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

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The following is from a report by the Scottish Federation of Housing Association, published in February, detailing how Scottish HAs are preparing for welfare reform, inc bedroom tax.

"Support for under-occupiers.

Half of all HAs already offered support for under-occupiers ahead of welfare reform, such as prioritising under-occupiers on the transfer list. A further 28% were either in the progress of implementing this service or planned on offering this service."

I can only go on my own LA and the HA my dd is with. My LA offer 10 points I think for under occupying. I can't really comment on the HA my dd is with, because they only have 2 bedroom properties. They were built predominantly for the disabled. It used to be sheltered housing (where I worked) and they decided to build 2 bedroom flats for disabled, one good sized room and a small room for carers.

But 10 points is a drop in the ocean compared to the 150 that you could get for over occupying. So those over occupying are rarely getting enough points to qualify for a house unless they have other needs. Like I've got extra points because of harassment from my neighbours.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Surely, avoiding the bedroom tax IS the financial incentive to downsize.

Again, not when there's no where to go to. The dd only moved a couple of months ago, she certainly couldn't afford to do it again. She would have been as happy as a pig in poo if she could have stayed in her 1 bedroom flat. Unfortunately, when a property can't be adapted, then you have to take what's offered. Don't get me wrong, her new flat is gorgeous, but she's paying for a room she can't access in her wheelchair :rotfl: It's for carers, you can fit a single bed in and nothing else. She can manually push her chair in, and then sit in it to hoover, but can't self propel into it cos her fingers get jammed.

I'll reiterate, I do believe EVERYONE should downsize when and where they can. But when there are no/very few one bedroom properties.. I disagree with it completely.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

But 10 points is a drop in the ocean compared to the 150 that you could get for over occupying. So those over occupying are rarely getting enough points to qualify for a house unless they have other needs. Like I've got extra points because of harassment from my neighbours.

But over-occupiers are NOT competing for 1 bedroom properties, so their points are irrelevant.

mazza111 wrote: »

Again, not when there's no where to go to.

The question was about financial incentives to downsize. Clearly, you agree with me that the bedroom tax sets the financial incentive and providing even more financial incentives would make no difference.

mazza111 wrote: »

I'll reiterate, I do believe EVERYONE should downsize when and where they can. But when there are no/very few one bedroom properties.. I disagree with it completely.

Define "very few".

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

the OP was made after i became aware the property was becoming vabant. i thought i was aware pf the correct facts, but clearly, there was some confusion.
my PA had spoken to the upstairs tenant and she was under the impression that the downstairs tenant was moving out. in fact the tenant of the property hadn't been seen or heard from for months and the HA were clearing the flat.

it had already been on the LA lisyt and accepting bids from the monday ( 2 days BEFORE i founf out about it)

i have said several times that not all the information in the OP has turned out to be correct... but at the time of posting it was what i thought to be the case/

it doesnt matter now anyway, as i will be moving in within the next few days ( as soon as my carpets have been refitted)

If, as your latest version of events detailed above would indicate, the bidding cycle was open, and the property available to bid on, your HA would have suggested that you bid on it.

nannytone_2

i have defined 'very few' for you many times.
up until the two one beds were reclassified, there were NO 1 bed properties in a town with a population of around 10,000.
i'd say that counts as 'very few'

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i have defined 'very few' for you many times.
up until the two one beds were reclassified, there were NO 1 bed properties in a town with a population of around 10,000.
i'd say that counts as 'very few'

I was responding to Mazza, who posted...

mazza111 wrote: »

I'll reiterate, I do believe EVERYONE should downsize when and where they can. But when there are no/very few one bedroom properties.. I disagree with it completely.

... Do I take it you agree with her sentiment?

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If, as your latest version of events detailed above would indicate, the bidding cycle was open, and the property available to bid on, your HA would have suggested that you bid on it.

as i have also said before ,,, i was not on the council waiting list, so would have been unable to bid!
i was not on the list as when i went to put my name down, the council told me there was no pont because there were NO 1 bed propertiers,

the HA knew i wasnt on the list and so said that they would ask the council to withdraw the property. the council refused and after bidding closed, nominated a prospective tenant to the HA.
the HA gave this new prospective tenant the CHOICE of whether he wanted the 1 bed that he had bid on, or MY 2 bed.

HR CHOSE my 2 bed, and so i could be offe3red the 1 bed.

why do you find it so difficult to grasp?

or maybe you dont... you just like to be pedantic

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I was responding to Mazza, who posted...



... Do I take it you agree with her sentiment?

i do totally.
everyone should be obliged to downsize, whether they [ay rent or receive HB.

but to punish people when there are no alternatives, is unfair.

if the government said they were going to put a levy on all cars except those that had 3 wheels ..... and there certainly arent enough 3 wheeled cars to go arounbd ... wouldnt you think that was unfair?
( I know it isnt a tax, but as you say ... everyone that pays their own way already pays a 'tax'... so forcing them to pay a premium for something unavoidable seems similar enough to me)

Dogger69

nannytone wrote: »

why do you find it so difficult to grasp?

or maybe you dont... you just like to be pedantic

I expect people are finding your story so difficult to grasp because it keeps changing! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

nannytone_2

it changed slightly from the OP, in regards to my thinking that it was occupied rather than abandoned.
YOU were the one that started confusion with the bidding date.
i said right from the word go that the council refused to withdraw the property ... if it hadnt already gone onto the bidding system then there would have been nothing for the HA to withdraw it from would there?
they would have simply just let me move

Dogger69

nannytone wrote: »

it changed slightly from the OP, in regards to my thinking that it was occupied rather than abandoned.
YOU were the one that started confusion with the bidding date.
i said right from the word go that the council refused to withdraw the property ... if it hadnt already gone onto the bidding system then there would have been nothing for the HA to withdraw it from would there?
they would have simply just let me move

I was (at least) the third person that mentioned it, and you still have not been able to explain the discrepancies in your story. Anyone would think you were making it up! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: