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

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Almost ALL local authorities are granting priority. It's in their own interests.

That is more guesswork than thorough research.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

That is more guesswork than thorough research.

No. It's just knowledge. You should try it sometime. In fact, why don't you try it now and identify a LA NOT offering under-occupancy priority? As you believe them to be the majority, that should be very easy to do. And if you can't, at least it will be an education for you.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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

I do believe her, she has no motivation to lie. In fact, she is now being accused of 'queue jumping', which is to her detriment. I think you just cannot believe that a policy touted to reduce under-occupancy, is having no affect in this case. I expect this will happen in many future cases too.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

if you re4ceive HB. of you dont then its ok for a single person to occupy a 5 bed house? according to you it is!

it isnt abouut freeing homes for families,,,, its about whether you can pay
so if you have plenty oif money then the homeless and over crowded can rot?

As I said earlier, the purpose of the policy is to reduce the HB bill, the fact of freeing up larger properties and encouraging people into (more) work are beneficial side effects. Your move will be successful on two of those counts.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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

We don't bid up here so I would probably have that wrong, but surely if two people bid on the same property, the one with most points or higher priority will get it. Which wasn't nanny, as they offered the bloke the property.

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.

But that's what I'm saying... she didn't. It's just not working as it should.

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

You realise there are people waiting for more suitable housing for years too? Those are on waiting lists...Like the friend waiting for a gnd floor flat.. she's on a waiting list... so how would it not reduce the waiting list if she was rehoused? It may not reduce those waiting from the private sector, but it would reduce A WAITING LIST.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

I do believe her, she has no motivation to lie. In fact, she is now being accused of 'queue jumping', which is to her detriment. I think you just cannot believe that a policy touted to reduce under-occupancy, is having no affect in this case. I expect this will happen in many future cases too.

It's reduced the burden on the public purse, and might even cause Nanny to focus on anything but herself for a while. That's quite a benefit, I'd say.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

We don't bid up here so I would probably have that wrong, but surely if two people bid on the same property, the one with most points or higher priority will get it. Which wasn't nanny, as they offered the bloke the property.

It wasn't Nanny, because she didn't bid. In fact, she didn't even apply to be able to bid.

As for the highest bidder, what do you suppose happens if all bidders have no points or priority?

mazza111 wrote: »

But that's what I'm saying... she didn't. It's just not working as it should.

Then you read the published allocation policy and apply it to the individual circumstances. THAT'S why they use a fair, transparent, well consulted, published policy with a clear avenue of challenge. It's the only way to be fair to all, not just the few.

mazza111 wrote: »

You realise there are people waiting for more suitable housing for years too? Those are on waiting lists...Like the friend waiting for a gnd floor flat.. she's on a waiting list... so how would it not reduce the waiting list if she was rehoused? It may not reduce those waiting from the private sector, but it would reduce A WAITING LIST.

I've made the difference between the transfer list and the waiting list quite clear. If you don't understand the differing impact on those waiting to move into social housing now, you never will. Maybe those blinkers are just too tight?

Just as an additional thought... Transfers LENGTHEN the average waiting time, rather than reduce it.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

No. It's just knowledge. You should try it sometime. In fact, why don't you try it now and identify a LA NOT offering under-occupancy priority? As you believe them to be the majority, that should be very easy to do. And if you can't, at least it will be an education for you.

I never stated the majority don't give priority, you were insinuating that all do, which is not the case.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It wasn't Nanny, because she didn't bid. In fact, she didn't even apply to be able to bid.

As for the highest bidder, what do you suppose happens if all bidders have no points or priority?

No idea. Don't imagine that will happen very often, if ever, ppl with NO points? Seriously?

Then you read the published allocation policy and apply it to the individual circumstances. THAT'S why they use a fair, transparent, well consulted, published policy with a clear avenue of challenge. It's the only way to be fair to all, not just the few.

I can only go by the way it works up here. They work from several lists on a rotational basis. Something like 75% are allocated as homeless properties right away. The next 25% will be allocated to each list. General housing, disabled, overcrowed, under occupied etc. Not necessarily in that order, or there maybe something like 10% will go to the disabled list. But what I'm saying is, it's obviously not working, when someone has been stuck in their flat for over a year, when other able bodied people get flats that would be more suitable to the disabled. We do not have a bidding system. We just have to wait for them contacting us, or ear bash them in the meantime.

I've made the difference between the transfer list and the waiting list quite clear. If you don't understand the differing impact on those waiting to move into social housing now, you never will. Maybe those blinkers are just too tight?

Just as an additional thought... Transfers LENGTHEN the average waiting time, rather than reduce it.

They are still on bleeding waiting lists. I'm on a WAITING list right now. I'm still WAITING. I totally understand the differing impact on those waiting to move into social housing. That doesn't make it any easier for disabled people that are in totally unsuitable housing for their needs.

I actually don't mind waiting for more suitable housing, as there are plenty worse off than me. I'm still able to do my stairs, albeit slowly. But for those who can't, it must be so difficult and degrading for them.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

I never stated the majority don't give priority, you were insinuating that all do, which is not the case.

Awwww, Bless. I can see you are getting all confused. Remember that "knowledge" thing I mentioned? Well, allow me to help you gain some....

YOU said...

Morlock wrote: »

There is no priority in many local authorities, in some there is, I understand that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but it is a fact.

"Many" clearly implies more than just "some".

I replied....

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Almost ALL local authorities are granting priority.

See where I wrote "Almost all"?

There. Is that clearer for you now? I tried to avoid using the long words. If you still don't understand, just let me know and I'll get you some crayons.... But only if you promise not to eat them again.