Couple with child near me, offered a 2-bed bungalow in social housing!

shegirl

Chrissie72 wrote: »

if you're on housing benefit and her husband actually works, so they can't be.

.

People who work can claim housing benefit too.

paulineb_2

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

With respect, that's a lot of 'ifs' in your post. There's no objection to establishing the actual facts is there?

That this couple may "have had it tough" is irrelevant.

Facts of? Someone working being offered a tenancy? That seems to be the main objection to this couple being offered a home. Or the fact that they'll be paying less in rent than they would do to a private landlord and therefore have lots of money to spare.

Its actually not irrelevant that this couple may have had it tough. Because if the OP is concerned about how much spare money they have now or will have, they dont actually know anything about their outgoings, they are just assuming that they are going to be so much better off.

To a point, I could understand the OPs reaction if they had been for the house and was refused it, but this doesnt seem to be the case.
Seriously, questioning why a working couple are getting a housing association flat just because you think they'll have some spare money and that an elderly or disabled person should have had the house as priority?

And to establish facts, what exactly are people doing. Just getting facts or hoping that the housing offer will be withdrawn and given to someone else? Id actually be questioning my motives for doing anything if I were going to approach a HA and ask why someone got a house when I actually knew nothing about the circumstances of them being offered it.

Id never question why a council gave a house to someone over someone else, unless I happened to be that someone else. Otherwise its just prying into something that has nothing to do with you, on the basis of one conversation with the people who are going to be moving in.

paulineb_2

Chrissie72 wrote: »

Just wondered; how could this happen?

This couple are mid 40s, they have a child of 13, and have been in private let for 3.5 years since going bankrupt in late 2009.

She told me that she has been on the housing list for 5 years - 1.5 years before she and her husband went bankrupt. And last week, they were offered a bungalow from a local housing association!

I am baffled as they're not elderly or disabled. Only under occupied (the private let has 3 bedrooms,) but I think you would only get priority for under-occupying, if you're on housing benefit and her husband actually works, so they can't be. She is a stay at home mum and he works full time. The rent is only £70 a week, instead of £150 a week that their private let house is! They will have masses of surplus left. If they have been paying £150 a week, then they will be saving £80 a week!

Spare me the 'you sound jealous' and 'what's it got to do with you' lectures please I just wonder why and how they would be offered a bungalow. It's in a very nice area too.... a village with only 450 people, 4 miles from the nearest main town, half a mile from a main road, and with no shops or schools for a mile. I would have thought that kind of area would be highly sought after! It's so quiet and rural, yet only 4 miles from a large main town.

I believe anyone who is overcrowded can claim priority, nothing to do with being on benefits.

Being on benefits doesnt give someone an automatic right to housing or priority points, councils and HA's give priority to people who are deemed vulnerable or not as the case may be.

I used to work in homeless units and part of my job was helping people move into their own home from supported accommodation and in some cases even being in temporary accommodation didnt give a person extra housing points, neither did being pregnant. Issues like fleeing violence did, certain mental health issues.

And some of these people in temporary accommodation could wait up to 2 years for an allocation of a council house. Most of them were on benefits. That doesnt in itself give anyone priority for a council or housing association allocation.

This couple have waited their time on the list. Theyve not been offered a house quickly because obviously there were people in greater need. If they had been a few weeks on the list then you might have cause to be a bit more upset. But 5 years, a decent amount of time.

I feel sorry that its even being considered to question this allocation, it could be anyone you know, friend, family relative in that position and I bet you might think differently about asking questions if it were someone close to you.

geri1965_2

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

This is what I would do and I think it's reasonable too to ask the Authority to qualify their decision in relation to this specific case. After all, this is public money.

They are not obliged to discuss anyone's circumstances with anyone else. In fact the DPA would forbid them to do so.

And it isn't public money either!

POPPYOSCAR

geri1965 wrote: »

They are not obliged to discuss anyone's circumstances with anyone else. In fact the DPA would forbid them to do so.

And it isn't public money either!

Whose money is it then?

lighting_up_the_chalice

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Whose money is it then?

The tenants. They DO pay rent.

bitsandpieces

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It's a Housing Association, not bound by FOI.

And, even if it were bound by FOI, the reasons why an individual household got a property (and others didn't) would almost certainly be viewed as private personal data - so they would not release it. They'd be right not to, in my opinion - people often have quite sensitive reasons (e.g. health problems) for getting allocated properties.

It's great to use tools like FOI to scrutinise local government. Placing this type of request just wastes their time and money, though.

leveller2911

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Security of tenure, repairs being done, right to buy, regulated rent increases, proper complaints procedure with legal redress, succession rights, etc etc etc.

Repairs are not done properly or regularly.Usually major repairs should be carried out within 14-28 days but the pensioner across the road from us spent the whole of the 2011-12 Winter (4 months) without heating. When they did get their a*s in gear it took them 2 days to fit a new system.They had actually forgotten about her, no investigation as to why they had forgotten about an elderly pensioner.

Given that many HA housing stock was built with taxpayers money they should be bound by the FOI act.

Complaints procedure is laughable.It took me 2 years to go through their complaints procedure and finally onto the housing Ombudsman who found in my favour.

No succession rights for HA tenants unless they were previously Council tenants.No RTB for housing association tenants unless the tenancy was previously a Council tenancy.

The only advantages IMO are security of tenure and capped rent rises.

lighting_up_the_chalice

leveller2911 wrote: »

Repairs are not done properly or regularly.Usually major repairs should be carried out within 14-28 days but the pensioner across the road from us spent the whole of the 2011-12 Winter (4 months) without heating. When they did get their a*s in gear it took them 2 days to fit a new system.They had actually forgotten about her, no investigation as to why they had forgotten about an elderly pensioner.

Mistakes happen. But that doesn't negate what I said.

leveller2911 wrote: »

Given that many HA housing stock was built with taxpayers money they should be bound by the FOI act.

Maybe they should.... But they aren't. That's the way it is, which is why I said it was so.

leveller2911 wrote: »

Complaints procedure is laughable.It took me 2 years to go through their complaints procedure and finally onto the housing Ombudsman who found in my favour.

As a SH tenant, you had access to an independent ombudsman. Something PR tenants do not. Another advantage of SH, which is what I said.

leveller2911 wrote: »

No succession rights for HA tenants unless they were previously Council tenants.No RTB for housing association tenants unless the tenancy was previously a Council tenancy.

Many HA tenants who were not former LA tenants have the right to buy via their "right to acquire". Here are a couple of examples in your area:

http://www.moat.co.uk/Residents/I_rent_a_property/Buying_the_home_you_rent_from_Moat/

http://www.sanctuary-housingeast.co.uk/publications

leveller2911 wrote: »

The only advantages IMO are security of tenure and capped rent rises.

Both BIG advantages, I'm sure you will agree.

Shelldean

Chrissie72 wrote: »

Just wondered; how could this happen?

This couple are mid 40s, they have a child of 13, and have been in private let for 3.5 years since going bankrupt in late 2009.

She told me that she has been on the housing list for 5 years - 1.5 years before she and her husband went bankrupt. And last week, they were offered a bungalow from a local housing association!

I am baffled as they're not elderly or disabled. Only under occupied (the private let has 3 bedrooms,) but I think you would only get priority for under-occupying, if you're on housing benefit and her husband actually works, so they can't be. She is a stay at home mum and he works full time. The rent is only £70 a week, instead of £150 a week that their private let house is! They will have masses of surplus left. If they have been paying £150 a week, then they will be saving £80 a week!

Spare me the 'you sound jealous' and 'what's it got to do with you' lectures please I just wonder why and how they would be offered a bungalow. It's in a very nice area too.... a village with only 450 people, 4 miles from the nearest main town, half a mile from a main road, and with no shops or schools for a mile. I would have thought that kind of area would be highly sought after! It's so quiet and rural, yet only 4 miles from a large main town.

sorry if someone has answered this point( not read whole thread)
But you can be working and get housing benefit. So the fact he works full time and she is a SAHM doens't automatically mean they wont get HB. It will depend on his actual wages.

I'm a SAHM will OH works full time, we get Housing Benefit