MR Implications - Transfer List

25/10/2010 12:54 pm

WATT watt

This is the best con the government could come up with against long term residents on transfer lists.

Not only residents have been penalized by years of languishing in prop-erties they do not want to be in, often in terrifying circumstances.  Now if they  are lucky (unlucky?) to have a chance to transfer they will be charged close to market rents.

The only ones who will have and advantage to enjoy a transfer will be those whose situation or intention is to never come out of housing benefit.

If you work and andtransfer and your job is not well paid, you will be working only to pay the rent.

25/10/2010 2:55 pm

this would be a resident who working and pays the rent and not on housing benefit... so you penalize who is working... she will look next door who is on benefit and asks herself why is she allowed to have another baby and get a transfer and all her rent is covered and I canno0t do it by working?... the whole point (which now turns out to be a con) of the libdem was to help those who are trying to do something for themselves... but it seems now that even those who try to do something will soon give up. The only way now you are helped is if you have nothing at all, so no one is going to try to get anything.  

25/10/2010 3:54 pm

This is not about having or not having children. It is about having and not having a home. If you are 35 or under without significant means or income you will not have a home, you will have a shared room or have to still be living with your parents, assuming that they have a home. If you are low paid or no paid you will not have a home, unless you can find the extra to cover the increase to market level rents.

Parent or childless - if you do not earn enough to pay a market rent or buy your own home you will be homeless. How fair is that?

25/10/2010 4:09 pm

PSR, is this guesswork on your part that existing transfer tenants will be made to pay the 80% MR rent because the RSL is setting the new rents as properties vacate? Will they not be considered as per their current tenancy? Can this be applied to say Mutual Exchange tenants (whom ultimately swap their tenancy terms)? Surely, there is scope to protect the existing tenants rental charges by increasing their vacated property rent which in most cases would be allocated to someone new to social housing via noms.system. I’m not saying that I agree with what is now 2 tier rental and the increased rent charges for new tenant but you are suggesting that the RSL could either: gain twice from a transfer i.e. both properties increase to 80% or is it that transfer applicants whom have all but been forgotten anyway courtesy CBL and noms. will not be considered at all? Also, if both property rents are to increase, how does this fit in with Shapps housing mobility plans, not that they are a reality ;-)

25/10/2010 5:27 pm

Kass,

The attitude you describe is the reason that hard working people get annoyed with social tenants.  It is not a responsible act to have a child if you can't afford it.  It is irresponsible and selfish.  The fact that you think that these people are responsible shows that you just don't understand.

I won't be looking out for any replies.  I've often laughed at people trying to explain a reasonable point to you, sometimes over several days, with no success.

25/10/2010 6:09 pm

"Mr P

Just pointing out that if you have a secure tenancy the option of having a kid to get a transfer is gone as you won't be able to afford it....i did mention that it is a side issue."

If the resident is on housing benefit, nothing changes.  He gets housing without a kid and will go on getting housing benefit with a kid.

If the resident is not on housing benefit and does not earn enough to pay if transferred to a larger property the landlord has put close to MR he either has no kid or  has the kid and gives up his job and gets housing benefit.

so who is penalized in the transfer system? 

29/10/2010 4:09 pm

It's my understanding that tenants who transfer will pay the same rents as are currently charged, the 80% market rent hasn't come in yet, it is likely to be 80% of LHA rather than actual market rent anyway. It still has to be voted on in parliament, so may not actually happen, if the Lib Dems grow some balls that is.