We are selling our house and hope to get a Council house in either of these areas. We know that Ecclesfield is a nice place as fella's parents live there and Parson Cross has some nicer areas on the border with Ecclesfield. What are the surrounding areas like? We looked at a couple of houses around Southey but wasnt that impressed. What is Chapeltown like? Or Hillsborough? There is nothing coming up at the moment, seems like there arn't many that come up in Ecclesfield and when they do they are flats or properties with one bedroom which are no good to us.

Getting a council property anywhere half decent is realy difficult, more and more people are buying them now so the actual number available is falling.

Tell me about it, Im beginning to think we wont get one at this rate, but we have to be positive and believe we are going to get one. I wish we were in a position to buy another house but we just arnt.

old parson cross houses are being modernised and are still quite easy to get.

Ive lived on or around parson cross for 24 years so to get a good house in a good part will be very hard for you... there are parts i wouldnt like to live on though..:gag: luckly i live on a good bit.... but ive also been trying for a house at hillsborough for 8 years .... not a chance, not a sniff.... even harden now its all down to bid for them.... theres many new homes planned for the cross in a few years but i cant see them being new council homes...:suspect:
good luck. try this address for help.
www.sheffieldhomes.org.uk/finding-a-new-home

the point i was making was that the 'bad' parts of parson cross are completely different now to two years ago.

some streets are three-quarters demolished. the remaining houses are the ones where tenants have (mostly) requested to stay. the land is all lovely fields of wild flowers and stuff (i can remember when it were all 'ouses!), and will be built on by private developers.:)

Jillybabes - you may fidn it very difficult to get a council house, as you could be demmed as intentionally making yourself homeless by selling your existing home, and therefore the council is not obliged to find accomodation for you

Well my partner has been on the council's housing list for almost 20 years. When we went to see someone at the housing office they seemed to think we wouldnt have a problem and have as much chance as anyone else if not more given the time my partner has been on the list. You see a house you like you bid for it if you arn't successful then you just keep on bidding until you get one. Its gonna happen I know it!We are going to be living with my partner's parents in the meantime so we wont be homeless anyway. I know the council arnt obliged to give you a house but look at these people that just seem to get anything and everything, single young mums and even assylum seekers get more privileges that we do these days.

does anyone know or can anyone tel mehow you qualify for a council house? and how to go about it? it seems you have to be either claiming asylum or single and pregnant?:rant:

So what do you bid? What you want to pay per week rent?

Or are you just entering your name down for a house? If so who decided who gets it? There must be a criteria?

You register by filling in a form avaliable from the council. you are then given a referance number. Every week the council advertise avaliable properties in a newspaper - this is avaliable from housing offices, Howden House etc. it comes out on a Wednesday. if you see something that you like and are elegable for (ie a single person would not be allowed a three bed house etc) you ring up (or go to the housing office or use the internet) to make a bid. it has nothing to do with money - rents are fixed - all a bid is, is an expression of interest in a property. on a tuesday afternoon all the bids for each property are ranked in order of how long you have been registered, so in that way someone who has been registered for 20 years would be ranked higher than someone with two years. the person with the longest registered time woukld be offered the property. if they view it and tun it down it is offered to the next person on the list who bid and so on.

I think the confusion comes from when someone is genuinly homeless and the council gives them "priority". When they bid they would automatically rank higher than everyone else who has bid on that property regardless of how long they have been registered. People may also have priority because their overcrowded or need to move closer to family to care for some one or because they are suffering harressment, or their council house is to be demolished,and lots of other reasons. They have priorty because they are in urgent need of housing.

Some properties are designated "waiting time only" and so priority would not be taken in to account and of course if no one with priority bids on a normal property than the waiting time thing kicks in.

20 years waiting time is a fair amount and you really shouldn't have to wait long to get something.

There is a shortage of houses in the council's housing stock at the moment though because so many have been demolised and are not going to be replaced.

Ahhhhh - ta Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek for that easy to follow explanation. It all makes sense now..

'20 years waiting time is a fair amount and you really shouldn't have to wait long to get something.'

But if you read the original post this person actually owns a ghouse that thye wish to sell, so the council would not view them as a priority

No they would not have priority - but you don't need priority to bid. Any one who is registered can bid. Any one can register.

As i said in my above post ( i was using my other halfs logg in!) all the bids are ranked in order of length of registration so someone with 20 years would be probibly at the top of the list if no one with priority bid for that property then the person with the longest registration time would be offered the property.

Some properties are expressly excluded from having people with priority bid for them to give people who have waited a long time chance to get something.

i say again - any one can register, any one can bid and the longer waiting time you have the higher up the list you are ranked.

There may be a debate about the morality of selling your house and moving into social housing but plenty of people live in council housing when they could afford to buy their own home or even just buy thair council houses.

Thanks for the info:clap:

yeh anyone can bid, but then the person with the highest priority gets the house anyway!

Originally posted by ASTAR
does anyone know or can anyone tel mehow you qualify for a council house? and how to go about it? it seems you have to be either claiming asylum or single and pregnant?:rant:

... i.e. those people who might need such accommodation.

As opposed to those who are selling their houses at the top of a boom and intend to stash the equity away.

How terrible.

I don't think it's fair to judge Jillybabes without knowing the reasons for them selling their house and wanting council accommodation instead. My parents did exactly this last year, in fact they were put on priority even though they owned their own house at the time. This was because my dad is disabled and was finding the stairs in their victorian terrace increasingly difficult to manage. So the council offered them a bungalow before they even sold their house.

People like this have worked all their lives and always paid their way – why shouldn’t they have a chance of getting council accommodation if they find that they need it?

Odd that nobody took offence to the asylum seeker bashing in the post I quoted.

BTW, ex-
where's the cut-off where savings

<conclusion to previous posting to amend technical error>

My initial response was more to address the knee-jerk "one-legged lesbians get all the houses" rant than to chide the initial poster.

However, there must be a point where you have enough money to pay for your own accommodation: social housing is supposed to help those with particular needs, such as those who are disabled, for example the particular case of your elderly relatives, those with a growing family, or those with nowhere to live (the dreaded asylum seekers). To take an extreme example, if you have 400k in the bank, do you need subsidised housing... .even if you've paid your stamp all your life?

Originally posted by aussieboy
Odd that nobody took offence to the asylum seeker bashing in the post I quoted.



I did take offence to that quote, but given some of the suspect views posted on the forum I thought discretion was the better part of valour! Perhaps that says more about me.

Anyway back to the topic, my view is that social housing should be made avialable to those in need. However we do need to recognise that some will make themselves intentionally homeless inorder to demonstrate need, as this works out as a cost effective housing option for the indvidual. The tory policy of selling council houses has reduced the amount of social housing stock significantly, the stock is also finite. So LAs have a responsibility to weed out those who try to play the system. The cost to society is too great if the LAs do not have accommodation avialable for those in real need.

As far as I know there is no cut off as far as savings/income is concerned. I was put on the housing waiting list earlier this year and was not even asked if I worked, never mind how much I earned or had in the bank. The point is anyone can apply to go on the housing register. However if you still own a home when they offer you a council property you have to sell your home within 6 months. I am now buying somewhere to live, but fully intend to stay on the list and gain waiting time - you never know what the future holds.