Bedroom Tax Is It Abolished

lighting_up_the_chalice

Councils do prioritise those who are under-occupying. Of course, it could be that the person who you swapped with was also in a priority band for other reasons. CBL is transparent, so those in priority would know they had been skipped. I'm sure they asked why and, as you seem to know everything about everyone in your village, I'm sure they would have told you all about it.

nannytone_2

i talked to BOTH the youth upstairs and the youth that took my other flat.
both lived with their parents and both were not overcrowded.
BOTH had also only been on the list for a matter of months.
the one that took my old flat has already moved again ( just before xmas) and that flat has been given to yet another single person.
so it seems that NO families are bidding on 2 bed flats! but never mind. those single ob venefits in 2 bed flats can manage without their benefits.
the fact that NO families want them, and there is no where else for them to go is totally irrelevant.
just to add ... my6 old flat was SO in demand that it stood empty for over 2 ,omths and was up for bidding for 6 weeks before anyone placed a bid on it

Confuseddot

Again its a bit of postcode lottery on how some of the councils are applying their version of the rules which is incorrect.


But if you look at Edinburgh there are apparently thousand under occupying both 2 and 3 bed apartments these people had a priority rating but there are quite a few 1 and 2 bed properties that have gone to non priority households so not a single under occupying person had bid. Now if you were under occupying and applying for every available suitable property going and still were getting nowhere then yes you should be exempt for the reduction in benefits otherwise tough.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i talked to BOTH the youth upstairs and the youth that took my other flat.
both lived with their parents and both were not overcrowded.
BOTH had also only been on the list for a matter of months.
the one that took my old flat has already moved again ( just before xmas) and that flat has been given to yet another single person.
so it seems that NO families are bidding on 2 bed flats! but never mind. those single ob venefits in 2 bed flats can manage without their benefits.
the fact that NO families want them, and there is no where else for them to go is totally irrelevant.
just to add ... my6 old flat was SO in demand that it stood empty for over 2 ,omths and was up for bidding for 6 weeks before anyone placed a bid on it

There are more reasons for priority than just overcrowding.

Many providers in comparatively low demand areas won't allow families with children to bid on flats.

Perhaps, despite all these under occupiers whinging about there being no smaller units, there just isn't the demand for smaller units.

nannytone_2

Confuseddot wrote: »

Again its a bit of postcode lottery on how some of the councils are applying their version of the rules which is incorrect.


But if you look at Edinburgh there are apparently thousand under occupying both 2 and 3 bed apartments these people had a priority rating but there are quite a few 1 and 2 bed properties that have gone to non priority households so not a single under occupying person had bid. Now if you were under occupying and applying for every available suitable property going and still were getting nowhere then yes you should be exempt for the reduction in benefits otherwise tough.

i agree.
i have said time and again, that if people CHOOSE to under occupy, then i see no problem with charging them for their choice, but in most areas, there are not enough smaller properties to accomodate those that need to downsize.
nationwide, there is a dire shortage of social housing, but in my area, the average wait for a house with a garden is under 3 months!
so families arent interested in flats with no garden, and the council still have a policy of new builds being 2 and 3 beds because it gives THEM the most housing options
it doesnt seem to matter what the local population needs

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i agree.
i have said time and again, that if people CHOOSE to under occupy, then i see no problem with charging them for their choice, but in most areas, there are not enough smaller properties to accomodate those that need to downsize.
nationwide, there is a dire shortage of social housing, but in my area, the average wait for a house with a garden is under 3 months!
so families arent interested in flats with no garden, and the council still have a policy of new builds being 2 and 3 beds because it gives THEM the most housing options
it doesnt seem to matter what the local population needs

No. But it matters what the local population WANTS. As your current 1 bed flat was originally allocated to a single person who, you state, had no priority, it would indicate that those who were in priority, including under-occupiers, didn't bid.

nannytone_2

over 50 bid on each flat though.( though it may be that the same 50 odd bid on both)
the council then choose who they put forward for the property.
i also assume that the council told other people the same as they told me ... that there were no 1 bed properties/
i only founf out that these had been reclassified because i was already a tenant of the HA

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

over 50 bid on each flat though.( though it may be that the same 50 odd bid on both)
the council then choose who they put forward for the property.

That's NOT how CBL works. For confirmation, just look at the published Allocations Policy.

nannytone wrote: »

i also assume that the council told other people the same as they told me ... that there were no 1 bed properties/
i only founf out that these had been reclassified because i was already a tenant of the HA

Well, at least 50 managed to find your flat, so it wasn't that much of a secret.

nannytone_2

they found it because it had been placed on the lettings site.
those that had previously enquired about a move had been told that there were no suitable properties, that doesnt mean that people were not looking outside of the area and came across them!
my council puts HA properties on their website. it then shorlists people, passes that shortlist to the HA who then interview and allocate.
i dont care if that is the recognised way of operating ... it is the way it is done here

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

they found it because it had been placed on the lettings site.
those that had previously enquired about a move had been told that there were no suitable properties, that doesnt mean that people were not looking outside of the area and came across them!
my council puts HA properties on their website. it then shorlists people, passes that shortlist to the HA who then interview and allocate.
i dont care if that is the recognised way of operating ... it is the way it is done here

If that was the case, they would have been challenged long before now. Allocations are transparent and sufficient details are published that anyone skipped over would be aware.