Waiting for a council property

[Phylis 10]

I'd say 9 times out of 10 it's most likely not but it does happen.

 

More likely 10 out of 10.

[LJB23 10]

More likely 10 out of 10.

 

No contraception is 100%, the only thing that is, is not doing the deed at all!

[Phylis 10]

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)

[LJB23 10]

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).

[Phylis 10]

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.

[LJB23 10]

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.

 

 

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.

[Phylis 10]

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."

[LJB23 10]

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.

[Aries22 10]

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.

[Phylis 10]

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.

[LJB23 10]

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?

[Phylis 10]

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.