council housing

[Minnie_the_Minx]

On what grounds? If he's got a secure tenancy, they can't, unless he's broken the agreement or they need to do work to the place that necessitates him moving.

Re. elderly people in too-large accommodation - they will usually want something like a nice 2-bed bungalow or to go to a much nicer area if they move. Can't say I blame them. If they do want to move to a smaller property they should have a lot of bargaining power and most social landlords offer a financial incentive, because they can't force them to move.

they figured he didn't need a property that size. Anyway, that was years ago and they seem to have given up... for now

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

As an aside, being on the fourth floor with no lift wouldn't deter the council from housing parents with young babies there. Regardless of that, it's his flat by rights, I would have thought.

I can see lots of parents with young children wanting to carry a pram, child and shopping up four flights

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

It is a moral issue, more so now than it was 25 years ago when I persuaded my mother to move to smaller accomodation.

For you it was a moral issue, your morals clearly fall far short of considering that a proprty is more than just a property, its a home.
Unless there are benefits to the tenant of moving to a smaller property then they shouldnt be asked to IMO... unless its massively over their needs( such as having 3-4 more bedrooms than they need) in which case they should be offered a better property for them- their choice

 

[scifisam]

I can see lots of parents with young children wanting to carry a pram, child and shopping up four flights

Got nothing to do with what they want, but where they get offered to live. I lived on the third floor with no lift when my daughter was a baby.

 

[chymaera]

For you it was a moral issue, your morals clearly fall far short of considering that a proprty is more than just a property, its a home.

If a single person is living in a council house large enough to house a family they should be moved to a smaller council house. Councils have a duty to make effecient use of properties they own.

 

[FiFi]

If a single person is living in a council house large enough to house a family they should be moved to a smaller council house. Councils have a duty to make effecient use of properties they own.

A very Utilitarian approach, Chy, and it can be a good arguement in the abstract.
However the OP is talking about the effects for his Mother, and is proberably more concerned with a more individual, humanistic view.

 

[_angel_]

If a single person is living in a council house large enough to house a family they should be moved to a smaller council house. Councils have a duty to make effecient use of properties they own.

Yes I can see both sides. People in large houses who are now single can be given financial insentives to move somewhere smaller, but I don't think they can be forced.

 

[chymaera]

A very Utilitarian approach, Chy, and it can be a good arguement in the abstract.
However the OP is talking about the effects for his Mother, and is proberably more concerned with a more individual, humanistic view.

Council housing is owned by the council not the occupant.
Sorry to sound harse but I know young families who are having live in illegally cramped conditions. Where a family has both boy and girl children, those children need seperate bedrooms when they get older.
I know one young married couple who have been sleeping on a sofa bed in their living room for several years so the children can have seperate bedrooms.
There are numerous three bedroom council houses in the area with a single occupant.

 

[marty21]

i understand your point, but the issue is whether we can force people to move, and we can't, i don't feel that you should put moral pressure on people to leave their homes...

 

[Kanda]

i understand your point, but the issue is whether we can force people to move, and we can't, i don't feel that you should put moral pressure on people to leave their homes...

But in future, would it not be wise to include any kind of downsizing guidelines in contracts/agreements? I think it's a valid idea.

That removes the moral pressure and it's pretty open.

 

[chymaera]

i don't feel that you should put moral pressure on people to leave their homes...

It might be their home, but they don't own it.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

If a single person is living in a council house large enough to house a family they should be moved to a smaller council house. Councils have a duty to make effecient use of properties they own.

another 'tobyjug fact??'
can we have link to that please??? As far as I know there is no such duty, in fact many councils have empty housing stock which they own which would be better pulled down and redeveloped but they dont...

 

[zenie]

If a single person is living in a council house large enough to house a family they should be moved to a smaller council house. Councils have a duty to make effecient use of properties they own.

That's absolute rubbish councils aren't allowed to move people on those grounds.

Also it's all very well and good people saying that others should move or downsize but have the council got the properties available to downsize these people into?

Not IME.

 

[chymaera]

can we have link to that please??? As far as I know there is no such duty, in fact many councils have empty housing stock which they own which would be better pulled down and redeveloped but they dont...

Councils get away with a lot of things because no-one takes them to court over it.
They have a duty to use taxpayers money prudently and wisely. Elected councillors are UNLIMITEDLY LIABLE for not doing so.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think when Tobes says 'duty' he means it on the old fashioned, non-legalistic sense of the word..

 

[zenie]

Councils get away with a lot of things because no-one takes them to court over it.
They have a duty to use taxpayers money prudently and wisely. Elected councillors are UNLIMITEDLY LIABLE for not doing so.

What exactly would one take them to court over?

The fact that they allow people to live in their houses until they want to move out, as already agreed with their tenancy agreement?

You're talking such shit...

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Councils get away with a lot of things because no-one takes them to court over it.
They have a duty to use taxpayers money prudently and wisely. Elected councillors are UNLIMITEDLY LIABLE for not doing so.

ERm link please... to whatever piece of legislation you are relying on when you say councils have a duty to use their housing stock most efficiently

Especially if people should be taking them to court over it... Im sure we should let shelter know about it at the very least...

 

[chymaera]

What exactly would one take them to court over?
...

Not managing assets paid for by the taxpayer to their full potential.
They have a duty to use taxpayers money effectively.
ANY council can be challenged on such issues. That few are is down to taxpayers not bothering to do so.

 

[Kanda]

He said that they have a duty to use taxpayers money prudently and wisely.

Whether or not that involves housing stock or the management/mismanagement of it would need to be challenged. But nobody does challenge it.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

They have a duty to use taxpayers money effectively.

LINK please....especially in relation to possible court action over the mismanagement of housing stock

 

[Kanda]

LINK please....

To what? try reading and understanding what he is saying

He hasn't mentioned any legislation has he?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

He said that they have a duty to use taxpayers money prudently and wisely.

Whether or not that involves housing stock or the management/mismanagement of it would need to be challenged. But nobody does challenge it.

BUt hes also saying people should take the council to court
On which grounds exactly? He'd need some legislation to challenge

 

[_angel_]

What exactly would one take them to court over?

The fact that they allow people to live in their houses until they want to move out, as already agreed with their tenancy agreement?

You're talking such shit...

He said councils get away with a lot of things, not specifically related to housing and overcrowding/ unused houses.

 

[kyser_soze]

To what? try reading and understanding what he is saying

He hasn't mentioned any legislation has he?

Lack of understanding of what the word 'duty' means in an extra-legal sense I suspect...

 

[Kanda]

BUt hes also saying people should take the council to court
On which grounds exactly?

Looks to me he is making a generalised statement about council resposibilities and making them accountable.

You're still holding on to the housing argument, don't think he is really. But he IS making a valid point that nobody challenges decisions made.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

He is but Id still like to see what he could/would use to challenge councils in court over use of their housing stock and their 'duty' to use public funds efficiently ( whether legal or extra legal- I do understand the difference perfectly well)

 

[bluestreak]

I agree with Kanda on this - I think you're confusing the legal notion of duty with the old-fashioned protestant work ethic notion of duty.

It's bloody frustrating working in housing and dealing with families living in single rooms while others live with rooms to spare. But on the other hand, these are their homes. I believe in financial incentivisaion to move, rather than forcing them.

But primarily I believe in changing the law regarding building council housing. Any political party who won't restart the building program aren't interested in social justice or the problems of the poor IMO.

 

[zenie]

But primarily I believe in changing the law regarding building council housing. Any political party who won't restart the building program aren't interested in social justice or the problems of the poor IMO.

Agreed

BTW I'm just trying to get tobyjug to not take the thread OT with his outrageous claims as per usual.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I dont think I am at all..
However Chy regularly does this... makes a statement of fact, rather than presenting an opinion. Then backs it up with something such as "someone should take them to court but they dont" ( again, more fact- more 'should' could, would might) and cannot back it up when asked for more information- if they could, should, would, might then would shelter not be the right people?

Then buggers off and leaves other people to argue it out on his behalf( as you are all doing)

If you have an opinion, present it as just that, an opinion...not an irrefutable truth which leaves other people saying" Oh but youve got it wrong, youre still hanging into the..." ( well why shouldnt I??)

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

It's bloody frustrating working in housing and dealing with families living in single rooms while others live with rooms to spare. But on the other hand, these are their homes. I believe in financial incentivisaion to move, rather than forcing them.

But primarily I believe in changing the law regarding building council housing. Any political party who won't restart the building program aren't interested in social justice or the problems of the poor IMO.

I completely agree with you....
but my challenge to Tobyjug comes from his 'facts' as Ive tried to explain...