Maybe she didn't plan it, things happen, OK not often but they do.
Having first hand experience of working with people in her situation, these "accidents" happen far to much for me to think of them as such.
__________________
If you're an unsigned musician or band and would like to be featured in a new, web-based radio show from Words And Things, please drop me a message and I will get back to you with more info. www.wordsandthings.co.uk
Sponsored Links - Register and/or Login to hide this ad.
No contraception is 100%, the only thing that is, is not doing the deed at all!
No but a combination of two is highly unlikely to fail.
Being careless doesnt give you the right to a bigger house.
Personally if i where in charge of dishing out these ellusive properties i would just say tough titty. You had it when there wasnt room cope with it. (That sounds very harry enfield and chums but hey ho)
No but a combination of two is highly unlikely to fail.
Being careless doesnt give you the right to a bigger house.
Personally if i where in charge of dishing out these ellusive properties i would just say tough titty. You had it when there wasnt room cope with it. (That sounds very harry enfield and chums but hey ho)
I get some of what your saying but then what if a couple use comdoms everytime without fail and one splits resulting in pregnancy and lets say they have a two bed house with a 9 year old boy in one room, them in another and then the new baby is a girl. The law states that different sex kids can not share when one is 9 or over (I'm sure it's 9).
I get some of what your saying but then what if a couple use comdoms everytime without fail and one splits resulting in pregnancy and lets say they have a two bed house with a 9 year old boy in one room, them in another and then the new baby is a girl. The law states that different sex kids can not share when one is 9 or over (I'm sure it's 9).
She should have been on the pill (or similar).
There is no excuse. If you can not house more children dont have them. You have a duty of care to look after your children. Having them and then thinking of the consequences is breaching that duty.
There is no excuse. If you can not house more children dont have them. You have a duty of care to look after your children. Having them and then thinking of the consequences is breaching that duty.
Not everyone can take the pill for health reasons.
So someone gets caught by accident are they then supposed to get rid of the baby? If this isn't something they agree with then what kind of duty of care is that?
At the end of the day things like this have always and will always happen and if there is a law there saying different sex kids can not share then people will need to be re-housed.
OK so I agree some people do purley have kids to get bigger houses, claim more benefits etc but not everyone does that, some people do have genuine accidents and just ask for what they are entitled to under the laws stated.
There are other forms of contraception avaliable as well. Yes accidents do happen, then the parents are left with a desicion.
Plenty of large famalies have been brought up in tiny terraced houses. Having two children in a 2 bedroomed home is perfectly acceptable and many families do this quite happily without pleading they need bigger homes.
The following extract from the Overcrowding Act 1985 shows that the family in question are in fact not overcrowded by law
"324 A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the
number of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to
contravene
Definition of overcrowding
(a) the standard specified in section 325 (the room standard), or
(b) the standard specified in section 326 (the space standard).
325 (1)The room standard is contravened when the number of persons
sleeping in a dwelling and the number of rooms available as
sleeping accommodation is such that two persons of opposite
sexes who are not living together as husband and wife must sleep
in the same room.
The room standard
(2)For this purpose –
(a) children under the age of ten shall be left out of account, and
(b) a room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type
normally used in the locality as a bedroom or as a living room.
326 (1) The space standard is contravened when the number of persons
sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number,
having regard to the number and floor area of the rooms of the
dwelling available as sleeping accommodation.
The space standard
(2) For this purpose -
(a) no account shall be taken of a child under the age of one and a child
aged one or over but under ten shall be reckoned as one-half of a unit,
and
(b) a room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type
normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom."
When I was getting re-housed I had 1 child and another on the way, I was told by letter that I qualified for a 2/3 bedroom property. Anyway we got offered a 3 bed property which we had to turn down due to medical reasons and the lady at the housing was adamant I was to have this or nothing. She was also adamant that I needed 3 beds just in case the 2nd child was opposite sex, anyway after much arrguing with her and us proving medical grounds, guess what we get a 2 bed!
Makes no odds to me, hopefully when we need to move on in the future my husband will be well and fit and back into work again and we can hopefully buy something?
But it just goes to show the conflicting info you get.
Not sure how sheffield housing works, but in Linconshire, they have a banding system, you are either in band a,b or c, you can put in for a council house, if you are in band c so long as no one in band a or b wants it then you get a chance at it.
__________________
Its not what l was, or what l am, it's what l am going to be
Not sure how sheffield housing works, but in Linconshire, they have a banding system, you are either in band a,b or c, you can put in for a council house, if you are in band c so long as no one in band a or b wants it then you get a chance at it.
Here you have either waiting time, (25% of properties are let this way) or priority (the remaining properties are let this way) Priority can be for a number of reasons including health problems, demoltion priority, homelessness, etc.
The problem in Sheffiels occurs because there are so many people claiming priority that there are not enough properties to go around. To top it off the people with no priority believe that more properties should be let by waiting time.
IMO it is time that Sheffield had a major shake up of its letting policy and only let to those in the most immediate need of housing. This would encourage potential tenants to look to the private sector instead of relying on the council housing stock.
Here you have either waiting time, (25% of properties are let this way) or priority (the remaining properties are let this way) Priority can be for a number of reasons including health problems, demoltion priority, homelessness, etc.
The problem in Sheffiels occurs because there are so many people claiming priority that there are not enough properties to go around. To top it off the people with no priority believe that more properties should be let by waiting time.
IMO it is time that Sheffield had a major shake up of its letting policy and only let to those in the most immediate need of housing. This would encourage potential tenants to look to the private sector instead of relying on the council housing stock.
I can't see how waiting time can ever be abolished? If the list was purley priority, what about certain people who will be rehoused and then their priorty ceases, will they then have to give up their council house and go private?
I can't see how waiting time can ever be abolished? If the list was purley priority, what about certain people who will be rehoused and then their priorty ceases, will they then have to give up their council house and go private?
I dont see why not. Under the current scheme there is no way of returning a property to be rerented unless the tenant leaves of their own will or is evicted. Introducing a tenancy agreement of say 24 months with a review after that period would probably alieviate some of the shortage.
I dont see why not. Under the current scheme there is no way of returning a property to be rerented unless the tenant leaves of their own will or is evicted. Introducing a tenancy agreement of say 24 months with a review after that period would probably alieviate some of the shortage.
But one main idea of social housing is long term secure tenancies.
Give it 25 years. This week's Council property paper shows that several properties were let to people who applied for a property in 1981 / 82 /83.
I know the system for letting to people with waiting time but without any need but doesn't it seem crazy that the decision on who gets a house depends on who happened to apply for a home a quarter of a century ago and not on their present needs. For a start , it means that no-one under 40 has a chance for those properties.
Iagree my sons have ther name down to share a 2 bedroomed house both have access to their children so they want a house with a garden,fine exept all the properties in the council paper say bids only from over 40 were do they expect the rest of the people younger than 40 to live,they have been waiting 3 and a half years its so annoying especially when you see houses boarded up for months
Location: The Greta Garbo Home For Wayward Boys And Girls
Total Posts: 18,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phylis
I dont see why not. Under the current scheme there is no way of returning a property to be rerented unless the tenant leaves of their own will or is evicted. Introducing a tenancy agreement of say 24 months with a review after that period would probably alieviate some of the shortage.
How so? We'd just have the situation you get in Montreal, where everyone move house on the same day, Utter chaos!!!
Anyway, what's wrong with wanting to put roots down? I had enough of moving every 9/12 months way-back-when, when I was a student.
How so? We'd just have the situation you get in Montreal, where everyone move house on the same day, Utter chaos!!!
Anyway, what's wrong with wanting to put roots down? I had enough of moving every 9/12 months way-back-when, when I was a student.
Because of the shortage of property. 24 months would be adequate time for alternative plans to be made. The 24 months would allow people the time to settle down sort out their finances and plan the next step. Relying on council property as a long term/permenant housing solution is part of the reason that there is a shortage in property.
There are plenty of people taking up council housing stock who are perfectly capable of renting in the private sector. The 24 monthly reviews would weed out these tenants and ensure that they have a good turn over of tenants and provide a service to those in most need.
I dont see where your everyone moving on the same day scenario has come from. Tennacy agreements can and do start on different dates. Not everyone with an agreement has it start on exactly the same day.
