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

ab.da54

Something which concerns me is that the housing association have been discussing the male tenant's circumstances with the OP.

Surely that is in breach of data protection, if correct?

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

She wasn't allocated the 1 bedroom flat. The other chappy was. He had priority. It just so happened her HA had used a wee bit of forward planning, which is always a good thing imo. If chappy had said no, I'll stick with the 1 bedroom, she'd still be in her 2 bedroom...

Forward planning.... Corruption.... Sharp practice.... Call it what you will. We have no idea if this single, employed chappy had any priority at all.

mazza111 wrote: »

Now if they had applied that forward planning with my disabled friend, she would have been in the 2 bedroom ground floor flat, and her cousin would have been in an upstairs flat, cos there was no medical reasons for the cousin to have a gnd floor flat. And it would have been 2 people off the housing list instead of 1.

I have no idea what you are blathering on about now. Unless you are so blinkered that only you and yours count as people. 2 housing units will always house 2 households. Moving one from an existing unit to another existing unit isn't going to reduce the number WAITING for social housing. Just the number looking for a transfer WITHIN social housing.

custardy

nannytone wrote: »

your husband got made redundant. kets see how tiiy feek wgeb ge uus dusavked abs CABT work, just a suggestion... but how about youy get a full tune job?

This makes no sense
You have made some grand assumptions there
For one,I am male,I worked 80 hours last week
For someone that had a grand old rant on how they didnt work,whats your point

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But even more would like to live in your world, where keys are handed over on the click of your fingers, no need to apply, no need to bid, no need to take any notice of a fair and transparent allocations policy, just push right in to the front of the queue and sod everyone else. As long as you're alright Jack!

Disgraceful.

so i should be so selflessy toterant that i live ib bext to nothing to acconnodate everyine else?
unlike others i an bithered by the entire situatuin. now i an

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

How so? Because you do not believe the policy is so inept? Start believing.

No. Because I don't believe Nanny. I would have thought that much was very clear.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Forward planning.... Corruption.... Sharp practice.... Call it what you will. We have no idea if this single, employed chappy had any priority at all.



I have no idea what you are blathering on about now. Unless you are so blinkered that only you and yours count as people. 2 housing units will always house 2 households. Moving one from an existing unit to another existing unit isn't going to reduce the number WAITING for social housing. Just the number looking for a transfer WITHIN social housing.

If he was allocated the flat, he obviously had priority.

I am not blathering, maybe blethering Being a jock But hey ho.

You can't see that a disabled person waiting for a ground floor flat should take priority over someone with no disabilities for a ground floor flat?

It would still be 2 off the lists rather than 1. And one less person waiting for suitable accommodation. Whether that be one who's waiting for social housing or 1 who's already in social housing, it's still an extra one off the waiting list.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

If he was allocated the flat, he obviously had priority.

Why is it obvious. Plenty of one and two bed flats in the area go to people with no priority.

mazza111 wrote: »

You can't see that a disabled person waiting for a ground floor flat should take priority over someone with no disabilities for a ground floor flat?

Depends on the individual housing needs. Isn't that the whole point of having a fully consulted, published, fair, open and transparent allocations policy? Or are you another Nanny, who feels such things are just a tiresome waste of time and should apply to you and yours.... just the ordinary people.

mazza111 wrote: »

It would still be 2 off the lists rather than 1. And one less person waiting for suitable accommodation. Whether that be one who's waiting for social housing or 1 who's already in social housing, it's still an extra one off the waiting list.

It's not. A transfer is someone seeking BETTER social housing. The waiting list for those just seeking social housing.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Why is it obvious. Plenty of one and two bed flats in the area go to people with no priority.

If they've got to top of the list, they have priority over those at bottom of list...

Depends on the individual housing needs. Isn't that the whole point of having a fully consulted, published, fair, open and transparent allocations policy? Or are you another Nanny, who feels such things are just a tiresome waste of time and should apply to you and yours.... just the ordinary people.

Don't be ridiculous. You don't think when 2 flats are empty, one person is housebound because they are in an upstairs flat. The other is living with their parents and just had a baby. That the downstairs flat should go to the person who's living with parents? Again, I'll reiterate, would it not be better to allocate the downstairs flat to the person with the disability. She's nothing to do with me btw, just an online friend I've met through the support group that's been set up for my daughter's condition. She's still housebound all this time later because she can't get downstairs.






It's not. A transfer is someone seeking BETTER social housing. The waiting list for those just seeking social housing.[/QUOTE]

A transfer is not someone seeking BETTER social housing. It may be someone seeking MORE SUITABLE social housing.

Poppie68

welshee wrote: »

I have noticed the speeeeeling gets worse as she requests back-up from her beeeest palz.

Your having a larf !!

I actually don't believe there is anything wrong with you and you have dropped into a fantasy world...anyone who disagrees with me.. can you please prove any of these stories..
i am waiting................
No i thought not...the internet is not visible unless you have a webcam...have you nanny by any chance?

I too am having a problem believing this lastest development...well parts of it, but hey stranger things happen.

But your belittling of nannytone's spelling is way below the belt...I have noticed when she gets worked up or upset her words turn into gobblygook and it is nothing to make fun of.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

If they've got to top of the list, they have priority over those at bottom of list...

You clearly don't understand how bidding systems work. What happens if no-one with priority bids?

mazza111 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. You don't think when 2 flats are empty, one person is housebound because they are in an upstairs flat. The other is living with their parents and just had a baby. That the downstairs flat should go to the person who's living with parents? Again, I'll reiterate, would it not be better to allocate the downstairs flat to the person with the disability. She's nothing to do with me btw, just an online friend I've met through the support group that's been set up for my daughter's condition. She's still housebound all this time later because she can't get downstairs.

If she is in unsuitable housing due to a disability, she would have priority for that. Having a baby and living at home with parents wouldn't, on its own, attract a priority.

mazza111 wrote: »

A transfer is not someone seeking BETTER social housing. It may be someone seeking MORE SUITABLE social housing.

Either way, it's a transfer, which does nothing to reduce the waiting list.