Council housing - Priority for people with children?

nkkingston

For all you know, she's a rape victim with religious convictions that prevent her from having an abortion. People have kids for lots of reasons - they want them, they don't want them but are pressured into it, accidents, rape, religious convictions, didn't get enough love in their own childhoods... - but they don't have kids to get better council houses. Pregnancy, labour, and raising children are just too much darn work for that.

theartfullodger

Each council has it's own "Housing allocation" - published, usually on their website. They are different. Read YOUR council policy & see what it says.

Detroit

ChrisA95 wrote: »

I understand that it is the children which give this woman the priorty in terms of housing, but the thing is, where does the line get drawn? As I stated, despite already having 4 kids, she has just had another which is the reason why her current accommodation has become unacceptable. Surely councils need to get tough on this behaviour by either threatening to not provide aother council house in the event she has another child, in which she will have to start looking for private accomodation or by taking the children (who she can't provide for) into care (As a last resort, of course). Don't get me wrong, I believe people should claim benefits or ask for housing from their local authority if they are in need, especially if they haven't got friends and family to help them.

Any means of decentivising people from having more children penalises the children as much as the adult it is aimed at.

If the local authority did as you suggest, and the woman continued to have children regardless, there would be more children in insecure and inadequate accommodation.

Looking after children in local authority care is hugely expensive, and unless their parents are so inadequate or irresponsible their wellbeing is at risk, removing children from their parents is deeply traumatizing for the child.
So again, this suggestion damages the children (and the tax payer) as much as the parent.

Many people do not support the idea of people having limitless children that they are unable to feed and house without statutory help. However, there seems no solution to this other than hoping that people will self police in this matter.

In fairness, most do, and very large families reliant on state help are far fewer than the media would have us believe.
They wheeled a few out to pave the way for the benefit cap, and I think this has given a false impression of the scale of the 'problem'.

FBaby

where does the line get drawn?

The line is now drawn with the benefit cap and I believe now no additional tax credits for the third child born after last April (this did go ahead didn't it?). You can be reassured that this alone will be quite a deterrent to those who see kids as a mean to a nice cushy income.

martindow

Is this the woman living in Pangbourne? The council is paying for her to live in two adjacent rooms in a quite good hotel

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/reading-mum-four-expecting-baby-11736603

I find it astonishing that she is going to the press about this, when she could easily have been placed in far inferior accommodation. Her problem is that with four, and soon to be five, children she has hit the benefit cap which apparently makes it difficult to rent privately.

She is getting short shrift in the comments below the article.