Couple forced to live in car...

[Plain Talker 11]

This story really winds me up. Just because they have been living in a car for 2 weeks they can queue jump up the priority list. I live in a 1 bedroomed flat with my partner and our 7 week old daughter and when she is 6 months old and supposed to be moving into her own room will we get priority? I doubt it, I should ask my granddad whether I can live in his car for a bit so I can queue jump, and I agree with other posts that say if they can't live in their house what they were in why in God's name are they bringing another child into this world? It probably is a scam so they can queue jump but there is plenty of young families out there such as me that need somewhere bigger but I doubt the council will help, I will probably have to go to them and say I am homeless before they would even put me on priority. Some people just really make me angry

 

I don't quite get what you mean, about "supposed to be moving into her own room"?

 

On housing calculations, a baby under 12 months of age is not even counted for the purposes of overcrowding, and when she reaches 12 months, she will still be only counted towards the quota as "half a person" until she is ten.

 

I have already told the history of a friend of mine, who was living in a one bedroomed property. the maximum permitted number of persons was "three".

 

His wife had a baby.

 

Because the infant was still under one, he didn't count, so, according to the criteria, there were only two persons living there. she fell pregnant with child number 2, and had him, when the first was 13 months old.

 

Despite the fact that there were four people now living in the one-bedroomed property, there were still only "two and one half persons" there according to the criterion.

 

Before baby number 2 was a year old, she had baby number 3.

 

There were still only "two-and-a-half persons" living there. according to the criteria, so theoretically, they still weren't overcrowded amazingly enough.

 

When child number two hit a year old, a few weeks later, that took them to "three persons" occupying the property (And yes, I can count, but five people equals "three persons" as the two older kiddies still only counted as half a person each.) So, there they were, five of them, living in a one-bed property, and still not statutorily overcrowded, according to the criteria!

 

Unbelievable, isn't it?

[Hoddock 10]

Maybe they should have got themselves a sound financial base and living standards prior to breeding like the thick rabbits that they appear to be.

[verydull 10]

according to this article in the star...

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Three-a-day-lose-homes.4407245.jp

 

3 people a day are loosing their homes to the same fate. (sub prime mortgages)

 

I dont seem them all on the front cover of the star...

 

I dont know how the councils gonna accomodate all these people.

 

If they gave priority to one surely they would have to give it to all?

 

..dull..

[Ms Macbeth 73]

>snip<

Those who could had to pass it to Housing Associations for them to use for social housing - they couldn't use it themselves to build council housing. This was a crucial ideological part of the legislation, because what Thatcher hated was the idea that housing could be democratically controlled to some extent; under the old system, if you didn't like the way your council was managing local housing, you could elect a new administration to hopefully do a better job. Thatcher preferred a system where decisions on housing were made by unelected, unaccountable people, hence the restriction, which still stands today. >snip<

 

TeaFan, I agree in theory council housing was meant to be democratically controlled, in reality that wasn't the case everywhere. In some places it seemed to be a great big carrot for some councillors to dangle in front of the chosen. If you worked in the right place, or frequented the right club, or were related to someone in't council, your chances were pretty good. If you had the audacity not to 'belong' to an area, your chances of getting anything decent were pretty slim. I'm not talking immigrants, just folks from another town!

 

Electing a new administration in some places was pretty much a non starter too! I worked for a local authority (not Sheffield) about 10 years ago where councillors would try to stop allocations being made if they didn't approve. They wouldn't entertain a points system because it was too transparent, lord knows how they've coped with the much more stringent policies imposed over the last few years by central government.

[Phylis 10]

I don't quite get what you mean, about "supposed to be moving into her own room"?

 

On housing calculations, a baby under 12 months of age is not even counted for the purposes of overcrowding, and when she reaches 12 months, she will still be only counted towards the quota as "half a person" until she is ten.

 

I have already told the history of a friend of mine, who was living in a one bedroomed property. the maximum permitted number of persons was "three".

 

His wife had a baby.

 

Because the infant was still under one, he didn't count, so, according to the criteria, there were only two persons living there. she fell pregnant with child number 2, and had him, when the first was 13 months old.

 

Despite the fact that there were four people now living in the one-bedroomed property, there were still only "two and one half persons" there according to the criterion.

 

Before baby number 2 was a year old, she had baby number 3.

 

There were still only "two-and-a-half persons" living there. according to the criteria, so theoretically, they still weren't overcrowded amazingly enough.

 

When child number two hit a year old, a few weeks later, that took them to "three persons" occupying the property (And yes, I can count, but five people equals "three persons" as the two older kiddies still only counted as half a person each.) So, there they were, five of them, living in a one-bed property, and still not statutorily overcrowded, according to the criteria!

 

Unbelievable, isn't it?

 

There is a moral to this story. Unless you have room dont have more children. Why have more when you cant accomodate the ones you have got. Ah yes i know why, so you can claim more benefits and get a bigger council house. Silly me why didnt i think of that?

[SadOwl 10]

There is a moral to this story. Unless you have room dont have more children. Why have more when you cant accomodate the ones you have got. Ah yes i know why, so you can claim more benefits and get a bigger council house. Silly me why didnt i think of that?

 

It's not deliberate. It's just human instinct to breed like rats. People in refugee camps still breed. People who can't feed their kids still have more kids.

 

http://www.mariestopes.org/Support_our_work.aspx

[Phylis 10]

It's not deliberate. It's just human instinct to breed like rats. People in refugee camps still breed. People who can't feed their kids still have more kids.

 

http://www.mariestopes.org/Support_our_work.aspx

 

It should also be human instinct to look after what you have got. Why have more when you cant afford or have room for them. They should put a limit on how much benefit you can claim for children like they do in China.

[Plain Talker 11]

It should also be human instinct to look after what you have got. Why have more when you cant afford or have room for them. They should put a limit on how much benefit you can claim for children like they do in China.

 

The couple I commented about, they WERE in work (well the husband was, obviously with the tots the wife had to give up work to look after the children) they DIDN'T claim benefit (apart from child benefit)

[Little Buzz 10]

(Slightly OT)

 

Did anyone see the programme late last night on BBC3 about the 800,000 homes owned by local authorities that are empty?

[Phylis 10]

(Slightly OT)

 

Did anyone see the programme late last night on BBC3 about the 800,000 homes owned by local authorities that are empty?

 

Missed it was too busy watching the woman with huge legs! We did record it though so will watch it tonight.