothing to do with my points whatsoever.

The current shortage of social housing is causing hardship for many people. However, those wishing to downsize are being given every possible opportunity to do so... Far more opportunities than many other groups suffering hardship.

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

There is no overcrowding in one bedrooms here. We don't have enough 1 bedrooms places. End of story!!!

There is such a lack of 1 bedroom properties that 9/10 of applicants are offered a 2 bedroom place. Around 90% of our one bedroom properties are either sheltered housing or ground floor flats like the one the dd was in. Really suitable for oldies, on a great bus route, close to town centre etc. The dd would have stayed there forever if adaptations could have been made to the property.

Policies may be set at local level, but I've never seen one that works with some forward planning, ie working from more than one list at a time.

If someone is under occupying a private rental they will get the same points as someone under occupying a LA house...

I'm focusing on my own area, not my own circumstances. I'm not over or under occupying. But I do find it unfair on those in 2 bedroom properties who CAN'T downsize. Nothing to do with my points whatsoever.

Surely there must be some people in your area who are working and paying their own rent, even in social housing!

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

Surely there must be some people in your area who are working and paying their own rent, even in social housing!

Of course they are! I was one of them for many years. I still don't think that gives us the right to under occupy a home. As I've said I'm all for downsizing where ever possible. Please point it out to me where I said otherwise?


People who are living in 1 bedroom places who get pregnant are given one of those 2 bedroom places that we have in abundance...Although as previously stated, it's nearly all oldies in the one bedroom places.



BBB/Andy - Whatever you are calling yourself this week. There is 5 1 bed flats to rent in our town. 6 if you count the studio that's no more than a bedsit with kitchen. We looked at it when the fella was looking for his place. Needless to say it's in such a state, it's still not been let.

Surrounding towns fair a bit better, with 6, 7 and 1 does worse with 3 private lets available.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

Of course they are! I was one of them for many years. I still don't think that gives us the right to under occupy a home. As I've said I'm all for downsizing where ever possible. Please point it out to me where I said otherwise?


People who are living in 1 bedroom places who get pregnant are given one of those 2 bedroom places that we have in abundance...Although as previously stated, it's nearly all oldies in the one bedroom places.



BBB/Andy - Whatever you are calling yourself this week. There is 5 1 bed flats to rent in our town. 6 if you count the studio that's no more than a bedsit with kitchen. We looked at it when the fella was looking for his place. Needless to say it's in such a state, it's still not been let.

Surrounding towns fair a bit better, with 6, 7 and 1 does worse with 3 private lets available.

I'm afraid that if they haven't got what you want on your doorstep, you will just have to go further afield for it.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm afraid that if they haven't got what you want on your doorstep, you will just have to go further afield for it.

But that's not possible for disabled people of those who are caring for them. That's the bit you don't seem to understand.