Benefit claiments being discriminated against housing

mattcanary

FBaby wrote: »

The main difference is that those not relaying on HB will put much more importance on getting a clean rental history so that they themselves don't find themselves struggling to get somewhere to rent. Many landlords now ask for references from previous landlords, and one that says that they had to be evicted and that it took 6 months will be much more of an issue when they can't rely on HB to house them because of their professional status.

I'm not following. Being on Housing Benefit does not matter one iota when it comes to getting housed by a council or housing association.


Both tenants on Housing Benefit and those not on it will find it difficult to rent privately if they have been evicted from their previous address.


Both sets of tenants will be able to get housed by the council as homeless if they are classed as statutorily homeless (that is - they have children, are elderly, or have serious health or disability issues). That is, unless the council decides after doing their investigations that the people intentionally made themselves homeless.


If they are not statutorily homeless, both types of household have to rely on the private sector, friends or family or apply through the council or housing associations' choice-based lettings scheme. If they have not been on this list they will find it very difficult (no - impossible actually in most parts of the country) to get housed through this latter route for several years at least.
Choice based lettings schemes do not favour people on benefits over those not on benefits (despite what most people in the country seem to think). In fact, they are irrelevant. It is just that most people not on benefits never register as looking for a home through the council or housing association.




It is actually a good idea for everyone to register on the housing register (the route through which you can choose housing association or council properties you would like to move into if you wish - you bid against other people that would also like to move into the same property). You don't actually need to "bid" as it is called to move into any such property but as long as you confirm you would like to stay on the list when you receive your renewal letter every so often, then you can apply if and when the need arises in future. The earlier you register (perhaps when you are still living with your parents as a youngster) the better. Most schemes give you extra points for having been on the list for a long time.


As I say, a little known fact. But very true.






Anyway, if someone has "professional status" why have they fallen into such serious arrears as to cause getting evicted?
Through lack of money management, or some form of addiction surely? Either that or they just don't care about getting evicted.


Surely they are more easily able to prevent getting evicted if they fall behind with their rent as their monthly earnings allow them to catch up more easily and/or quickly?

SkyeKnight

mattcanary wrote: »

I'm not following. Being on Housing Benefit does not matter one iota when it comes to getting housed by a council or housing association.

OK, strictly kind of true, but being on Housing Benefit is a sign of low/no income so you are much more likely to qualify for a council house than those who don't qualify for HB.

mattcanary

SkyeKnight wrote: »

OK, strictly kind of true, but being on Housing Benefit is a sign of low/no income so you are much more likely to qualify for a council house than those who don't qualify for HB.

Your income has no bearing whatsoever as to whether you can be housed by the council.


If you own a home, that does normally mean you are ineligible. But private renters or people living with friends or family are never ineligible through a higher than average income.

SkyeKnight

mattcanary wrote: »

Your income has no bearing whatsoever as to whether you can be housed by the council.

If you own a home, that does normally mean you are ineligible. But private renters are never ineligible through a higher than average income.

I still think that's not right, though people on here keep saying that for some reason. I assume there must be some councils where income is not taken into account.

For example, East Riding puts you in the lowest priority band if:
"...following a financial and need assessment, would be able to purchase a property or rent market priced housing..."

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea:
"To qualify for the housing register you must not have savings of more than £16,000, and not have an income above £40,000 or £60,000 depending on the size of property you need."

Woking:
"In addition, if you have sufficient income to be considered for shared ownership or other low cost home ownership schemes you will not be able to bid for rented Council or housing association accommodation."

Gravesham:
"Where an applicant is considered to have sufficient financial income, capital or assets, to allow them to access other forms of tenure to meet their housing need, they will be awarded a lower priority and placed in a lower band. "

So a higher income can make you ineligible, or such a low priority that you will never get housing. Some of these seem pretty harsh such as Kensington - you aren't going to get much of a property there with a household income of £40k!

mattcanary

Murphybear wrote: »

What happens if someone is gainfully employed, rents a property then loses their job? They are then on benefits. Can't evict a tenant just because they are on benefits!

A private landlord can if he wants to (at least after the first six months of the tenant living in the property).
A tenant cannot prevent being evicted - he doesn't even need to be in rent arrears or have caused trouble to the landlord, neighbours, etc.
A tenant has no say in the decision as long as the landlord follows the correct procedure - he can only delay it.

mattcanary

SkyeKnight wrote: »

I still think that's not right, though people on here keep saying that for some reason. I assume there must be some councils where income is not taken into account.

For example, East Riding puts you in the lowest priority band if:
"...following a financial and need assessment, would be able to purchase a property or rent market priced housing..."

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea:
"To qualify for the housing register you must not have savings of more than £16,000, and not have an income above £40,000 or £60,000 depending on the size of property you need."

Woking:
"In addition, if you have sufficient income to be considered for shared ownership or other low cost home ownership schemes you will not be able to bid for rented Council or housing association accommodation."

Gravesham:
"Where an applicant is considered to have sufficient financial income, capital or assets, to allow them to access other forms of tenure to meet their housing need, they will be awarded a lower priority and placed in a lower band. "

So a higher income can make you ineligible, or such a low priority that you will never get housing. Some of these seem pretty harsh such as Kensington - you aren't going to get much of a property there with a household income of £40k!

OK, it would appear that things may have changed in recent years.
Kensington's criteria is a disgrace, for that area.
I know my local authority (Norwich City Council) had no income criteria when I obtained my council home.
Indeed, I have just looked at their website. It is still the case. Norwich is not a Tory run council.
It would appear that it is non-Tory run councils that are giving richer people a chance in this respect. Well, I never!

Indeed, in the past a council or housing association could not prevent you from registering to go onto the council register.
You could however be ineligible through having previously being evicted by the council, through owning a home or having no local connection (through current address, family, work, education or medical needs).
Maybe that's the Tories for you......




Norwich are (I believe) the first local authority in the country to build its own council housing for something like 20+ years. Only a very few properties so far, but nevertheless they are building some new council housing.
Of course, the majority of councils have sold off their stock.
Norwich Council held a referendum a few years ago. Around 90% of tenants voted for the council to keep hold of the stock.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

mattcanary wrote: »

Norwich are (I believe) the first local authority in the country to build its own council housing for something like 20+ years. Only a very few properties so far, but nevertheless they are building some new council housing

No they are not the first local authority to build Council Houses.

The Conservatives reformed the Housing Revenue Account system allowing Local Authorities to build Council Houses (something 13 years of Labour failed to do). Councils up and down the country have been building Council Houses for several years now.

mattcanary

OK, thanks for that.


The local paper made out Norwich were the first to have built some. I shouldn't believe all that the papers say.

I can see from a quick internet search that Dacorum Borough Council have built a fair number.

BigAunty

I believe the changes to the entry criteria in England to apply for social housing (formerly very open) probably came in during the Localism Act.

AFAIK, local councils have to have core mandatory policies across the country but that act let them have some wiggle room in the non statutory areas.

On the housing forum, we have had posts from an applicant in a London borough disgusted that they only get classed as overcrowded if they are 2+ bedrooms short, those short of 1 bedroom have their application rejected (not just lowered, rejected - they are not accepted onto the housing register).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/allocation-of-accommodation-guidance-for-local-housing-authorities-in-england

http://www.cih.org/policy/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/policy/data/Allocating_social_housing

nannytone_2

my son was not allowed to register for social housing in london.
he was told that because he was working he should rent privately.
so not everyone is 'allowed' to register for social housing