Is it just me or do you have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property?

These were the criteria i was asked to claim "priority". Dont get me wrong all the things listed above other then drink and drugs use (or maybe preggy, although some do this to get a house) are genuine reasons. But other then lie through your teeth what chance do you have of getting a property from the council or housing assoc.?

My circumstances are fairly common to cut a long story short, split up with my wife, no home so relying on friends and family to put me up. In full time employment so i can pay my way with full rent and council tax etc, yet not offered anything in a year.

Bid every single week for a year, i know a year is not a long time but when your living with friends and family it is, yet nothing. You see on the council web site about the properties you bid on and they are allocated to "priority" applicants who have not been on the list other then a few weeks or months.

As as for the "first come first served" part of the site what a joke, every single property is for over 40, 55 or 60.

Declaring myself homeless was not an option for reason i'm sure many of you would understand working in full time employment.

How long have you been on the list with no joy?
Thanks my rant is over now hehe

As a full time working man you are not deemed a priority as the theory is you are quite capable of getting a property on the private housing market. Harsh but true. :|

Its true what fox says. Chances of getting a council property are very slim, I got one because I was homeless with an 8 month old baby and even that took me near enough 6 months living in their interim accomodation. Its hard, but if you can keep it up, you'll get somewhere in the end!

Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread!

Can never have enough of those!

If your in full time employment, you got more chnace of winning the lottery!

(trust me)

If your in full time employment, you got more chnace of winning the lottery!

(trust me)

Sorry, but on this matter I don't trust you, I've read (and understood) homeless policy. Employment status makes no difference, plenty of people have jobs and live in council housing. Lots of people who are technically homeless don't fit the criteria for priority, if they did - lord knows where the council could house them! There seems to be an expectation that if someone can afford to pay rent they should get a council property. Right, so everyone who works and pays taxes should get a council property - how does that work then?

Sorry manintheknow - if you want a council flat your only option is to bid for one on waiting time alone. I think you'll have to do what most people do - go private. The upside of renting privately or buying is that you have much more choice - and to keep costs down you could share a house?

Shelter publish all the rules about homelessness and who qualifies - its all here: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness

Its true what fox says. Chances of getting a council property are very slim, I got one because I was homeless with an 8 month old baby and even that took me near enough 6 months living in their interim accomodation. Its hard, but if you can keep it up, you'll get somewhere in the end!

The council have a statutory duty to make sure children have somewhere to live. It doesn't apply to adults in the same way. If you'd been on your own, you'd have been in the same situation as the OP unless you have other reasons that would make you a priority case. Not having somewhere to live isn't enough by itself. The OP won't get a council property on homeless priority - he's perfectly capable of looking out for himself, unlike a baby or young child, or someone with major physical or mental disabilities, or the elderly and infirm etc. etc.

"Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread! Can never have enough of those!"
It will always be until this system changes, I have been waiting list for 4 years bidding every week with no joy, simply because I don't fit the criteria as mentioned above so I have had to go private.

"Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread! Can never have enough of those!"
It will always be until this system changes, I have been waiting list for 4 years bidding every week with no joy, simply because I don't fit the criteria as mentioned above so I have had to go private.

There's nothing wrong with the actual system - it's people's expectations and attitudes toward it that are the problem.

On the old system people put their name on the list and were offered a property when they got to the top of the list. Of course, back then there was double the amount of Council properties so, obviously, the waiting times were shorter. But they were still let in the same way - to priority and waiting time.

If it reverted back to the old system, you would still be waiting the same amount of time for a property as you are now - except that you wouldn't have a say in what you were offered, and if you turned 3 down your application would be suspended for 12 months. Yup, that sounds much better to me.

"Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread! Can never have enough of those!"
It will always be until this system changes, I have been waiting list for 4 years bidding every week with no joy, simply because I don't fit the criteria as mentioned above so I have had to go private.

What criteria do you think councils should apply in deciding who to give properties to? That's a genuine question.

Sorry, was writing this when Leviathan posted.

"Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread! Can never have enough of those!"
It will always be until this system changes, I have been waiting list for 4 years bidding every week with no joy, simply because I don't fit the criteria as mentioned above so I have had to go private.

I've been on over 7 1/2 years, but I don't see it as a right that I should be given a Council property.

If I could get one then of course it would help me out financially, but I have gone private too and I'm happy that I have a place to call my own.

There's nothing wrong with the actual system - it's people's expectations and attitudes toward it that are the problem.

On the old system people put their name on the list and were offered a property when they got to the top of the list. Of course, back then there was double the amount of Council properties so, obviously, the waiting times were shorter. But they were still let in the same way - to priority and waiting time.

If it reverted back to the old system, you would still be waiting the same amount of time for a property as you are now - except that you wouldn't have a say in what you were offered, and if you turned 3 down your application would be suspended for 12 months. Yup, that sounds much better to me.

The system is flawed. Blatant age discrimination, properties just lieing empty on the first come first served page. And the selling off of properties. The increase in demand for housing should have been met by increased building of housing, it wasn't. We now have problems, these are causing racial tensions in areas. It's also adversely affecting many peoples mental health.

'TENTS' - because Sheffield Homes won't house you, for everything else, go to prison!

What criteria do you think councils should apply in deciding who to give properties to? That's a genuine question.

Sorry, was writing this when Leviathan posted.

They need to address the lack of housing. They should give everyone a house!

The housing ministers of years gone buy should do the decent thing and hang themselves.

According to city council these are the criteria: have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property but if you are employed and pay taxes you will be at the bottom of their list.
"I've been on over 7 1/2 years, but I don't see it as a right that I should be given a Council property."
It is the same right for employed people as it is for all those described above.

According to city council these are the criteria: have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property but if you are employed and pay taxes you will be at the bottom of their list.

Not quite as clear cut as you suggest. I suggest you read this: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/23358/Shelter_advice_booklet_homeless.pdf

It gives clear and unbiased information about homelessness and what circumstances normally lead to someone being in priority need. It applies across England. Central government make the rules, local government apply them.

They need to address the lack of housing. They should give everyone a house!
The housing ministers of years gone buy should do the decent thing and hang themselves.

Well, considering there are around 90,000 people on the list, and only around 40,000 plus properties, most of then with tenants already in them - how can they give everyone a house?

What a stupid comment.

If your in full time employment, you got more chnace of winning the lottery!

(trust me)

If you are in full-time employment you should, theoretically have the wherewithal to afford a private property.
"Oh yay - yet another SCC bashing housing thread! Can never have enough of those!"
It will always be until this system changes, I have been waiting list for 4 years bidding every week with no joy, simply because I don't fit the criteria as mentioned above so I have had to go private.

so you have no need for a property, as you have found one?

The council have a statutory duty to make sure children have somewhere to live. It doesn't apply to adults in the same way. If you'd been on your own, you'd have been in the same situation as the OP unless you have other reasons that would make you a priority case. Not having somewhere to live isn't enough by itself. The OP won't get a council property on homeless priority - he's perfectly capable of looking out for himself, unlike a baby or young child, or someone with major physical or mental disabilities, or the elderly and infirm etc. etc.

Umm.. I was just saying that yes it is hard to get a council property. He/she (sorry forgot who started the thread!) has already stated they wont get priority, I never questioned that. I said keep it up, as in keep on bidding and trying and that it'll happen. Yes, I know that they did this because I had a child. Yes i'd have still got priority housing because I was 16, and still classed as a child myelf. I don't actually get what your point is towards my post? I never doubted or questioned anything the OP has put, I gave my opinion that it is hard to get somewhere. Maybe the OP is capable of finding himself a place to live, why shouldnt he get a council place? Or, why should he get one? Noone should get anything in life, but this is something thats available to people and he was just asking is this what you have to be to get a council place. :rolleyes: And IMO, yes OP, the reasons you stated are how you get a council place.

Is it just me or do you have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property?

These were the criteria i was asked to claim "priority". Dont get me wrong all the things listed above other then drink and drugs use (or maybe preggy, although some do this to get a house) are genuine reasons. But other then lie through your teeth what chance do you have of getting a property from the council or housing assoc.?

It's no longer true that a young woman gets a property just because they are pregnant. and surely you'd see someone disabled/ with a kid/ pregnant as being higher priority for a property than a chap who can look after themselves?

My circumstances are fairly common to cut a long story short, split up with my wife, no home so relying on friends and family to put me up. In full time employment so i can pay my way with full rent and council tax etc, yet not offered anything in a year.
If you can pay your way, then, erm... do that?

Bid every single week for a year, i know a year is not a long time but when your living with friends and family it is, yet nothing. You see on the council web site about the properties you bid on and they are allocated to "priority" applicants who have not been on the list other then a few weeks or months.

Again, surely you recognise that someone vulnerable has a higher need of housing than yourself, a man who can look after himself?

As as for the "first come first served" part of the site what a joke, every single property is for over 40, 55 or 60.

Would you want an 18 year old moving into the flat above yours if you were an elderly person?

Declaring myself homeless was not an option for reason i'm sure many of you would understand working in full time employment.

How long have you been on the list with no joy?
Thanks my rant is over now hehe

My best mate was disabled, and had been made homeless, about five years ago, now, and it took the council 7 months to house her, even with a priority!!

Well, considering there are around 90,000 people on the list, and only around 40,000 plus properties, most of then with tenants already in them - how can they give everyone a house?

What a stupid comment.

Are you incapable of reading???

I've said;
'they need to address the lack of housing'
'they SHOULD give everyone a house'

in the previous post where I responded to you, I said they SHOULD have sought to increase the amount of housing as demand increased.

If you run a shop and you have 100 customers wanting a pint of milk everyday, you would buy in 100 pints of milk a day. You'd meet the demand.
Likewise, if you run a country and the peole of that country want social housing. You should make sure there is enough.

This clearly has not been done, hence we have the ridiculous situation that we have now. 90000 waiting for social housing which is not there. People are obviously very angry about this.

You go to Sheffield homes and it says 'our staff don't allocate properties', 'our staff have the right to work without fear of violence'.
2 things which are blatantly untrue, they do have to allocate properties and they should be afraid of violence, because with 90k on a waiting list that doesn't materialise, there is a big chance that at least one of them is going to attack Sheffield Homes staff.
I know it isn't Sheffield Homes staff's fault, but I don't know if the other 90k (and rising) do.

It sounds like Miss Macbeth and Levithian13 do work for Sheffield Homes at City council, it doesn't make any difference anyway this system of prioritising is unfair and messed up. Yes I am very lucky that I can now afford a private property so no more need to wait for council to give me a house.

Are you incapable of reading???

I've said;
'they need to address the lack of housing'
'they SHOULD give everyone a house'

in the previous post where I responded to you, I said they SHOULD have sought to increase the amount of housing as demand increased.

If you run a shop and you have 100 customers wanting a pint of milk everyday, you would buy in 100 pints of milk a day. You'd meet the demand.
Likewise, if you run a country and the peole of that country want social housing. You should make sure there is enough.

This clearly has not been done, hence we have the ridiculous situation that we have now. 90000 waiting for social housing which is not there. People are obviously very angry about this.

You go to Sheffield homes and it says 'our staff don't allocate properties', 'our staff have the right to work without fear of violence'.
2 things which are blatantly untrue, they do have to allocate properties and they should be afraid of violence, because with 90k on a waiting list that doesn't materialise, there is a big chance that at least one of them is going to attack Sheffield Homes staff.
I know it isn't Sheffield Homes staff's fault, but I don't know if the other 90k (and rising) do.

MaAybe people should not have exercised the Right To Buy, which would have kept a considerable amount of housing within the social housing offer, and maybe the government should have provided monies before now to refurb/ improve/ maintain properties already owned by the council, which might have meant all those properties on Manor, Shirecliffe and Parson cross need not have been demolished (nor all the high rise and poorly-constructed system-built 1960's properties)

And maybe the then government should have allowed the councils to plough back the monies raised by RTB sales back into building replacements for the properties sold under RTB.

MaAybe people should not have exercised the Right To Buy, which would have kept a considerable amount of housing within the social housing offer, and maybe the government should have provided monies before now to refurb/ improve/ maintain properties already owned by the council, which might have meant all those properties on Manor, Shirecliffe and Parson cross need not have been demolished (nor all the high rise and poorly-constructed system-built 1960's properties)

And maybe the then government should have allowed the councils to plough back the monies raised by RTB sales back into building replacements for the properties sold under RTB.

Too right.

Maybe they should have left the properties standing rather than demolishing them.

They're still properties earmarked for demolition which need not be demolished, people would live in them, Arbourthorne for example has many still standing empty ready to be demolished and the people in the council in their nice big house in Dore could not care less.

They need to address the problem. Cancel the right to buy and build build build. If it means whacking up some poorly constructed 1960's style tower blocks and using up greenspace, then so be it.

If you ask me, the lack of housing began to become apparent at least 10 years ago. The problem gets bigger by the day and the amount of stock reduces by the day. Sheffield will suffer in 10-20 years time if not sooner, because of it and the wrong generation will be blamed.

In quite a few areas, there has been massive demolition but no new council housing being built to replace them. Where have all those people gone? Just to name a few, there are manor, kelvin, park hill, parson cross, scowerdons, newstead..... The list can go on. There have been only a few properties built for council tenants, and lots of private houses in thses areas. A lot of people cannot afford these. It is so wrong.

The only advice I'd offer the OP is keep bidding everyweek. But it all depends on what type of property your looking for and in what area? You have more chance of getting a 1 bedroom flat and if your not picky on where you live then I'd say you should get something within 1-3 years?

In quite a few areas, there has been massive demolition but no new council housing being built to replace them. Where have all those people gone? Just to name a few, there are manor, kelvin, park hill, parson cross, scowerdons, newstead..... The list can go on. There have been only a few properties built for council tenants, and lots of private houses in thses areas. A lot of people cannot afford these. It is so wrong.

Its unlikely that many new council owned homes will be built again. The whole idea nowadays is to have mixed tenure estates, some privately rented, some owner occupied and some social housing. Even Parkhill when its renovated will only have a minority of social tenancies. The cost of renovating some properties would have been more than they were worth, and the council had many standing empty when the decisions were taken to demolish.

Whilst I agree its frustrating for people who want council housing - some people do have unrealistic expectations that they have a 'right' to be housed by the council. I'm not sure why this is so?

And as PT says - perhaps if the Right to Buy had never been introduced we wouldn't have this situation. Plus, demolition was mainly done to properties that were unpopular, or would have been uneconomical to renovate. And lets not forget all the council housing in Sheffield and elsewhere that has had its ownership transferred to housing associations.
It sounds like Miss Macbeth works for Sheffield Homes at City council, it doesn't make any difference anyway this system of prioritising is unfair and messed up. Yes I am very lucky that I can now afford a private property so no more need to wait for council to give me a house.

I was serious when I asked the question 'What criteria do you think councils should apply in deciding who to give properties to?' But no one has answered it yet. :confused:

I have worked for more than one social landlord, and I'm involved with a residents' group on a voluntary basis now I'm retired. So I try and keep up with legislation around housing and homelessness. I always try and post links to factual stuff, because I live in hope that people will read them and understand why they may not be entitled to any priority. Alternatively the information may help someone who is genuinely in need and hasn't realised.

It sounds like Miss Macbeth and Levithian13 do work for Sheffield Homes at City council, it doesn't make any difference anyway this system of prioritising is unfair and messed up. Yes I am very lucky that I can now afford a private property so no more need to wait for council to give me a house.

I don't think the priority system is unfair, social housing should mainly be given to people who meet a certain priority such as being homeless, disabled, mental health problems etc etc, then the other houses (1 in 4) be given to people who want to wait their turn. It's not that's it unfair, it's just there is a series lack of housing stock comapred with the number of people who need/want it.

It sounds like Miss Macbeth and Levithian13 do work for Sheffield Homes at City council, it doesn't make any difference anyway this system of prioritising is unfair and messed up. Yes I am very lucky that I can now afford a private property so no more need to wait for council to give me a house.

So you're saying that they should only let properties on waiting time? For instance a person with a child fleeing domestic violence shouldn't be given priority over someone who just wants to be rehoused?

Its unlikely that many new council owned homes will be built again. The whole idea nowadays is to have mixed tenure estates, some privately rented, some owner occupied and some social housing. Even Parkhill when its renovated will only have a minority of social tenancies. The cost of renovating some properties would have been more than they were worth, and the council had many standing empty when the decisions were taken to demolish.

Whilst I agree its frustrating for people who want council housing - some people do have unrealistic expectations that they have a 'right' to be housed by the council. I'm not sure why this is so?

And as PT says - perhaps if the Right to Buy had never been introduced we wouldn't have this situation. Plus, demolition was mainly done to properties that were unpopular, or would have been uneconomical to renovate. And lets not forget all the council housing in Sheffield and elsewhere that has had its ownership transferred to housing associations.

I was serious when I asked the question 'What criteria do you think councils should apply in deciding who to give properties to?' But no one has answered it yet. :confused:

I have worked for more than one social landlord, and I'm involved with a residents' group on a voluntary basis now I'm retired. So I try and keep up with legislation around housing and homelessness. I always try and post links to factual stuff, because I live in hope that people will read them and understand why they may not be entitled to any priority. Alternatively the information may help someone who is genuinely in need and hasn't realised.

I answered your question, I said they should house everyone. Some people will not want to be housed and will do so of their own accord, more often than not because they have been born into a privileged position. But many people wish to be housed as they do not have the means to house themselves. i.e. everyone who wishes to be housed and are unable to house themselves, should be. Often people in poverty, yet many of these people in poverty contribute massively to society and governments through taxation.

Decent housing and an adequate supply of housing are key to a healthy society. For many people finding adequate and affordable housing is a massive problem and a hinderance to their development. If we seek to improve society (which I'd hope we all would like to do), then ensuring there is an adequate supply (if not oversupply) of housing is key.

I believe that anybody who contributes to society, in return deserves support from that society. Be it in the form of healthcare, housing, education etc., it is the case that in the UK, people whom do not contribute to society receive healthcare, housing and education and more, free of charge. A prison provides all this (This being a good thing if it leads to the improvement of the individuals and allows them to make a meaningful contribution to society).

If we can provide this for a group of people who are more likely to be social parasites, why can we not provide this to people who do contribute, allowing them to develop and improve their circumstances and in turn contribute more, for the ultimate good of society.

If a person wishes to be housed in order to improve themselves (and in turn society) then I think society has a moral obligation to house them. People do not have the right to be housed, but if the social parasites at the top of society wish to maintain a degree of dominance and for society as we know it to function, then THEY NEED to provide housing to those who want it in order to maintain a healthy society. They should be seeking to improve it, sadly they seek to extract from it as much as they can.

If those in power sought to improve society, I would not be making these comments, as housing would be provided to those whom wanted it. For the time being, priority need is a good thing, but it needs to be a thing of the past.

Jim, John and Jacob all need a house but society has only 1 to give. Jim needs it more than John, but Jacob needs it more than Jim. We should give it to Jacob as if we house one of the others the detrimental effect upon society will be greater. However, we should seek to house Jim and then John as soon as possible to avoid any detrimental effects or at least to reduce them (or to make progressively less significant improvements, but improvements nonetheless, for the sake of improvement itself).


People have a need to be housed, society needs to house people, need is not catoragized by the letter of law written by some bureaucratic organization, 'need' is the wishes/demand of the people. Housing is needed, all you have to do is look at the waiting list and number of available properties, see they don't add up and recognize that need.

You say 'genuinely in need', you mean 'needs more than'.

I really do not understand the priority system. I have a 3 bedroom house and I have priority for a move because I am willing to give up my 3 bed for a 2 bed in a better area however I have been biding every week for 4 months and still no joy and when I complained to the council I was told that rehousing has got nothing to do with them and it is responsibility of Sheffield homes now.
Sheffield homes claim to be very short of 3 bed houses so you would think that they would want me in a 2 bed as soon as possible.

I really do not understand the priority system. I have a 3 bedroom house and I have priority for a move because I am willing to give up my 3 bed for a 2 bed in a better area however I have been biding every week for 4 months and still no joy and when I complained to the council I was told that rehousing has got nothing to do with them and it is responsibility of Sheffield homes now.
Sheffield homes claim to be very short of 3 bed houses so you would think that they would want me in a 2 bed as soon as possible.


You'd be easier getting an exchange, people are crying out for 3 bedrooms. I want to exchange my 2 bedroom house for a 3 bedroom house, I'm not desperate but I'd love 3 bedrooms.

You say 'genuinely in need', you mean 'needs more than'.

I disagree. There will be people who NEED a property more than someone else NEEDS a property. For instance:

A person fleeing domestic violence NEEDS a house.

A person who is living in overcrowded circumstances NEEDS a house.

But which is more urgent? The first example, obviously.

However, there will be people who are renting privately who will say they NEED a Council house. Chances are, it will be for financial reasons like the rent is too high etc. However, they will also have a number of outgoings that they don't NEED such as Sky tv, going out once or twice a week, takeaways, holidays etc. etc.

They would be able to afford their rent if they cut out one or more of these. The problem is these days that people don't live according to their means and, in turn, would rather have a go at the Council for not giving them a property, when if they controlled their life a bit better and took more responsibility for their actions, they would be fine in a private rented property.

This means that they do not have a NEED for a Council property at all - they just want one to make their financial life easier.

I really do not understand the priority system. I have a 3 bedroom house and I have priority for a move because I am willing to give up my 3 bed for a 2 bed in a better area however I have been biding every week for 4 months and still no joy and when I complained to the council I was told that rehousing has got nothing to do with them and it is responsibility of Sheffield homes now.
Sheffield homes claim to be very short of 3 bed houses so you would think that they would want me in a 2 bed as soon as possible.

They will want you to move - but I'd assume that you wouldn't take just anywhere in Sheffield, would you?

You have priority and when bidding for properties going to priority, then it just depends on how much longer someone else has had their priority for. I've heard that some priority applicants are waiting up to 6 months for a property - so with your 4 months, you may still have to wait a bit longer.

And to be honest, it's probably not just the 3 beds that they are short of.

They will want you to move - but I'd assume that you wouldn't take just anywhere in Sheffield, would you?

You have priority and when bidding for properties going to priority, then it just depends on how much longer someone else has had their priority for. I've heard that some priority applicants are waiting up to 6 months for a property - so with your 4 months, you may still have to wait a bit longer.

And to be honest, it's probably not just the 3 beds that they are short of.

You are right however I also have 10yrs waiting time and Sheffield homes have told us that people that want to move from a 2 bed to a 2 bed will have priority over me if they have just 1 day longer waiting time than I do.

Surely it would be better for them to give me a 2 bed first then a family who needs to move out of a 2 bed can have my 3 bed and then someone can move into their 2 bed.
Its not rocket science but when I tried to explain that to Sheffield homes it may as well have been.

You are right however I also have 10yrs waiting time and Sheffield homes have told us that people that want to move from a 2 bed to a 2 bed will have priority over me if they have just 1 day longer waiting time than I do.

Surely it would be better for them to give me a 2 bed first then a family who needs to move out of a 2 bed can have my 3 bed and then someone can move into their 2 bed.
Its not rocket science but when I tried to explain that to Sheffield homes it may as well have been.

What of the family in a 1 bed that need a two? You would then be taking a property away from someone who needs a two bedroom house.

My circumstances are fairly common to cut a long story short, split up with my wife, no home

Declaring myself homeless was not an option for reason i'm sure many of you would understand working in full time employment.

Huh? You can be homeless and still employed, and you are under no obligation to tell your employer you are declaring yourself as homeless with the council. The council is also not allowed to turn you away if you are employed, nor can this make any affect on their decision.

In your situation, telling the council you are homeless is the only way you are going to get a priority case, and it will be on a single bedroom residence. If you are genuinely homeless, you wont care what it is as long as it is somewhere of your own.

Edit: Actually, now I have read that, its rubbish isn't it.. even if homeless you won't get priority as the council has no duty of care for you. As a working man with no dependents or ties, you should have enough money to get your own place. If you are unable to do so because your outgoings (even with no home) are equal or higher than your income, then I think moaning about council houses is the least of your problems.

For instance:

A person fleeing domestic violence NEEDS a house.

A person who is living in overcrowded circumstances NEEDS a house.

But which is more urgent? The first example, obviously.


But what about a person who is living in overcrowded circs and also needs to flee domestic violence?

To the OP, stop feeling sorry for yourself and go and get a privately rented place. You can pick up 1 bed flats for 3-400pcm. You may have to wait months/years for a suitable council property. You're a responsible adult in full time employment, you may have to fend for yourself in the nasty capitalist run real world :)

To the OP, stop feeling sorry for yourself and go and get a privately rented place. You can pick up 1 bed flats for 3-400pcm. You may have to wait months/years for a suitable council property. You're a responsible adult in full time employment, you may have to fend for yourself in the nasty capitalist run real world :)

This may be the solution, but it is not a good one.

I believe she may be entitled to £90pw of housing benefit, I'd rather she be entitled to £66.60 per week for social housing, providing that the social housing is there.

This may be the solution, but it is not a good one.

I believe she may be entitled to £90pw of housing benefit, I'd rather she be entitled to £66.60 per week for social housing, providing that the social housing is there.

I was talking about the Original Poster who has split up with his wife, is in full time employment, admits he can pay his way but is complaining that he hasn't been offered a council property. Why would he?

I was talking about the Original Poster who has split up with his wife, is in full time employment, admits he can pay his way but is complaining that he hasn't been offered a council property. Why would he?

Maybe he feels social housing would allow him to function as a better member of society, if there wern't people with a greater need for housing, maybe he could be provided with housing.

Hopefully things will work out for him, but for many men whose marriage fail, homelessness is an inevitable consequence.

Maybe but there are people ahead of him in the queue and he will be leapfrogged.

Its the fact that he is surprised there are other people with a stronger case than him.

He will have to face facts and get himself a privately rented place.

split with wife ? what happened to the marital home then, n why not rent private?

the system is unfair in my opinion.there should be some priority for the people who actually get off their backsides and go to work everyday.why should people who work have to rent privately when its so expensive.

i work full time,have a couple of young kids and a missus.we live in a council house that i would say is sub standard.ive known people who have been on the dole for years,never lifted a finger and they have nice council houses just because theyve been on the waiting list for years yet im up at 5.30 in the morning while the parasites are in bed snoring. its another prime example of the hard working man/woman getting screwed by the system. no wonder this country is going down the pan,do nothing to contribute and get looked after,go out n work,get screwed.

not contributing to society should not be rewarded with priority housing then it might give people the incentive to actually work!
good luck to the guy who started this thread,you dezerve a house mate,more power to you

I totally agree with Wildy, contribute to the system and you get nothing. Take out of the system and you get benefits chucked at you for doing nothing. What is wrong with having decent working people in Council housing? After tax and N.I has been paid some people cant afford private rent.

It seems do what is right, that is get an education, a job, a partner or better still a wife or husband and you stand little chance of getting Social housing. Do the opposite and you are in. I had a man work for me who when he got his partner pregnant they deliberatly stayed apart until she got a Council home and then he moved in. She did declare him and now are well settled, but that was as he put it the only way they could gat a council house. The people who do it the right way dont stand a chance and it's unfair.

u should try housing associations. one based in sheffield near meadowhall. it's called "Chevin" i think.

the system is unfair in my opinion.there should be some priority for the people who actually get off their backsides and go to work everyday.why should people who work have to rent privately when its so expensive.

i work full time,have a couple of young kids and a missus.we live in a council house that i would say is sub standard.ive known people who have been on the dole for years,never lifted a finger and they have nice council houses just because theyve been on the waiting list for years yet im up at 5.30 in the morning while the parasites are in bed snoring. its another prime example of the hard working man/woman getting screwed by the system. no wonder this country is going down the pan,do nothing to contribute and get looked after,go out n work,get screwed.

not contributing to society should not be rewarded with priority housing then it might give people the incentive to actually work!
good luck to the guy who started this thread,you dezerve a house mate,more power to you

Deserve? More than a woman suffering Domestic Violence, for example?

Deserve? When he is working, and has the means to rent privately? (or buy)

Deserve? Since when does the council owe anyone a property?

Parasites? Snoring in bed at 0530? Could it just be possible that these parasites you cite were actually on duty, at work till 10pm?

Waiting time? what's the answer? Invent a time-machine, perhaps, and go back in time to put an application in, before the people who have legitimately and patiently clocked up the required waiting time?

well plain talker if you read my reply again i said the people who go out to work and have to pay hard earned cash for a council property should get some sort of priority!

i never said that they "deserve" property more than a woman (or man!) suffering domestic violence,so stop trying to pull on peoples heart strings to make me look bad.

deserve, when i am working and can afford to rent or buy,why should i have to buy or rent privately,as retired said ,after ni and tax + supporting a family there may not be enough money left.

since when does the council owe anyone a property.since when does anyone deserve the right to take take take from the system when i have to pay pay pay!

and as for these people supposedley finishing work at 10pm i think we all know people who cant be bothered to get jobs because they are better off getting it all for free from me and the rest of the hard working public

what about the people that are sick?do they come into the parasite category too?
personally, i think that the council could do more to help people on benefits, who generally find it difficult to rent privately.

here we go,heres another one caught up in the politically correct whirlwind.

lets all start naming catagories of people with an angle for sympathy.

"and what about the people with in growing toe nails"( how sad).

and what if the people who work and have familys cant afford to rent privately?

i`ll tell you what,they get the scraps of properties that nobody wants.people like myself and other familys i know are stuck in the middle and thats why i think its unfair.im not pregnant and homeless,or any of the other catagories so the council and housing associations arnt bothered.so where does that leave people like me,stuck in the middle!!!

by the way,just to get it in before anyone else,im not racist,homophobic,sexist,ageist or anything else.i just think the housing system stinks for people who contribute but get nothing whatso ever back .

Some people will not want to be housed and will do so of their own accord, more often than not because they have been born into a privileged position. .

So everyone who private rents or owns a home has been born into a priveledged position? Grow up. These people are no different to you except they get on with it.

here we go,heres another one caught up in the politically correct whirlwind.

lets all start naming catagories of people with an angle for sympathy.

"and what about the people with in growing toe nails"( how sad).

and what if the people who work and have familys cant afford to rent privately?

i`ll tell you what,they get the scraps of properties that nobody wants.people like myself and other familys i know are stuck in the middle and thats why i think its unfair.im not pregnant and homeless,or any of the other catagories so the council and housing associations arnt bothered.so where does that leave people like me,stuck in the middle!!!

by the way,just to get it in before anyone else,im not racist,homophobic,sexist,ageist or anything else.i just think the housing system stinks for people who contribute but get nothing whatso ever back .

So non-white, non-straight, people of the opposite sex and those who aren't the same age as you offer nothing to society? It's only people exactly like you who do?

Just so we're clear...

hey leviathan13.can you read? obviously not! did i say its only people like me who offer something to society.NO! did i mention anything bad against sex,age,race. its called sarcasm.
read it again.

you should have gone to specsavers!
you obviously didnt!
just so were clear...

Im not caught up in the politically correct whirlwind, i was just clarifying. Unfortunately everyone who is on benefits is classified as one of those parasites you mentioned.

Putting the people on benefits to one side. I think Wildy is saying if you contribute to the system, you get ignored. I would like to think if you are a couple in work and want to set up home together before starting a family, you should stand a chance of getting a council house but it appears not. It must be frustrating for the Council to have to resort to giving up their housing stock to those for whatever reason cant pay rent and not to those who can.

Personally I feel sorry for todays young couples who are on a poor wage who have no choice but to rent privately. I have two houses on rent each at £525 per month. I reckon with council tax, water charges, gas & electricy you are looking at £180 per week to have a roof over your head. Thats a lot of money. Fair enough, you would have the same Council tax and utilities on a Council house but the rent would be cheaper. I dont know how some couples manage.

i do agree with wildy, to a point. my partner and i are currently looking for a house in sheffield, and all the council say is 'sorry, we cant help.'
granted, they will pay up to £395 a month towards private renting, but its a pain trying to find somewhere that will take that.
so, council would be the best option for me and my partner until im allowed to go back to work.

hey leviathan13.can you read? obviously not! did i say its only people like me who offer something to society.NO! did i mention anything bad against sex,age,race. its called sarcasm.
read it again.

you should have gone to specsavers!
you obviously didnt!
just so were clear...

I did actually, thank you very much. It was BOGOF too so got a lovely pair of tinted ones!

Your comment would have had more credibility if you hadn't started it with "...I'm not racist, homophobic, sexist or ageist...", which generally means you have a problem with all of those types of people.

As has been said on the numerous threads having a go at the council, there just aren't enough properties to go around. So, the council has to help out those classed as most in need.

Now, I agree that it can be quite galling to watch some chav family being made priority above someone else, but what do you suggest otherwise? Apart from the building of new properties, how can the council help everyone that is applying for housing?

Putting the people on benefits to one side. I think Wildy is saying if you contribute to the system, you get ignored. I would like to think if you are a couple in work and want to set up home together before starting a family, you should stand a chance of getting a council house but it appears not. It must be frustrating for the Council to have to resort to giving up their housing stock to those for whatever reason cant pay rent and not to those who can.

Personally I feel sorry for todays young couples who are on a poor wage who have no choice but to rent privately. I have two houses on rent each at £525 per month. I reckon with council tax, water charges, gas & electricy you are looking at £180 per week to have a roof over your head. Thats a lot of money. Fair enough, you would have the same Council tax and utilities on a Council house but the rent would be cheaper. I dont know how some couples manage.

But for a couple both working £180 shouldnt be too hard to find. If both are working thats only £90 per week each or £4680 each per year. Well under the minimum wage.

I did actually, thank you very much. It was BOGOF too so got a lovely pair of tinted ones!

Your comment would have had more credibility if you hadn't started it with "...I'm not racist, homophobic, sexist or ageist...", which generally means you have a problem with all of those types of people.

As has been said on the numerous threads having a go at the council, there just aren't enough properties to go around. So, the council has to help out those classed as most in need.

Now, I agree that it can be quite galling to watch some chav family being made priority above someone else, but what do you suggest otherwise? Apart from the building of new properties, how can the council help everyone that is applying for housing?

glad you got your glasses,shame it hasnt improved your comments.

if possible could you try and get on the same page as everybody else
as some people are actually starting to understand my point.
you on the other hand are just twisting and nit picking (not very well i may add) at what i have said to try and discredit me.

so are you trying to say im a racist,sexist etc? because according to you,saying something generally means the opposite.

you`re entitled to your opinion just as i am mine but i dont need you to tell me whats credible.

the system is unfair,simple as that! they try to help those most in need(you sound like you work for the council).if they aren`t making housing available to everybody on a level basis then they are being discriminative.discriminating against people who work and earn a living.

i dont have a magic wand to make the system fair but can you not see and
understand the frustration of people that there is no recognition what so ever for some one paying the rent out of their own pocket!

the system is unfair,simple as that! they try to help those most in need(you sound like you work for the council).if they aren`t making housing available to everybody on a level basis then they are being discriminative.discriminating against people who work and earn a living.

i dont have a magic wand to make the system fair but can you not see and
understand the frustration of people that there is no recognition what so ever for some one paying the rent out of their own pocket!

Explain what a level basis is.

Should a person fleeing domestic violence have to wait until after you've been rehoused just because you've been on the list longer? Or should they be rehoused first because they have an urgent case and need to be rehoused quickly?

I understand your frustration, I'm in private rented and would be a lot better off financially if I was in council, but I'm ok where I am and don't have a problem with priority applicants being rehoused before me.

here you go.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/level
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/basis
a level(fair) basis(base),meaning everyone should get a chance and that clearly does not happen.
if you went to the council and told them you wanted a property,you were employed,not in any kind of danger or anything else which would fall into one of their many priority catagories,you wouldnt stand a chance.how can that be fair?
in my opinion all this does is help promote benefit culture.
im glad your happy where you live and if your happy that all the genuine(laughs)priority cases are housed before you then that makes you so much more a better person than me.

here you go.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/level
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/basis
a level(fair) basis(base),meaning everyone should get a chance and that clearly does not happen.
if you went to the council and told them you wanted a property,you were employed,not in any kind of danger or anything else which would fall into one of their many priority catagories,you wouldnt stand a chance.how can that be fair?
in my opinion all this does is help promote benefit culture.
im glad your happy where you live and if your happy that all the genuine(laughs)priority cases are housed before you then that makes you so much more a better person than me.

Taking the priority cases out of it, the rest of the properties are let according to waiting time. So the person who's been on the list the longest gets offered the property.

So if you've been on for 4 years and someone else has been on 5 years then they will get it over you. That's fair.

So, bringing priorities back in to it - if someone has been on the list longer than someone else, but the second person is in URGENT need to be rehoused then shouldn't they be able to be rehoused over someone who just WANTS to be rehoused? Is this not fair?

I agree that not 100% of priority cases will be legit, but show me a system that is 100% foolproof. You will have got away with things in your life that someone else may not have. Everytime you drive over the speed limit, do you hand yourself over to the police and request to pay a fine? Of course not. But for everyone like you that gets away with it, there will be someone else who gets pulled. It's not a perfect system, none of them are. (By the way, this is the "royal" you, not you personally)

So, like I said, I understand your frustration with it all, but the council are stuck in catch 22 - if they don't help priority cases then they are heartless; if they don't help those who could help themselves then the system isn't fair and they are useless.

Who should they help, and what happens to those that they shouldn't?

I think he acknowledges giving properties to people on a priority need is fair. What is unfair is that there is a system in place because they are not enough properties to meet the demand. Reaching this point is embarassing and clearly the situation needs addressing.

There is a massive lack of housing. That is what needs addressing. Once it is addressed those who want a property should be able to get one. Currently, some people are likely to be waiting many many years. The problem is obvious, those in power have not addressed it, they have made a token gesture, one which is clearly not enough. The lack of housing needs solving, it needs solving ASAP, and once solved, measures need to be put into place to stop it ever happening again.

To throw a cat among the pigeons. Why should someone be housed by the council just because they WANT a council house? If they are in work and have no urgent priorities they should be able to find suitable accomodation in the private sector. Maybe the council should stop offering to people who WANT a council property and start just offering properties to people who NEED them.

To throw a cat among the pigeons. Why should someone be housed by the council just because they WANT a council house? If they are in work and have no urgent priorities they should be able to find suitable accomodation in the private sector. Maybe the council should stop offering to people who WANT a council property and start just offering properties to people who NEED them.

The reason a lot of people don't get rehoused by the council is because they only want a house, only want three bedrooms and only want somewhere extremely desirable and won't consider anything else.

Such can be said, in some cases, with private rented. The only reason people say it's too expensive is because they won't accept that they can't have what they WANT for peanuts. If you want a "nice" house in a "nice" area then you will have to pay.

If you can't afford the house of your dreams, and aren't willing to consider other areas or properties, then I don't really have much sympathy.

been on for 7 years still waiting

been on for 7 years still waiting

Very constructive post. Well done. :hihi:

To throw a cat among the pigeons. Why should someone be housed by the council just because they WANT a council house? If they are in work and have no urgent priorities they should be able to find suitable accomodation in the private sector. Maybe the council should stop offering to people who WANT a council property and start just offering properties to people who NEED them.


why should someone who is working full time and supporting a family have to
seek accomodation in the private sector??? to then be left with no money to do anything ,which then leads to people thinking,why am i getting up for work every day and going out busting my backside when i could sit on it every day and get,a house,council tax,dental care,education,and the rest of it for nowt.

thats one of the reasons this countries in the state its in.BENEFIT CULTURE

been on for 7 years still waiting

well your 2 years in front of me mate,good luck to ya

The reason a lot of people don't get rehoused by the council is because they only want a house, only want three bedrooms and only want somewhere extremely desirable and won't consider anything else.

Such can be said, in some cases, with private rented. The only reason people say it's too expensive is because they won't accept that they can't have what they WANT for peanuts. If you want a "nice" house in a "nice" area then you will have to pay.

If you can't afford the house of your dreams, and aren't willing to consider other areas or properties, then I don't really have much sympathy.

i dont expect to pay peanuts for renting a property.as ive said from the start,this is one of my points.some people actually pay less than peanuts,zero ,zilch,nada,not one penny and get away with having decent council homes.when the people who pay hard earned cash end up with nothing(the properties people dont even want)
since when can that be right???

thousands of us pay rent out of our own pockets to the council every week,while some of our neighbours get exactly the same as we do for free.

i really think were going round in circles here ,so to make the people happy who dont seem to understand what im trying to say, monday im going to go into work,quit my job,get my missus pregnant again,sit on my backside for a few years (even though im able to work),get enough points and years on the waiting list and get the council house of my dreams,then i will be happy and so will you because in your eyes i will deserve it.
(laughs)

i really think were going round in circles here ,so to make the people happy who dont seem to understand what im trying to say, monday im going to go into work,quit my job,get my missus pregnant again,sit on my backside for a few years (even though im able to work),get enough points and years on the waiting list and get the council house of my dreams,then i will be happy and so will you because in your eyes i will deserve it.
(laughs)

Do what you like - it won't have any effect on me. If you want to be like those you despise then fair enough.

i really think were going round in circles here ,so to make the people happy who dont seem to understand what im trying to say, monday im going to go into work,quit my job,get my missus pregnant again,sit on my backside for a few years (even though im able to work),get enough points and years on the waiting list and get the council house of my dreams,then i will be happy and so will you because in your eyes i will deserve it.
(laughs)

It would be genuinely interesting if you did this. Will you tell us when you have?

will give a full report soon.

To throw a cat among the pigeons. Why should someone be housed by the council just because they WANT a council house? If they are in work and have no urgent priorities they should be able to find suitable accomodation in the private sector. Maybe the council should stop offering to people who WANT a council property and start just offering properties to people who NEED them.

Everbody wants a house/property of some sort to live in and build a family. Many can't afford them in the private sector, even people whom are working.

A council house could be built for £50k and over 50 years collect £100k+ in rent assuming no inflation. It can collect even more so after the next 50 years. etc. Council housing is sustainable housing for the masses.
They might want a council house for religious/personal moral reasons. They might not be all for private ownership like a person in a well paid job.

I can see why people in private housing object to council housing, thats because if enough was built, the overpriced properties of today would come down in value even more so, and people would lose out on their investments which they bought at a price which has never been sustainable.

i really think were going round in circles here ,so to make the people happy who dont seem to understand what im trying to say, monday im going to go into work,quit my job,get my missus pregnant again,sit on my backside for a few years (even though im able to work),get enough points and years on the waiting list and get the council house of my dreams,then i will be happy and so will you because in your eyes i will deserve it.
(laughs)

How will you get this theoretical council house? By the time your name gets to the top of the list, they'll all have been bought up by the RTB-ers!

why should someone who is working full time and supporting a family have to
seek accomodation in the private sector??? to then be left with no money to do anything ,

Because that is what the majority of the population do with out moaning about it. Grow up and accept that you wont be handed a council property on a plate. The quicker you realise this the better. There are people in more NEED than you who will be given properties based on their priorities. Just get on with life and accept what you have been handed. Just remember there is always someone worse off that you.

I can see why people in private housing object to council housing, thats because if enough was built, the overpriced properties of today would come down in value even more so, and people would lose out on their investments which they bought at a price which has never been sustainable.

Thats debatable. I cant see some of the residents of Dore or Whirlow wanting council housing:rolleyes:

Out of the 16 houses on our road only 5 are still council owned. One has recently come empty and new tenants are in the process of moving in. I have been told by a neighbour that they are from Newcastle so how come they get the property over somebody from Sheffield . I don't want to sound like a snob but this is a nice quite road we have no trouble and everybody gets on we look out for one another, but after seeing a gang of lads outside this property and yesterday 2 very dodgy looking lads were on my property the said they were looking for these new people but they were not stood at my door but behind the wall. Then they went straight across to their house so I don't believe they were lost. We will just have to see if we have any trouble with the new tenants as the council have put some problem tenants in properties in the area then moved them on after a few months.

Out of the 16 houses on our road only 5 are still council owned. One has recently come empty and new tenants are in the process of moving in. I have been told by a neighbour that they are from Newcastle so how come they get the property over somebody from Sheffield . I don't want to sound like a snob but this is a nice quite road we have no trouble and everybody gets on we look out for one another, but after seeing a gang of lads outside this property and yesterday 2 very dodgy looking lads were on my property the said they were looking for these new people but they were not stood at my door but behind the wall. Then they went straight across to their house so I don't believe they were lost. We will just have to see if we have any trouble with the new tenants as the council have put some problem tenants in properties in the area then moved them on after a few months.

People living outside Sheffield can't be given priority, so they will have got it on waiting time. Anyone in the United Kingdom can apply for council housing anywhere in the United Kingdom so there's nothing stopping them seeking housing in Sheffield. If they had the longest waiting time out of all those who bidded for the property, then they haven't jumped any queues or anything. They got it fair and square.

However, if they have been living in Sheffield for a while and did get the house through priority then, again, that's fair enough - they've gone through the housing system fairly.

Has your neighbour spoken to them directly and got the whole story?

According to city council these are the criteria: have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property but if you are employed and pay taxes you will be at the bottom of their list.
"I've been on over 7 1/2 years, but I don't see it as a right that I should be given a Council property."
It is the same right for employed people as it is for all those described above.

I have been on the list 5 years december, I had suffered from depression for 3 years after my fathers death, so i was unemployed. I fell pregnant in 2007 ( i split from my partner so was single) In the councils eyes i had a number of prioritys such as single parent,pregnant,homeless and mental health problems i still have no council house, as there are people in worse off situations so i was told by the council. I was forced to find a place fast i had a month to go before i would give birth. I went to private rented solution at howden house - who were very helpful. They said find a place we can help with any bonds and CHECK THE PLACE TO MAKE SURE ITS SAFE TO LIVE. I moved in it was never checked and my gas bills are £200.00+ per month. Me and partner are now back together, he said the place is a tip and to call the council. The councils standads team have been out and said i should never have been alowed to live here.this was in april 2009-guess what im still here as its not got a condemed notice on the whole flat just our bedroom. I dont no where to turn next. I bid every week. I want to no how houses become empty and never go in for people to bid on. like the house 2 doors away from my mother in law, i saw people view it with my own eyes next week they were in. And how does a single pregnat lady get a 3 bed house? Its the people running the systerm that a failing us, our housing needs are in their hands to decided.
feel better after that moan !!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been on the list 5 years december, I had suffered from depression for 3 years after my fathers death, so i was unemployed. I fell pregnant in 2007 ( i split from my partner so was single) In the councils eyes i had a number of prioritys such as single parent,pregnant,homeless and mental health problems i still have no council house, as there are people in worse off situations so i was told by the council. I was forced to find a place fast i had a month to go before i would give birth. I went to private rented solution at howden house - who were very helpful. They said find a place we can help with any bonds and CHECK THE PLACE TO MAKE SURE ITS SAFE TO LIVE. I moved in it was never checked and my gas bills are £200.00+ per month. Me and partner are now back together, he said the place is a tip and to call the council. The councils standads team have been out and said i should never have been alowed to live here.this was in april 2009-guess what im still here as its not got a condemed notice on the whole flat just our bedroom. I dont no where to turn next. I bid every week. I want to no how houses become empty and never go in for people to bid on. like the house 2 doors away from my mother in law, i saw people view it with my own eyes next week they were in. And how does a single pregnat lady get a 3 bed house? Its the people running the systerm that a failing us, our housing needs are in their hands to decided.
feel better after that moan !!!!!!!!!!!!

So you were told by the council that you were priority?

So you were told by the council that you were priority?

yes, but not a high enough priority to be in temp housing till a house came up.

yes, but not a high enough priority to be in temp housing till a house came up.

So were they going to give you priority status?

. And how does a single pregnat lady get a 3 bed house? Its the people running the systerm that a failing us, our housing needs are in their hands to decided.
!!!!!

You wont be given priority for a 3 bedroom house. A pregnant lady will at most be offered a 2 bed property. Maybe you should look at some more suitable propeties and that doesnt just mean houses. You may have a better chance of being offered a 2 bed flat prehaps.

Im 24 and have nearly 7 years waiting times, i have been renting privatly with friends for over 3 years so never needed a council house but a couple of weeks ago i was told that my 2 housemates where moving in with there girlfriends so i would either have to pay the full rent and bills (this would be over £900 a month and can't afford this on my own)or find somewhere esle to live.

Now i work full time and can afford to pay rent and bills on another property but no way could i afford a bond and signing on fees with an agency so this left me worried! so i went in to my local housing place and they said as i have over 6 years i should be able to get a 1/2 bed flat (all i want and need) quite easily but after reading all these comments im actually now really worried i have 5 weeks to find a new property otherwise i will be homesless and i was pretty much depending on the council to help me

is it really this bad to get a property through the council?

Dazmaster - There are loads of private flat/house shares advertised on here that are not through agents so you would not require an agents fee.

Hey Granny Granny

i have noticed these properties available and altho they dont require agency fee's they normally still have at least 1 months rent upfront as a bond (which is standerd) and i dint mind this its just in my present situation i wouldnt be able to afford that up front and i really dont want to after share as i dont want to go through this situation again.

Im 24 and have nearly 7 years waiting times, i have been renting privatly with friends for over 3 years so never needed a council house but a couple of weeks ago i was told that my 2 housemates where moving in with there girlfriends so i would either have to pay the full rent and bills (this would be over £900 a month and can't afford this on my own)or find somewhere esle to live.

Now i work full time and can afford to pay rent and bills on another property but no way could i afford a bond and signing on fees with an agency so this left me worried! so i went in to my local housing place and they said as i have over 6 years i should be able to get a 1/2 bed flat (all i want and need) quite easily but after reading all these comments im actually now really worried i have 5 weeks to find a new property otherwise i will be homesless and i was pretty much depending on the council to help me

is it really this bad to get a property through the council?

I think with nearly 7 years waiting time you stand a very good chance of getting a flat. Don't know if you'd get one within 5 week but I'd def say within 3-4 months? Get bidding!

I think with nearly 7 years waiting time you stand a very good chance of getting a flat. Don't know if you'd get one within 5 week but I'd def say within 3-4 months? Get bidding!

There are one bedroomed flats advertised this week with waiting times of 1-3 years. Watch out for the age banded ones, over 50s etc, and avoid. Bid on any you think you might have a chance with - and have a look at First Come First Served - there are three properties on there that aren't age banded and would suit a single person. Link here: http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/fcfs.asp?ID=18FE13FA58AB4FC78ED6411DF2CB187D

The first come first served properties have been up there for 2 weeks and for the 2 weeks they have already had 3 members bid, no more bids can be placed upon them, at least the ones which are not age banded.

edit:
Theres now only 1 which isn't age banded.

A new age band of 25+ has been introduced.

The unbanded property received the maximum number of bids 2 weeks ago!

The first come first served properties have been up there for 2 weeks and for the 2 weeks they have already had 3 members bid, no more bids can be placed upon them, at least the ones which are not age banded.

edit:
Theres now only 1 which isn't age banded.

A new age band of 25+ has been introduced.

The unbanded property received the maximum number of bids 2 weeks ago!

It wasn't too clear when I was having a browse, and when I've gone back onto the website the ones I was looking at seem to have gone! Apologies for misleading anyone, and thanks for the clarification chem1st.

i really think were going round in circles here ,so to make the people happy who dont seem to understand what im trying to say, monday im going to go into work,quit my job,get my missus pregnant again,sit on my backside for a few years (even though im able to work),get enough points and years on the waiting list and get the council house of my dreams,then i will be happy and so will you because in your eyes i will deserve it.
(laughs)

So did you do it then? You did promise a full report.

Its unlikely that many new council owned homes will be built again. The whole idea nowadays is to have mixed tenure estates, some privately rented, some owner occupied and some social housing. Even Parkhill when its renovated will only have a minority of social tenancies. The cost of renovating some properties would have been more than they were worth, and the council had many standing empty when the decisions were taken to demolish.

Whilst I agree its frustrating for people who want council housing - some people do have unrealistic expectations that they have a 'right' to be housed by the council. I'm not sure why this is so?

And as PT says - perhaps if the Right to Buy had never been introduced we wouldn't have this situation. Plus, demolition was mainly done to properties that were unpopular, or would have been uneconomical to renovate. And lets not forget all the council housing in Sheffield and elsewhere that has had its ownership transferred to housing associations.


I was serious when I asked the question 'What criteria do you think councils should apply in deciding who to give properties to?' But no one has answered it yet. :confused:

I have worked for more than one social landlord, and I'm involved with a residents' group on a voluntary basis now I'm retired. So I try and keep up with legislation around housing and homelessness. I always try and post links to factual stuff, because I live in hope that people will read them and understand why they may not be entitled to any priority. Alternatively the information may help someone who is genuinely in need and hasn't realised.Demolition in Sheffield of thousands of houses has been done on an almost criminal scale.Most of those houses should have been sold to existing tenants for a Quid! they would have made palaces of them as people do with outdated,unpopular area properties once they own them.But no! because there's vast amounts of money coming in...........out with the old and in with the new, you silly people! with daft irresponsible ideas,many now retired on comfortable public sector pensions,responsible for decimating whole areas of Sheffield in the hollow name of progress!.....................and one more thing.Council house tenancys should be for a maximum five year contract! then once you have been lucky enough to have had a helping hand you should move into the private sector(rent or buy) and give someone else a hand up.Social housing for a life term is outdated and does not make economic sense anymore.

Mossdog, I don't agree entirely with your proposal for a fixed-term tenancy, for a couple of reasons,

one:- what incentive does it give someone to look after the property and keep it decorated nicely if they are to move out in a short tome?

secondly what about properties which have been adapted for the tenants' needs, like mine has? what about the expense for landlords re-doing other houses?

Demolition in Sheffield of thousands of houses has been done on an almost criminal scale.Most of those houses should have been sold to existing tenants for a Quid! they would have made palaces of them as people do with outdated,unpopular area properties once they own them.But no! because there's vast amounts of money coming in...........out with the old and in with the new, you silly people! with daft irresponsible ideas,many now retired on comfortable public sector pensions,responsible for decimating whole areas of Sheffield in the hollow name of progress!.....................and one more thing.Council house tenancys should be for a maximum five year contract! then once you have been lucky enough to have had a helping hand you should move into the private sector(rent or buy) and give someone else a hand up.Social housing for a life term is outdated and does not make economic sense anymore.

Some of the properties that were demolished were probably ok, but lots were high rise flats, houses of non standard construction (won't get a mortgage for them), some were originally built with a short life span and it wasn't economical to improve them, and some were in areas where people weren't exactly queuing up.

Of course the housing market and the financial state of the country has changed immensely since the decisions to demolish were taken in the early 2000's. Some of the areas where there was demolition have already seen nice new homes being built - Norfolk Park is an example. Some are for rent, some part rent/part buy (through a housing association) and some for sale. There are other areas of the city where a similar pattern will follow. The government push is to get away from enormous housing estates, where incomes are below the national average and unemployment and anti social behaviour/crime are above.

Some of the properties that were demolished were probably ok, but lots were high rise flats, houses of non standard construction (won't get a mortgage for them), some were originally built with a short life span and it wasn't economical to improve them, and some were in areas where people weren't exactly queuing up.

Of course the housing market and the financial state of the country has changed immensely since the decisions to demolish were taken in the early 2000's. Some of the areas where there was demolition have already seen nice new homes being built - Norfolk Park is an example. Some are for rent, some part rent/part buy (through a housing association) and some for sale. There are other areas of the city where a similar pattern will follow. The government push is to get away from enormous housing estates, where incomes are below the national average and unemployment and anti social behaviour/crime are above.

Enormous housing estates are needed to house people earning below the national average. These people cannot afford to buy homes, where once there was affordable properties to rent, now stands expensive and shoddily constructed houses not even guaranteed for 1/3 a humans lifespan, or empty land which will not be built on as no profit can be made...

I have 7yr of waiting time and i am bidding on homes i meet the criteria for and i still have not been offered anything

Enormous housing estates are needed to house people earning below the national average. These people cannot afford to buy homes, where once there was affordable properties to rent, now stands expensive and shoddily constructed houses not even guaranteed for 1/3 a humans lifespan, or empty land which will not be built on as no profit can be made...

A percentage of all new build homes built are selected for affordable housing. These include shared ownership and housing association rented housing. The idea is to provide mixed tenure housing estates and get away from the massive social housing estates of the past. The new estates where this is already in practice have been a huge success and developers are happy to continue with these scheme as they have a guarenteed income from selected plots bought by housing associations.

The homes which have been demolished by the council where all deemed as unsuitable for refurbishment. In lay mans terms they needed too much money spending on them to bring them up to decent standards. Most suffered from structural faults or where of a non standard construction which had exceeded their design life span. Homes are never demolished just for the sake of it.

I have 7yr of waiting time and i am bidding on homes i meet the criteria for and i still have not been offered anything

What type and size of property are you eligible for? I ask, because if for instance you are eligible for a 3 bedroomed property and you are only bidding on houses, you'll wait much longer than for a maisonette of the same size. If you limit your bids to very specific areas you also limit your chances, if others have a lot longer waiting time.

If it's any consillation...I know someone who has been in council housing and rung up to get their bidding details and they've turned round and told them that they didn't register so now the only priority that they would have would be the 5years waiting and now thats been taken away because they don't have any record of the application on file!

Please take comfort in the fact you aren't alone in the world getting screwed!

A percentage of all new build homes built are selected for affordable housing. These include shared ownership and housing association rented housing. The idea is to provide mixed tenure housing estates and get away from the massive social housing estates of the past. The new estates where this is already in practice have been a huge success and developers are happy to continue with these scheme as they have a guarenteed income from selected plots bought by housing associations.

The homes which have been demolished by the council where all deemed as unsuitable for refurbishment. In lay mans terms they needed too much money spending on them to bring them up to decent standards. Most suffered from structural faults or where of a non standard construction which had exceeded their design life span. Homes are never demolished just for the sake of it.

I would happily have accepted them houses deemed as unsuitable and it would not bother me in the slightest if they were never ever refurbished.
For you see, they are better than nothing at all.

I can see the reason and need for good housing, good housing should be the highest priority for a states peoples, however, bad housing is infinitely better than NO housing.
Society has reaped what it has sown and it has't sown enough to end the suffering. Those that suffer will make you suffer, so at least there is some fairness in that!

If it's any consillation...I know someone who has been in council housing and rung up to get their bidding details and they've turned round and told them that they didn't register so now the only priority that they would have would be the 5years waiting and now thats been taken away because they don't have any record of the application on file!

Please take comfort in the fact you aren't alone in the world getting screwed!

If they are already in council housing, and have an urgent need for a move, they won't need waiting time. If they are assessed as needing an adapted or accessible property, they would get priority status, normal waiting time wouldn't count in those circumstances. If they are classed as overcrowded, again they'd get priority.

However, I think I get your point and would remind anyone who gets a council or housing association property that they can immediately put their name on the register to build up waiting time, just in case they feel they want to move.

I would happily have accepted them houses deemed as unsuitable and it would not bother me in the slightest if they were never ever refurbished.
For you see, they are better than nothing at all.

I can see the reason and need for good housing, good housing should be the highest priority for a states peoples, however, bad housing is infinitely better than NO housing.
Society has reaped what it has sown and it has't sown enough to end the suffering. Those that suffer will make you suffer, so at least there is some fairness in that!

Can't you see there would be a cost involved in trying to maintain properties that have passed their 'sell by' date which would either result in increased rents for all tenants or a general reduction in other housing services. Also, unpopular flats and houses used to be empty for months, costing money for security and also lost rents. The government legislated for regeneration of northern cities where there were large council estates with many empty properties, as history had shown that mixing housing types stopped large areas decending into poverty and becoming hotspots of anti social behaviour.

Can't you see there would be a cost involved in trying to maintain properties that have passed their 'sell by' date which would either result in increased rents for all tenants or a general reduction in other housing services. Also, unpopular flats and houses used to be empty for months, costing money for security and also lost rents. The government legislated for regeneration of northern cities where there were large council estates with many empty properties, as history had shown that mixing housing types stopped large areas decending into poverty and becoming hotspots of anti social behaviour.

I fail to see why you have quoted me.

I'll take the unpopular property and make it my own...

How about letting poorer condition houses with rent reductions following evaluations on repairs carried out by the tenant? I would also be very happy to take a property and "do it up" to mkae it m own, with the bonus that rent is cheaper as a result.

There was a scheme called 'homesteading' in Sheffield which started around 2001 I think. Foxhill and Shirecliffe were included in the project. Empty houses that hadn't attracted tenants, and needed a lot of work, were sold to people on the waiting list - with very big discounts. There was a stipulation that they were improved to a minimum standard within a couple of years. IIRC the scheme was introduced along with other measures to reduce the number of empty homes. Private housing was still selling cheaply here at the time, hence the low demand for council housing.

There is a link to some info: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/scrutiny/successfulneighbourhoods/agenda-9th-october-2003/update-on-homesteading-policy

I understand why people get frustrated at the lack of affordable housing, but back in the early 2000's the demand was so low, that getting rid of some of the poorest was a priority. Who could have forecast that within a few years people would want to rent houses that had previously stood empty for many months. Crystal ball anyone?

Hi, my son trained bloody hard to get qualified to management level in the construction industry, and like many of his work mates is not finding work. This leaves him trapped between not being able to pay to have is own place to live and not being eligable to get a home from the council. Not much changes!

Hi, my son trained bloody hard to get qualified to management level in the construction industry, and like many of his work mates is not finding work. This leaves him trapped between not being able to pay to have is own place to live and not being eligable to get a home from the council. Not much changes!

He needs to start building social housing, the money to do it is in the banks. That money in the banks being our future taxes. Money which we can only borrow against and pay back with interest, even though that money is rightfully ours.

Hi, my son trained bloody hard to get qualified to management level in the construction industry, and like many of his work mates is not finding work. This leaves him trapped between not being able to pay to have is own place to live and not being eligable to get a home from the council. Not much changes!

His being out of or in work has no bearing on his eligibility for social housing. If he's a British citizen and registered with the council then he'll be eligible. The possibility of his getting a council property will depend on how long he is registered, or if he is in a vulnerable category, he may get priority of some sort. Has he looked into renting privately, and investigating how much housing benefit/local housing allowance he would be eligible for?

Chem1st has a point - and if the government were to make the money available to start building some more social housing, it would give work to the struggling building trade!

Is it just me or do you have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property?

I believe so.....who else would want to live in them?

I believe so.....who else would want to live in them?

I'm none of those - and I love my council home :D

How about letting poorer condition houses with rent reductions following evaluations on repairs carried out by the tenant? I would also be very happy to take a property and "do it up" to mkae it m own, with the bonus that rent is cheaper as a result.

The majority of the properties had serious structural defects. With the best will in the world these properties where worthless. The council, as a landlord, has a duty of care to their customers and they can not under any circumstance rent out a property deemed as unfit for use.

Is it just me or do you have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property?

These were the criteria i was asked to claim "priority". Dont get me wrong all the things listed above other then drink and drugs use (or maybe preggy, although some do this to get a house) are genuine reasons. But other then lie through your teeth what chance do you have of getting a property from the council or housing assoc.?

My circumstances are fairly common to cut a long story short, split up with my wife, no home so relying on friends and family to put me up. In full time employment so i can pay my way with full rent and council tax etc, yet not offered anything in a year.

Bid every single week for a year, i know a year is not a long time but when your living with friends and family it is, yet nothing. You see on the council web site about the properties you bid on and they are allocated to "priority" applicants who have not been on the list other then a few weeks or months.

As as for the "first come first served" part of the site what a joke, every single property is for over 40, 55 or 60.

Declaring myself homeless was not an option for reason i'm sure many of you would understand working in full time employment.

How long have you been on the list with no joy?
Thanks my rant is over now hehe

Is it just me or do you have to be unemployed, on drugs, alcoholic, just come out of prison, suffered mental or physical abuse or preggy amongst other things to get a council property?

These were the criteria i was asked to claim "priority". Dont get me wrong all the things listed above other then drink and drugs use (or maybe preggy, although some do this to get a house) are genuine reasons. But other then lie through your teeth what chance do you have of getting a property from the council or housing assoc.?

My circumstances are fairly common to cut a long story short, split up with my wife, no home so relying on friends and family to put me up. In full time employment so i can pay my way with full rent and council tax etc, yet not offered anything in a year.

Bid every single week for a year, i know a year is not a long time but when your living with friends and family it is, yet nothing. You see on the council web site about the properties you bid on and they are allocated to "priority" applicants who have not been on the list other then a few weeks or months.

As as for the "first come first served" part of the site what a joke, every single property is for over 40, 55 or 60.

Declaring myself homeless was not an option for reason i'm sure many of you would understand working in full time employment.

How long have you been on the list with no joy?
Thanks my rant is over now hehe

All I can say is good luck! I have been on the list for 18 years. My first bid was around 2006. I have recently started bidding on a weekly basis and still, priority cases are taking preference over myself (this is on properties with a 10 year wait). You would think 18 years would be enough to secure a property with a 10 year waiting time. But no! I have been informed that 'I have 'a desire to move' and 'not an urgent need' because I am living with family and I am on a waiting list. I have also been informed that should my family require me to leave their property I will be eligible for priority homeless. However I could get an offer that is 'not desirable'. Why would I want to accept a property in an area with a 2,3 or 5 year wait when I have 18 years waiting time under my belt! I asked a Housing Officer if there was criteria to help normal people but it seems not.
I appreciate that there are genuine priority cases out there but the system is clearly being abused. The Housing Officer told me that most people on their list are priority. If you can 'step in front of someone' with 18 years waiting time by being priority then why would anyone choose to join a waiting list. It is clearly open to people to abuse the system. Priority is the way foward dude!
The impression I get from the housing staff is that if a 'priority applicant' turns a property down then a 'waiting time applicant' may then get the offer (providing no one else with priority wants it). The staff claimed it was out of their hands and it is the government that have decided 'these rules'. This is the treatment you get from the government for getting of your <REMOVED>', going to work, paying into the system, and being a good honest citizen. It seems that there is very little help, if any at all for 'normal people'.
I asked the Housing Officer if there was a way to monitor different priority cases i.e. help genuine cases and 'stick all the losers' in one area. She said that would create 'ghettos' and as it is social housing they cannot be seen to be doing that. Well I am part of the social community too and in my opinion I am not being treated equal. Hopefully my financial circumstances will change soon so I can buy my own property. In the meantime this will help you to secure a property under priority:-

- disability
- house fire in your current property
- fleeing domestic violence
- overcrowding
- pregnant
- release from prison
- homeless
- drug addiction and have to live near 'mummy and daddy' who wont allow you to live with them
- mobility
- having a walking stick/crutches after injecting your leg with heroin and making a hole
- exagerating your breathing to make it appear worse than it is
- vulnerable (not safe in your current area)
- AND BEING A LOSER

Keep bidding but I would look at other housing associations. You will not lose your waiting time with the council if you rent directly from another association. Many of them are a bit more fussy who they let into their properties and do not have all this priority ******.

All the best.

Lisa A... your rant is unsubstantiated and unsupported by the facts.

Explain what a level basis is.

Should a person fleeing domestic violence have to wait until after you've been rehoused just because you've been on the list longer? Or should they be rehoused first because they have an urgent case and need to be rehoused quickly?

I understand your frustration, I'm in private rented and would be a lot better off financially if I was in council, but I'm ok where I am and don't have a problem with priority applicants being rehoused before me.

When people with priority (whatever their reasons) are being moved into properties in desirable areas with 10 year + waiting time then I have a problem with it. When the council are allocating 3 out of 4 properties to people with priority I too have a problem with it because its not equal.

Lisa A... your rant is unsubstantiated and unsupported by the facts.

Unfourtunately I am unable to quote the names of housing officers with whom I have spoke to for obvious reasons.
Answer me this: Why am I not successful in securing a council tenancy in an area with 10 year+ wait when I have been on the list since 1992 ? I have been bidding since 2006.
I wish I could afford to buy my own property because I wouldnt need social housing.

I know priority are taking preference over me because I look in the results section in the property shop newspaper for the properties which I bid and they have all gone to priority. And no I will not broaden my search to an area which requires a 2,3 or 5 year wait when I have all that waiting time.

When people with priority (whatever their reasons) are being moved into properties in desirable areas with 10 year + waiting time then I have a problem with it. When the council are allocating 3 out of 4 properties to people with priority I too have a problem with it because its not equal.

so, if someone is living in, say, Burngreave, and they need a wheelchair accessible bungalow, instead of an inaccessible house that they are currently in, you're trying to tell us that they should stay in Burngreave and not be offered an accessible bungalow in, say millhouses, as it's a nicer/ more desireable district?

A friend of mine has just had months in hospital after triple amputations, (he has had both legs and a hand amputated, and has lost part of the other hand, all through no fault of his own) and then contracting pneumonia after a fall (the fall was through living in a property that was not suitable for his needs)

He and his wife have finally been able to have him come home, as they've finally been offered an accessible property. It happens to be in an area that's convenient for shops and transport.

Do you think he should have been kept in hospital, bed-blocking, rather than being given a priority for the type of property he needs, to manage in his wheelchair?

I really think you must've got your head on the wrong way round if you are so dim as to think like this.

Unfourtunately I am unable to quote the names of housing officers with whom I have spoke to for obvious reasons.
Answer me this: Why am I not successful in securing a council tenancy in an area with 10 year+ wait when I have been on the list since 1992 ? I have been bidding since 2006.
I wish I could afford to buy my own property because I wouldnt need social housing.

I know priority are taking preference over me because I look in the results section in the property shop newspaper for the properties which I bid and they have all gone to priority. And no I will not broaden my search to an area which requires a 2,3 or 5 year wait when I have all that waiting time.

And there we have it. your rant is unsubstantiated by facts. (as well as being inaccurate).

Are you Homeless, threatened with homelessness, or vulnerably housed?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

Are you disabled, and can't manage in the property you are in currently?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

Are you overcrowded, by the Sheffield Homes' criteria?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

Are you a victim of domestic violence, and needs rehousing away from an abusive partner?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

being a "loser"? (your words) Neither you nor I, nor anyone else on this earth or it's evil twin, would qualify for priority on those grounds.


I have been informed that 'I have 'a desire to move' and 'not an urgent need' because I am living with family and I am on a waiting list
And quite rightly so. There is no evidence in your application to show "Need". The only evidence is "Want". and that doesn't qualify you for a property.

I want the council to provide me with a wheelchair-accessible five bedroomed house with two garages and a 300 foot garden in Dore, with stair-lifts to all floors, and a level-access wet room.

Am I going to get it?

NO, not in this life or the next.

I have accommodation suitable for my needs, I have a level access property. I have a stairlift,. I have a wet-room. The property is suitable for me. I have what I need. not what I might want.

His being out of or in work has no bearing on his eligibility for social housing. If he's a British citizen and registered with the council then he'll be eligible. The possibility of his getting a council property will depend on how long he is registered, or if he is in a vulnerable category, he may get priority of some sort. Has he looked into renting privately, and investigating how much housing benefit/local housing allowance he would be eligible for?

Chem1st has a point - and if the government were to make the money available to start building some more social housing, it would give work to the struggling building trade!

Ms Macbeth, I accuse you of derailing their good- old fashioned rantings by bringing the truth, and facts into the equation! How could you? For shame !! :D ;)

And there we have it. your rant is unsubstantiated by facts. (as well as being inaccurate).

Are you Homeless, threatened with homelessness, or vulnerably housed?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

Are you disabled, and can't manage in the property you are in currently?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

Are you overcrowded, by the Sheffield Homes' criteria?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.


Are you a victim of domestic violence, and needs rehousing away from an abusive partner?

no? then the simple fact is, you don't qualify for a priority on those grounds.

being a "loser"? (your words) Neither you nor I, nor anyone else on this earth or it's evil twin, would qualify for priority on those grounds.



And quite rightly so. There is no evidence in your application to show "Need". The only evidence is "Want". and that doesn't qualify you for a property.

I want the council to provide me with a wheelchair-accessible five bedroomed house with two garages and a 300 foot garden in Dore, with stair-lifts to all floors, and a level-access wet room.

Am I going to get it?

NO, not in this life or the next.

I have accommodation suitable for my needs, I have a level access property. I have a stairlift,. I have a wet-room. The property is suitable for me. I have what I need. not what I might want.

Plain Talker. What do you know about my application? And actually, 'want' does qualify anyone for a property; on a waiting list. I have been informed I can move onto priority because of my recent change in circumstances but was also advised it may be better to stay with my waiting time of 18 years. Did you get that? 18 YEARS. I was advised it is a risk to move from an 18 year wait to a priority list. So im staying put.

What I want to know is when is it my turn (after a 1992 registration)to secure a tenancy that I am eligible for? Answer me that 'smart boy/girl'.

I am sorry to hear about your friend and if you read my first rant you will see that I acknowledged genuine cases. But I also know that there are people who abuse the system and there are also other priority cases that frustrate me. For example, my Aunty was allocated a property to flee domestic violence only to start inviting the person that was responsible for this round to her new council home for tea!


I know that there are people with disabilites that may need a ramp etc and I was not having a go at people with disabilities. I was adding to the list of 'what will put you in front of someone' with a lot of waiting time; I was telling this to the guy who started this thread. And yes I still stand for what I say in that I have a problem with priority cases moving into properties with 10 year+ waits. I assume you were thinking about your friend when talking about Burngreave and Millhouses. None of the properties that I bid for were specially adapted so that is not relevant to your friend.

I might be on a waiting list but I still NEED somewhere to live. I do not want a 5 bedroom house with a 300 ft garden and 2 garages in Dore from the council (like you mentioned in your message). I will do that myself once I secure a permanent job. Then I will move on from social housing (if I ever get a house) and buy.
We all have a right to social housing. It is there for everybody. In my opinion it is not inclusive.

so, if someone is living in, say, Burngreave, and they need a wheelchair accessible bungalow, instead of an inaccessible house that they are currently in, you're trying to tell us that they should stay in Burngreave and not be offered an accessible bungalow in, say millhouses, as it's a nicer/ more desireable district?

A friend of mine has just had months in hospital after triple amputations, (he has had both legs and a hand amputated, and has lost part of the other hand, all through no fault of his own) and then contracting pneumonia after a fall (the fall was through living in a property that was not suitable for his needs)

He and his wife have finally been able to have him come home, as they've finally been offered an accessible property. It happens to be in an area that's convenient for shops and transport.



Do you think he should have been kept in hospital, bed-blocking, rather than being given a priority for the type of property he needs, to manage in his wheelchair?

I really think you must've got your head on the wrong way round if you are so dim as to think like this.

Plain Talker before you start to suggest I may be dim go back and read what I said about genuine cases.

Lisa A - It might be worth your while having a look at some of this information. http://www.sheffieldhomes.org.uk/myHome/MovingHome/FindANewHome/HowLongWillIHaveToWaitForAProperty.aspx

You will notice that some waiting times are longer than yours - 1987 - 23 years for a two bedroomed bungalow for instance. Your 18 years is a good waiting time, but for some properties that go to waiting time it won't be enough. You haven't said what size of property you're entitled to - as it makes a big difference. No point bidding on a three bedroomed house if your family size doesn't warrant it.

The first paragraph in the link above states:

Priorities
We consider people by priority first. However, to make the system fairer, one person in every four from each type and size of property category is assessed based on their waiting time.

When someone is awarded priority for homelessness (most common priority) it can take some time for an investigation into their circumstances. Proof is required to support medical conditions and family responsibilities. If the applicant is awarded priority then the council has a legal duty to house them. It doesn't have the same responsibility towards someone who is already in accommodation, or who isn't considered vulnerable. You have said that you could get homeless priority - and be rehoused more quickly, but lose the element of choice. Its your decision.

All I can say is good luck! I have been on the list for 18 years. My first bid was around 2006. I have recently started bidding on a weekly basis and still, priority cases are taking preference over myself (this is on properties with a 10 year wait). You would think 18 years would be enough to secure a property with a 10 year waiting time. But no! I have been informed that 'I have 'a desire to move' and 'not an urgent need' because I am living with family and I am on a waiting list. I have also been informed that should my family require me to leave their property I will be eligible for priority homeless. However I could get an offer that is 'not desirable'. Why would I want to accept a property in an area with a 2,3 or 5 year wait when I have 18 years waiting time under my belt! I asked a Housing Officer if there was criteria to help normal people but it seems not.
I appreciate that there are genuine priority cases out there but the system is clearly being abused. The Housing Officer told me that most people on their list are priority. If you can 'step in front of someone' with 18 years waiting time by being priority then why would anyone choose to join a waiting list. It is clearly open to people to abuse the system. Priority is the way foward dude!
The impression I get from the housing staff is that if a 'priority applicant' turns a property down then a 'waiting time applicant' may then get the offer (providing no one else with priority wants it). The staff claimed it was out of their hands and it is the government that have decided 'these rules'. This is the treatment you get from the government for getting of your <REMOVED>', going to work, paying into the system, and being a good honest citizen. It seems that there is very little help, if any at all for 'normal people'.
I asked the Housing Officer if there was a way to monitor different priority cases i.e. help genuine cases and 'stick all the losers' in one area. She said that would create 'ghettos' and as it is social housing they cannot be seen to be doing that. Well I am part of the social community too and in my opinion I am not being treated equal. Hopefully my financial circumstances will change soon so I can buy my own property. In the meantime this will help you to secure a property under priority:-

- disability
- house fire in your current property
- fleeing domestic violence
- overcrowding
- pregnant
- release from prison
- homeless
- drug addiction and have to live near 'mummy and daddy' who wont allow you to live with them
- mobility
- having a walking stick/crutches after injecting your leg with heroin and making a hole
- exagerating your breathing to make it appear worse than it is
- vulnerable (not safe in your current area)
- AND BEING A LOSER

Keep bidding but I would look at other housing associations. You will not lose your waiting time with the council if you rent directly from another association. Many of them are a bit more fussy who they let into their properties and do not have all this priority ******.

All the best.

Have you tried the housing associations? My parents have just accepted a property with one and it's on a lovely estate. It was the 1st housing association property they bid on too!! They were given disabled priority the same day that they bid on it but the housing officer did say they would probably have got it anyway because they had 11 years waiting time and with your 18 years waiting time you may stand a chance.

It's worth a try :)

Lisa A - I think you're slightly confused on this "10+ years" waiting time.

The council does not have a set waiting time that properties will be let to. There are lots of people with more waiting time than you who would be offered the property over you if you bid for the same property.

The guide that they publish is just that, and not a requirement.