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

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

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

Happens all the time. Take these lets by Nottingham (not far from Nanny, so similar supply/demand). See all those one beds going to non priority bidders (band 4)?

https://bid.nottinghamhomelink.org.uk/docs/2013/April/130405.pdf

I just picked a random recent date, but there are more available if you want a close look. The answer is that they are ordered in accordance to the date they joined the list. A bit like a queue, the person waiting the longest is at the front.

mazza111 wrote: »

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'm not aware of ANY provider allocating 75% of their stock just to homeless applicants.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Happens all the time. Take these lets by Nottingham (not far from Nanny, so similar supply/demand). See all those one beds going to non priority bidders (band 4)?

https://bid.nottinghamhomelink.org.uk/docs/2013/April/130405.pdf

I just picked a random recent date, but there are more available if you want a close look. The answer is that they are ordered in accordance to the date they joined the list. A bit like a queue, the person waiting the longest is at the front.

Then all I can say is, the points system must work a lot different down there.

I'm not aware of ANY provider allocating 75% of their stock just to homeless applicants.

I read it somewhere the other day. Not 100% sure on the exact figures, but it was very high. But we do have a lot of parents telling the council that they have kicked little Johnny and Annie out for the sake of them jumping the queue. So maybe that's why the figure was so high

I'll try and find it again and quote it But first I need to get my rear into the bath, had my physio today and my behind is starting to ache

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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...



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

I replied....



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.

Calm down, dear.

bloolagoon

Can someone explain how this works to me please as I have no understanding of this bidding system.

Nanny states 1 bedrooms are hugely in demand, mass waiting lists as lack of them and 2 bedrooms are easy to come by.

So a priority singleton was offered the 1 bed (bid on this?) when there were 2 beds he didnt have to wait for. Why could he not have been given a 2 bed if he wanted one and willing to pay, why did he have to be on a long list for the 1 bed.

Also if he refused it why did the next priority bidder not get the flat? Is it only the leader bidder that gets a look in, I assumed they'd then offer to number 2.

How can people who do not bid get rehoused?

Sorry for all the questions I would like to understand more to help others.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Calm down, dear.

I'm perfectly calm. Found any local authorities NOT offering under-occupancy priority yet? Maybe they ALL do after all?

lighting_up_the_chalice

bloolagoon wrote: »

Can someone explain how this works to me please as I have no understanding of this bidding system.

Nanny states 1 bedrooms are hugely in demand, mass waiting lists as lack of them and 2 bedrooms are easy to come by.

So a priority singleton was offered the 1 bed (bid on this?) when there were 2 beds he didnt have to wait for. Why could he not have been given a 2 bed if he wanted one and willing to pay, why did he have to be on a long list for the 1 bed.

Also if he refused it why did the next priority bidder not get the flat? Is it only the leader bidder that gets a look in, I assumed they'd then offer to number 2.

How can people who do not bid get rehoused?

Sorry for all the questions I would like to understand more to help others.

Allow me.....

bloolagoon wrote: »

Nanny states.

This is where the confusion stems from.

bloolagoon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Allow me.....



This is where the confusion stems from.

That's not really helpful I do not see any reason for her to say she has a 1 bed when she hasn't, I'm just interested in how the process works generally so I can help others.

Can a singleton not bid on a 2 bed if they are spare?

Do they not go to 2nd priority if more than one bidder?

lighting_up_the_chalice

bloolagoon wrote: »

That's not really helpful I do not see any reason for her to say she has a 1 bed when she hasn't, I'm just interested in how the process works generally so I can help others.

Can a singleton not bid on a 2 bed if they are spare?

Do they not go to 2nd priority if more than one bidder?

Sorry.

Singletons MAY bid on 2 beds, depending on the supply within the area. Unlikely in London (high demand/low availability), more likely elsewhere. But still very rare for a singleton/childless couple to be able to bid on a 2 bed house. But a 2 bed flat? Quite likely.

Priority is awarded according to need, not household size. So, if a singleton is top for a 2 bed flat, they SHOULD be considered first, regardless of who is in second.

However, the provider will often make certain provisos within the advert... "preference will be given to households with 2 or more adults" etc.

bloolagoon

Thank you for that it is much appreciated

mazza111

bloolagoon wrote: »

Can someone explain how this works to me please as I have no understanding of this bidding system.

Nanny states 1 bedrooms are hugely in demand, mass waiting lists as lack of them and 2 bedrooms are easy to come by.

So a priority singleton was offered the 1 bed (bid on this?) when there were 2 beds he didnt have to wait for. Why could he not have been given a 2 bed if he wanted one and willing to pay, why did he have to be on a long list for the 1 bed.

Also if he refused it why did the next priority bidder not get the flat? Is it only the leader bidder that gets a look in, I assumed they'd then offer to number 2.

How can people who do not bid get rehoused?

Sorry for all the questions I would like to understand more to help others.

Nanny's situation was quite unique that the two 1 bedroom flats, were reclassified. They used to be flats for children leaving care etc. They were assisted living. That's the way I've read it anyhoo. They have now been reclassified to general living.

The 2 bedroom properties that were available may not have been in the exact area of the town he wanted. I don't know, not living there.

He didn't refuse the flat. He was all for accepting the flat, but the HA offered him nanny's 2 bedroom instead of the 1 bedroom, killing 2 birds with one stone.


We don't have a bidding system here. But singles are regularly given 2 bedroom accommodation because of the lack of 1 bedroom properties. More so those who are over 50 and they can go into one of the great high rise flats we have here. They are excellent, coursierge, spotless clean, parking in abundance, some garages. My mam n dad lived in one before dad died and they are great sized flats, I'd wouldn't mind one of them myself when the wee man leaves home I'm guessing you would need to look at each council's website to see what kind of bidding they allow as each area would be different

I checked those figures, it was 63% not 75%, I apologise for that