Council house empty bedrooms

[leviathan13 348]

Wouldn't it be possible to have two bedrooms converted into one, or for one room to be designated as a study, or perhaps converted to a 2nd bathroom/shower room?

 

I don't think SCC would ever allow someone to do that to their property while they are still the landlord.

 

It's like those who convert their attic to a bedroom, taking it from a 2 to 3 bedroom - SCC would not recognise the "3rd" room, so will still be classed as 2 bedroom for sizing purposes.

[chem1st 10]

What you probably mean is there are no 2 bedroom houses where you wish to be rehoused. There are 2 bedroom houses advertised each week somewhere in Sheffield, and to priority. They just aren't where you want to live.

 

Surely family connections and friend connections count for something. It aids both physical and mental well being.

 

Being forced to move to an area you are unfamiliar could lead to a drastic fall in somebody's mental health.

 

If you have caring responsibilities, it could affect both the person forced to move and the person(s) they care for!

 

People with children might have friends/family with whom they can leave their children, childcare being very expensive. This could make them have to give up what little work they have, or totally destroy and work incentives.

 

It can also lead to unnecessary travel which is a waste of vital resources (primarily petrochemical), and this could in turn lead to greater pollution in the city/borough.

[chem1st 10]

I don't think SCC would ever allow someone to do that to their property while they are still the landlord.

 

It's like those who convert their attic to a bedroom, taking it from a 2 to 3 bedroom - SCC would not recognise the "3rd" room, so will still be classed as 2 bedroom for sizing purposes.

 

Perhaps not, to be fair, the way LHA is paid, there is great incentive for private rented houses to be converted into slum like HMOs and this reduces the living standards of people in our city.

 

This policy is extending such incentives to the social rented sector.

 

The problem is a lack of homes, high prices and high rents.

 

The solution is bound to fail, as it doesn't address any of the above problems, it only makes them worse!

To add insult to injury, people who are adequately housed actively campaign against housing for others.

 

The people running the system deserve to be lynched. The fools running the asylum would seek to address a hunger crisis by banning people from growing food and levying tax upon land efficient plant based food for the poorest to subsidise land intensive beef for the rich!

[leviathan13 348]

Surely family connections and friend connections count for something. It aids both physical and mental well being.

 

Being forced to move to an area you are unfamiliar could lead to a drastic fall in somebody's mental health.

 

If you have caring responsibilities, it could affect both the person forced to move and the person(s) they care for!

 

People with children might have friends/family with whom they can leave their children, childcare being very expensive. This could make them have to give up what little work they have, or totally destroy and work incentives.

 

It can also lead to unnecessary travel which is a waste of vital resources (primarily petrochemical), and this could in turn lead to greater pollution in the city/borough.

 

Which is fair enough - but they can't just evict someone to rehouse someone else.

 

All I was meaning is, if he's wanting and waiting for his ideal area, but it's a popular area and properties don't come up often, then he will have to consider compromising on which areas he would be rehoused to.

 

For example - somewhere like Crookes, they come up once in a blue moon, so if someone has an "urgent" need to be rehoused, but they will only consider Crookes, they will be waiting a very long time. That's not the council's fault. At the other extreme, 2 bedroom houses in places like Gleadless will go to extremely short waiting times. This is because it's not as desirable an area, but there is also a higher turnover of properties, so they are advertised more regularly.

 

If this chap gives us an idea of where he wants to live then we can fathom how successful he's likely to be.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

so what they are saying is pay more for bringing your family up now you have made your self a nice home lived there 20 or 35 years we now wont you to move to provide hosing for single parents with x ammount of kids or asylum seekers and there xxx amount of kids typical todays britian what happened an english mans castle its a disgrace where are all these other propertys coming from more high rise its a bout time britian stood for britian

Nope. The new rules are, I think, based on the point that taxpayers ought not to provide public funding for accommodation larger than needed- by anyone drawing public funding by way of HB/LHA.

[doom bringer 10]

I totaly agree with this the amount of ppl I know who live alone in 2-3 bed homes is crazy .

also the amount of familys with 2-3 children who are stuck in a 1 -2 bed home is also crazy .

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

I totaly agree with this the amount of ppl I know who live alone in 2-3 bed homes is crazy .

also the amount of familys with 2-3 children who are stuck in a 1 -2 bed home is also crazy .

Of course, they could exchange them (with L's consent).

[zippy 10]

I got this through the post yesterday. Won't affect me at all, but I notice it says you could be affected "if you live in social housing" - So does it only apply to council and HA tenants, not those privately renting?

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

because social housing is for people with a defined housing need, a lot of the issues with waiting lists for social housing are down to underoccupation...

 

private renting pay market rates for the size of the property ( and housing benefit will not pay for underoccupation of private rents ), private landlords also don't have the statutory obligations placed on Registered Social Landlords .

[zippy 10]

*mod hat off*

 

Like you, Leah-Lacie, I also have grave worries about the legislation making it very difficult for a non-custodial parent to have/ maintain access to their child(ren).

 

that's not under-occupying though is it ...

 

under occupying is where there are single people or 2 person households in 3 + bedroomed houses... 3 + bedroomed houses are some of the most needed social housing and in many places the 3 / 4 bedroom stock is full of underoccupiers ...

[zippy 10]

so what they are saying is pay more for bringing your family up now you have made your self a nice home lived there 20 or 35 years we now wont you to move to provide hosing for single parents with x ammount of kids or asylum seekers and there xxx amount of kids typical todays britian what happened an english mans castle its a disgrace where are all these other propertys coming from more high rise its a bout time britian stood for britian

 

 

social housing is for people with a defined housing need.

 

social housing rents are below market rents.

 

a 'council house' is not 'your' house... it is the property of the COuncil/ ALMO/ RSL that owns it.

 

why is this so hard for people to get their heads round.

 

asylum seekers are not housed in general social housing stock and once someone has a grant of asylum they would then be subject to the same applications and priorities as anyone else.

 

economic migrants are often given leave to remain ' without recourse to public funds' which means they have no entitlement to benefits until their immigration status is changed again on becoming established Uk residents and applying for citizenship / indefinite leave to remain

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jeffrey Shaw
Gratuitous insult removed

[zippy 10]

What you probably mean is there are no 2 bedroom houses where you wish to be rehoused. There are 2 bedroom houses advertised each week somewhere in Sheffield, and to priority. They just aren't where you want to live.

 

exactly, but this is part of the problem that the entitlement culture breeds ...

 

people need to get their heads around social housing being there for people with defined needs and not just a cheap source of rental properties.

 

as others have said waiting time comes behind the actual priorities for housing and many RSLs do not operate any kind of waiting time system any more just priorities.

[Leah-Lacie 10]

that's not under-occupying though is it ...

 

under occupying is where there are single people or 2 person households in 3 + bedroomed houses... 3 + bedroomed houses are some of the most needed social housing and in many places the 3 / 4 bedroom stock is full of underoccupiers ...

 

"It does not matter how the 'spare' bedroom is used. The new rules WILL apply even if

 

*The the main residence of your children is elsewhere, but you have a spare bedroom for when they stay with you."

 

Every child with parents who have separated, have to have their main address as the address where they spend the majority of their time. If they stay with the non-resident parent at weekends, then that non-resident parent needs a bedroom for them to sleep in. Now they'll have to pay extra for that extra room, or downsize, despite it being one of the factors that are taken into account when allocating a property to a person with children who they have overnight access to.