Benefit fraud

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

And we keep getting told that everything is so much better in Scotland! But that would certainly not be possible in England - evicting people without providing alternative accommodation for anything other than a breach of tenancy regulations would certainly be unlawful.

I didn't say alternative accommodation wasn't provided, just that it wasn't provided to the same standard and in an equivalent location, to what the families had before they were moved out of their homes.


It isn't just homes people lose when the government decides to pull down council housing. their children may have to move schools. They lose things like their local dentist and doctor. Up here, if you move out of the doctor's catchment area you have to change doctors. That's throwing away a whole lot of history you have with your doctor.


As to this not happening in England, do you really think, for example, that all the people in the Tower Hamlets development that was pulled down and is in the process of being rebuilt were offered alternative housing in Tower Hamlets? I can think of at least two families from that housing estate who were moved out of London, with little prospect of being able to return.


It's possible, of course, that having moved out of London they realised that they could have a better life. There are plenty of Londoners, me included, who worked out long ago that there was a reason the vast majority of Britons didn't choose to live there. But they've also been moved away from their extended families, their support networks, even just the familiarity of their surroundings.


And yes, for the things that matter, like infrastructure, including public transport, schools, the NHS, higher education, things are really better in Scotland. They're all funded much better. Westminster discriminates against English people when it comes to spreading the tax take amongst the various countries that make up the UK.

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

Then you have also "since heard" the wrong thing. As I have already pointed out, this is a fallacy based on the misreading of a couple of articles that actually said something else entirely.

I'll be sure to let my bank know that they don't know how they assess mortgage applications!


They referred me to new mortgage rules that came into affect two years ago. And what do you know, the banks are now allowed to ask "Are you planning to start a family or have any more children?" So much for these kinds of questions being "unlawful".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10787176/New-mortgage-rules-the-questions-you-will-be-asked.html


Oh, and they said they use 7% as the interest rate to determine if the mortgage would be affordable into the future.

Lanzarote1938

dktreesea wrote: »

And yes, for the things that matter, like infrastructure, including public transport, schools, the NHS, higher education, things are really better in Scotland. They're all funded much better. Westminster discriminates against English people when it comes to spreading the tax take amongst the various countries that make up the UK.

your leader in Scotland doesn't agree. Apparently you would be much better off on your own.

dktreesea

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

your leader in Scotland doesn't agree. Apparently you would be much better off on your own.

Ah yes, we would have our fishing grounds back - but no navy to defend our borders. Oh, yes, I forgot, we are going to join the EU..... but would they have us? And somehow the remaining North Sea oil is meant to be Scotland's, as opposed to Britain's.....


Having said all of that, anything's possible. There are 40 million people overseas claiming Scottish ancestry, and who knows how many would return and invest in Scotland if Scotland were free of Westminster's shackles/deep pockets?

missbiggles1

dktreesea wrote: »

They weren't for the most part, offered an equivalent tenancy. Plenty were moved out of Edinburgh. Or to estates which didn't have the public amenities that their former neighbourhood had.

But they were offered a tenancy - they weren't made homeless?

sangie595

dktreesea wrote: »

I'll be sure to let my bank know that they don't know how they assess mortgage applications!


They referred me to new mortgage rules that came into affect two years ago. And what do you know, the banks are now allowed to ask "Are you planning to start a family or have any more children?" So much for these kinds of questions being "unlawful".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10787176/New-mortgage-rules-the-questions-you-will-be-asked.html


Oh, and they said they use 7% as the interest rate to determine if the mortgage would be affordable into the future.

Really, I am beginning to wonder if people have lost the ability to read! The article does not say that is a lawful question. It says there are 27 questions that may be asked. There could be another 48 questions that may also be asked. It doesn't many that it's lawful to ask them, and it doesn't mean that the banks won't be slapped down if they do.

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

Really, I am beginning to wonder if people have lost the ability to read! The article does not say that is a lawful question. It says there are 27 questions that may be asked. There could be another 48 questions that may also be asked. It doesn't many that it's lawful to ask them, and it doesn't mean that the banks won't be slapped down if they do.

May be asked, as in allowed to be asked. It couldn't be clearer.

Murphybear

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unless the history of social housing was very different in Scotland, you're totally wrong on that.

Council housing was always intended to be used by workerswho paid their own way - in fact that was often the basis on which it was allocated. Rewarding those who don't work by allocating them a property with a low rent and secure tenancy is a comparatively recent development and not an improvement, in my book.

This is very true. After the war there was a massive housing programme, particularly in towns/cities that had been bombed. Houses were given to people who were married with children and had nice steady jobs. That was the purpose of council housing. Things have changed

Murphybear

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, originally housing funded by the public purse was done to provide affordable homes. But in 1951 the government of the day decided council houses should be provided only to the poorest people/families. Quality of construction went out the window. Instead we got prefabricated housing and estates like Heygate in London, built in the 70s and now in the process of being demolished. Good quality council housing for those who worked? That might have been true pre WWII but by the time we got to the 70s the quality of council housing being produced was cr*p.


If I were a council tenant would I buy my 1920s/30s/40s council house? Probably. Would I buy anything constructed from the 1950s onwards? Probably not.

Not entirely true. My parents were allocated a newly built council house in 1954. My father was a professional, a teacher. It was of red brick construction and had a decent sized garden. They were solidly built and insulated, in all the years we lived there you couldn't hear the neighbours. The house is still there, as good as ever.

dktreesea

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But they were offered a tenancy - they weren't made homeless?

No. not a tenancy in all cases. But sometimes the accommodation offered was a room in a hostel, or emergency accommodation. For some of the people, I'm not sure why but maybe a change in the law, they didn't have a statutory responsibility to rehouse them.


The worst thing is due to a change in policy, favouring working families, most of those people relocated won't be offered a property in the new development, once it's completed. Take Leith Fort. 157 homes, demolished in 2009. The site is now being redeveloped, 94 homes, first available in 2017. 62 of those homes will be offered at mid market rent (criteria - have to be able to afford the rent without resorting to housing benefit) and only 32 will be council houses. That's 125 households that used to live there forever displaced.


Looking at it from the outside, the reaction in some quarters was they all had the option to end up with a roof over their heads so what's the problem? But there was little regard paid to the detail and complexity of people's lives. So in some cases carers went one direction and the people they cared for, previously part of their community, were rehoused in a different council area. How do you then continue to provide care for the person? If people were moved out of the immediate area, they had to change doctors, sometimes sacrificing a relationship with their doctor built up over years.


Depending on benefits is unreliable. The law can change at any time. Someone's entitlement today may become bedroom tax tomorrow. Your home is your castle only as long as the council don't decide the building is too expensive to save/maintain going forward so decide to demolish it instead.


If it was the case that all the council homes were being replaced in the new development and the previous tenants would be moved back into those homes, then at least there is light at the end of the tunnel for the displaced people. But these new developments up here have a changed mix compared to what was there before. They're geared towards working families who can afford to rent without having to claim housing benefit. .