council housing
- Thread starter izz
- Start date
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
Ive also called you CHY... up to you, same person, same old same old
Now..
Link?? IF you have one??
Otherwise you could always say " its my opinion, presented as fact... sorry to mislead people"
Now..
Link?? IF you have one??
Otherwise you could always say " its my opinion, presented as fact... sorry to mislead people"
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
All elected bodies and officials have a duty to deliver the best value service to their electorates, much the same as company directors have a legal duty to deliver returns to shareholders, due diligence in takeovers etc, it's just almost impossible to prove it in practice.
For example...your local council wants to allow Tesco to build a new store, and they're going down the planning gain route (i.e. Tesco pay to build a public structure such as a school). Tesco offer to resurface a road for this and the council accept it; this could then be challenged in court by local voters as not delivering best value to the community...arguably, if you had been waiting on the housing list for a year or 2, and the council had properties that were underoccupied, you might be able to make a legal argument that the council were failing in their duty to house you AND failing to deliver best value by allowing those homes to remain underoccupied.
Altho you'd need a pretty sharp legal team.
For example...your local council wants to allow Tesco to build a new store, and they're going down the planning gain route (i.e. Tesco pay to build a public structure such as a school). Tesco offer to resurface a road for this and the council accept it; this could then be challenged in court by local voters as not delivering best value to the community...arguably, if you had been waiting on the housing list for a year or 2, and the council had properties that were underoccupied, you might be able to make a legal argument that the council were failing in their duty to house you AND failing to deliver best value by allowing those homes to remain underoccupied.
Altho you'd need a pretty sharp legal team.
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
Kanda said:I don't know what you are asking for a link to... he has stated fact, Kyzer also backs that up above.
When exactly did it not become the norm to present a link to what you are argiung here??
A couple of years ago you'd have been absolutely crucified if someone challenged you and you said , It is fact... I say so..
Ive asked Chymera to show which piece of legislation he would rely upon to challenge a council in a court of law as he proposed.. cleartly Kyser knows about it too..doesnt mean someone shouldnt provide a link if they are presenting something as a fact
dessiato
4 years and I still cry sometimes
There is, in my opinion, a moral obligation to allow a needy family into an underoccupied council house. However, I think that, if it was me in this situation, that I would not find the decision easy. I would try to remember that a house is not in itself a home. It is people that make it so.
I find myself siding with chymaera with this, but perhaps would not use such inflamatory language.
This site seems to assume, automatically, Chy is wrong with whatever he says. Sometimes among the rubbish there are good and valid points. The same can be said of the majority of posters here.
I find myself siding with chymaera with this, but perhaps would not use such inflamatory language.
This site seems to assume, automatically, Chy is wrong with whatever he says. Sometimes among the rubbish there are good and valid points. The same can be said of the majority of posters here.
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
Im not assuming he's wrong. Im asking, if hes going to present a whole load of stuff as fact and back it with some suggestion of court action that he then shows what he would use
I believe there is a massive moral issue with councils not using public funds wisely, sitting on land, not meeting their obligations under the law.
However any suggestion that a council is not acting properly if they fail to force people to move out of their home if it is too large for them at any given time is probably misguided at least and to suggest there could be some sort of 'duty' on councils to do this under the guise of 'using public funds wisely' is pretty far from the mark.
I believe there is a massive moral issue with councils not using public funds wisely, sitting on land, not meeting their obligations under the law.
However any suggestion that a council is not acting properly if they fail to force people to move out of their home if it is too large for them at any given time is probably misguided at least and to suggest there could be some sort of 'duty' on councils to do this under the guise of 'using public funds wisely' is pretty far from the mark.
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
are you reading the same thread??Kanda said:
Thats exactly what he started to suggest, the continued along that line when challenged with "people should take the council to court but dont" suggesting he did, after all mean a legal duty, rather than an overall wider public duty
Kanda
Diving wanker
Ok... Would it be unreasonable to challenge a council in a court of law to change their tenancy agreements as I mentioned above? (to implement a policy whereby downsizing is written into agreements therefore removing the moral standpoint)
If so, would this be considered more appropriate use of resources (if said challenge won)
If so, would this be considered more appropriate use of resources (if said challenge won)
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
Under current housing law Im not aware of anything which could be inserted legally requiring a tenant to give up their property on the basis it is too large for them...
There are probably far far more effective legal challenges which could be made than that one
There are probably far far more effective legal challenges which could be made than that one
Kanda
Diving wanker
LilMissHissyFit said:
I never said there was. I think there should be.
LilMissHissyFit said:
Yes there probably are more effective challenges that can be made but what I typed above I believe is the point trying to be made. One I agree with (changing policy) and what I read as the argument put forth. Not that there already WAS legislation.
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
you read it one way, more than one of us read what was actually argued( which was that someone should sue, under their 'duty')
Maidmarian
Stubborn Socialist
IME Councils regulally use "inducements" of one kind or another to persuade tenants whose property is underoccupied to trade down--- usually offering a lump sum + moving & re-decoration costs.
The most frequent up-takers of this offer tend to be elderly people moving from 3-bed properties into warden-assisted accommodation.
Similar inducements can be offered to home-owners whose property is underoccupied & often, in poor repair.(in that case the Council will buy & repair the property themselves & bring it into their own stock.)
Councils, however, cannot FORCE anyone out of their home , provided that the tenancy agreement is adhered to.
My mother traded down because, like chy, she believed in the concept of social housing & gave up her 3-bed property to free it up for the use of a family & refused her right-to-buy for the same reasons.
Chy is correct in that Councils have a legal duty to use public money wisely. In fact, it is part of the oath that elected Councillors must "utter" before they can participate in Council business. This duty actually means that Councillors can be sued AS INDIVIDUALS should they be negligent in carrying out that duty. ( VERY rare occurence, though).
More frequently, the COUNCIL as a whole can be challenged , but this would usually be handled by the Ombudsman & out-of-Court settlements achieved.
The most frequent up-takers of this offer tend to be elderly people moving from 3-bed properties into warden-assisted accommodation.
Similar inducements can be offered to home-owners whose property is underoccupied & often, in poor repair.(in that case the Council will buy & repair the property themselves & bring it into their own stock.)
Councils, however, cannot FORCE anyone out of their home , provided that the tenancy agreement is adhered to.
My mother traded down because, like chy, she believed in the concept of social housing & gave up her 3-bed property to free it up for the use of a family & refused her right-to-buy for the same reasons.
Chy is correct in that Councils have a legal duty to use public money wisely. In fact, it is part of the oath that elected Councillors must "utter" before they can participate in Council business. This duty actually means that Councillors can be sued AS INDIVIDUALS should they be negligent in carrying out that duty. ( VERY rare occurence, though).
More frequently, the COUNCIL as a whole can be challenged , but this would usually be handled by the Ombudsman & out-of-Court settlements achieved.
Maidmarian
Stubborn Socialist
P.S. Councils can already build new housing stock, & some ARE doing----it's just that they don't receive the money from Capital Receipts from sold-off stock (or anywhere else) to do so.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
How will that help preserve the ethos of council housing?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's a cobblers post blue, ignore it.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
zenie said:Do you have any idea what discount you get on RTB's now?
For zenie and cobblers
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
zenie said:ssshhh...I want cobbles to answer
well take out my quote from your post
lol
mrsfran
Well-Known Member
Towards the end of his life my granddad was living alone in a 3-bed house with a big garden that he'd lived in for 50 years. He was offered a financial incentive per room he gave up, meaning he would have got a couple of thousand for downgrading to a one-bed warden-controlled flat, which is what we were planning to do.
He never exercised his right to buy because once the discount went down and the price went up it just wasn't affordable. Also, as an elderly man he wasn't able to cope with the paperwork and hassle involved.
As it is, he unfortunately became ill and died before he was able to move. We simply gave back the house to the council and they've rehoused a family with 3 kids, which I think is great. I'm glad he never bought it, it went to a family who needed it but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Yes, it meant he didn't leave much of an inheritance, but really, who cares? You don't miss what you never had.
I wasn't very impressed with the council charging us rent for the 3 weeks it was unoccupied after his death while we were clearing out his belongings, but them's the breaks.
He never exercised his right to buy because once the discount went down and the price went up it just wasn't affordable. Also, as an elderly man he wasn't able to cope with the paperwork and hassle involved.
As it is, he unfortunately became ill and died before he was able to move. We simply gave back the house to the council and they've rehoused a family with 3 kids, which I think is great. I'm glad he never bought it, it went to a family who needed it but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Yes, it meant he didn't leave much of an inheritance, but really, who cares? You don't miss what you never had.
I wasn't very impressed with the council charging us rent for the 3 weeks it was unoccupied after his death while we were clearing out his belongings, but them's the breaks.
