Shortage of homes for smaller familes.

[Rincewind]

From www.insidehousing.co.uk

Nearly a million households on housing waiting lists require one bedroom homes, according to government figures.

Demand for smaller properties is likely to soar from April, as social tenants look to downsize to avoid the impact of the government’s ‘bedroom tax’ for underoccupation.

However, figures published by the Communities and Local Government department last month show there is already huge pressure on the limited number of smaller homes in the social housing sector.

Of the 1.85 million households on local authority waiting lists, 964,697 are after one-bedroom homes, and 504,533 require two-bedroom homes.

Under the bedroom tax working-age social tenants who are receiving housing benefit and underoccupying their homes will have payments cut by 14 per cent if they have one spare room, or 25 per cent if they have two spare rooms.

The local authority housing statistics data returns for 2011/12 also show that 740,628 of the households that are on waiting lists are in ‘reasonable preference’ categories for housing. These include being homeless, and living in unsanitary or overcrowded conditions.

Under the Localism Act councils have been given new powers to set allocation policies based on their own criteria, in addition to the reasonable preference categories. However, the high demand for homes from people in existing priority groups casts doubt on the effectiveness of any new criteria.

The act also gives councils the power to limit access to their waiting lists. However the 2011/12 figures show only 26 of 326 councils had taken advantage of this, and the overall number of households on lists remained at roughly the same level as in 2010/11.

[acooling08]

'Shortage of homes for all families'

[Rincewind]

Yes correction. The point is though certain rules proposed is going to hit some people harder than others and the others does not include the PM.

[Orkneyfox]

[ADK]

Too many people.

[MooseBreath]

Not really "smaller families" when talking about one bed flats. That demand is mostly from single people who think they deserve their own flat rather than a room in a shared house which most young low-earners have to go for. Simple solution is to get all single claimers into shared houses. But no doubt that would cause uproar. Why should these people have to suffer the indignity of sharing? They are surely entitled to their own space for free.

[Captain...]

The thread title brought up a mental image of the borrowers destitute and living in a matchbox under a little bridge.

[indierich06]

Not really "smaller families" when talking about one bed flats. That demand is mostly from single people who think they deserve their own flat rather than a room in a shared house which most young low-earners have to go for. Simple solution is to get all single claimers into shared houses. But no doubt that would cause uproar. Why should these people have to suffer the indignity of sharing? They are surely entitled to their own space for free.

Got to say, I agree with you - what's wrong with a single person or a couple house sharing? It's obviously not ideal, but the phrase beggars can't be choosers comes to mind. I live in South London and I've got a pretty decent job but I could never afford to live in a one bed flat on my own so I'm in a house share with three other people where the rent is alright while me and my girlfriend try to scrape together a deposit for a flat. I don't see why people on the housing list can't go into house shares? It's not the end of the world - I did it throughout uni, I've done it for a couple of years in London now and I've always really enjoyed it and made some decent friends out of it.

[Finnegan]

Not really "smaller families" when talking about one bed flats. That demand is mostly from single people who think they deserve their own flat rather than a room in a shared house which most young low-earners have to go for. Simple solution is to get all single claimers into shared houses. But no doubt that would cause uproar. Why should these people have to suffer the indignity of sharing? They are surely entitled to their own space for free.

Whilst a pinch harsh that may sound okay in theory but then you have to consider that, for the most part, we're talking about council housing here. As social landlords, a huge number of our tenants - especially the lone dwellers - are physically vulnerable or mental health cases or have ample other special needs.

The stereotype most popularly enforced of council tenants by the Sun and the Mail may be workshy benefit scroungers (and believe me, we have a few of them) but that's hardly the majority.

Do you want a paranoid schizophrenic, a bipolar alcoholic, a domestic abuse escapee and a wheelchair user with learning difficulties shacked up together with ninety year old Mrs Smith who has Alzheimer's?

That might sound like a fabulous sitcom but in the real world it doesn't work.

[The People's Hero]

My house is too small for us, but I can't afford this one, let alone a larger one!

The council dishing out oversized houses to benefit claimers in the first place is ridiculous.

[purpleronnie]

Too many people.

Too many Nimby's.

[indierich06]

Whilst a pinch harsh that may sound okay in theory but then you have to consider that, for the most part, we're talking about council housing here. As social landlords, a huge number of our tenants - especially the lone dwellers - are physically vulnerable or mental health cases or have ample other special needs.

The stereotype most popularly enforced of council tenants by the Sun and the Mail may be workshy benefit scroungers (and believe me, we have a few of them) but that's hardly the majority.

Do you want a paranoid schizophrenic, a bipolar alcoholic, a domestic abuse escapee and a wheelchair user with learning difficulties shacked up together with ninety year old Mrs Smith who has Alzheimer's?

That might sound like a fabulous sitcom but in the real world it doesn't work.

Well, you'd hope that when placing people in shared accommodation, people might use a bit of common sense and take this into account. I'm not advocating sticking anyone into the first available house, but it should be fairly simple to work out which groups of people would be more compatible in living together and like you say, there are obviously people who require their own accommodation to cater for their needs. I'm sure there would be obstacles and issues to overcome with placing a selection of people in shared housing, but I don't think they'd be insurmountable by any means.

[Rincewind]

Moose have you ever lived in shared housing? I doubt it. Do you know why they are there? Again I doubt you have done the research. You are again stereotyping. I also doubt you will do any research because you will see answers that do not fit in with your views.

[MooseBreath]

Moose have you ever lived in shared housing? I doubt it. Do you know why they are there? Again I doubt you have done the research. You are again stereotyping. I also doubt you will do any research because you will see answers that do not fit in with your views.

Yes I lived in shared housing for about eight years. Firstly while at uni and then again when I wasn't earning enough to get my own place. Again you wrongly assume anyone who doesn't claim benefits lives a life of spoonfed luxury. Do I know why they are there? What kind of a question is that? House shares exist because a lot of people who work can't afford their own place. If they didn't work they'd be given their own place. So what's your point?

[Zingari]

I don’t mind living in shared accommodation and we have a lot of laughs , but Mr Rigsby is a bit of a twat and his cat stinks a bit .

[Captain...]

I don’t mind living in shared accommodation and we have a lot of laughs , but Mr Rigsby is a bit of a twat and his cat stinks a bit .

It only stinks because you like to wipe your arse with it, I've given up trying to wash the retched beast because you need to shit at least 7 times a day, after spending an hour getting it clean and fluffy and white again it has your dirty great skids down its back within minutes.

Yours

Mr Rigsby

[Zingari]

It only stinks because you like to wipe your arse with it, I've given up trying to wash the retched beast because you need to shit at least 7 times a day, after spending an hour getting it clean and fluffy and white again it has your dirty great skids down its back within minutes.

Yours

Mr Rigsby

It's miss Jones' pussy that you're more concerned about.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Of the many things that Thatcher's government did, the selling off of Council House stock - without using the money earned to provide new stock - was the worst.

[Finnegan]

Well, you'd hope that when placing people in shared accommodation, people might use a bit of common sense and take this into account. I'm not advocating sticking anyone into the first available house, but it should be fairly simple to work out which groups of people would be more compatible in living together and like you say, there are obviously people who require their own accommodation to cater for their needs. I'm sure there would be obstacles and issues to overcome with placing a selection of people in shared housing, but I don't think they'd be insurmountable by any means.

I'm sure we've a few tenancies that could be amalgamated but you'd still need a planned program of housing adaptations to make the properties suitable for the privacy of individuals.

But what I'm saying is, don't underestimate just how many of our solitary tenants are those with needs that make them inappropriate candidates for a shared property.

This isn't like university, we're not talking about a bunch of young people piling in to some dive together for mutual fiscal interests. There's nothing to stop more private landlords converting their stacks of three bed semis in to shared accommodation and renting them as such but in the public sector it's not that easy.

Like it or not, we exist to shelter and protect those in need of state support and very often people are in need of state support because interacting and integrating with the wider community is beyond them.

[Guest]

I heard from a recent documentary by someone called Jackson that there are a lot of homes for smaller families in New Zealand.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I heard from a recent documentary by someone called Jackson that there are a lot of homes for smaller families in New Zealand.

Yes, but that documentary altered many of the facts to suit the reporter's story.

[Guest]

Yes, but that documentary altered many of the facts to suit the reporter's story.

hoppit.

[Finnegan]

Yes, but that documentary altered many of the facts to suit the reporter's story.

Let it go.

[danny.]

Yes I lived in shared housing for about eight years. Firstly while at uni and then again when I wasn't earning enough to get my own place. Again you wrongly assume anyone who doesn't claim benefits lives a life of spoonfed luxury. Do I know why they are there? What kind of a question is that? House shares exist because a lot of people who work can't afford their own place. If they didn't work they'd be given their own place. So what's your point?

Completely agree, I know loads of people in their 30s who work full time + house share with 2-3 other people because they simply don't earn enough to pay rent/mortgage on their own place. Why should people who don't work get an even better deal? And much of the time they don't like one or more of the people they share with, or those people have issues which make things really hard for them, that's life though. Again, don't see why people who don't choose to work should be in a better off position.

[The People's Hero]

Completely agree, I know loads of people in their 30s who work full time + house share with 2-3 other people because they simply don't earn enough to pay rent/mortgage on their own place. Why should people who don't work get an even better deal? And much of the time they don't like one or more of the people they share with, or those people have issues which make things really hard for them, that's life though. Again, don't see why people who don't choose to work should be in a better off position.

Because thats the way our state works. The only thing keeping me at work rather than spending all day at home with my wife and child is professional pride.

And the fact I don't like children.