to be pissed off with being offered a council FLAT instead of a HOUSE?

[OMFFG]

We have 4 DCs, youngest 16 months and they think this is suitable!! The flat is 3 bedrooms and on the 2nd floor of a small tower block and has balconies which I would be pretty worried one of the DCs may fall out of.

This is my worst frigging nightmare. We have been 'homeless' for almost 2 years and the council have housed us in temporary accommodation (private rented) which we have to pay market value for (£875 per month) even though we did not choose it and it's a complete shit hole. We could not leave as we would lose our priority on the council bidding list. We lost our house when DH was made redundant and could not afford to pay £1200+ to privately rent.

Now after all this they have offered us a fucking flat. I am furious because every week until last week, there were only offering 3 bed houses but we would always be 3/4 on the list. Now that a flat was offered, less people have bid on it so we got to the top of the list. I did not even bid on it, the council did. Apparently they can bid on 'our behalf' as we are homeless and if we refuse this flat, we will be taken off the housing list. How the hell will we cope in a flat???

The rent is 'only' £380 a month but a house would only be £20 a month more.

AIBU to tell them to stuff it up their arses?

Also, is the house you've been offered a new build in the private sector and is that why the rent is so much higher than the OP's LA property? So how does the council 'allocate' a private sector property? I thought it was for the tenant to find a property and then apply for HB to cover the rent.

If this is not a wind up, then I'm trying to sympathise with you. You need to make the most of a potentially not optimal situation. The thing I really struggle with is that we would love a big family, but can't have one due to financial constraints, yet you seem to have the big family and be offered very cheap accommodation, whilst I am working my arse off to provide for my smaller family and pay for my own accommodation. < ready to get flames for this slightly harsh response>

It's not harsh though really - just pragmatic. Even though OP still supposedly had employment and a secure home when she got PG each time, you still have to take a bit of responsibility for your choices, and think ahead about how they might affect you in the future if your situation changes - and make your decisions accordingly. (obviously I am not talking about if you give birth to a profoundly disabled child, before anyone pipes up with that old chestnut, or any other of the usual stock replies.) If you decide to go ahead and a have a large family, or start your large family while still very young with no work experience behind you, or in a less than stable relationship, or on a less than great salary, or in a recession, or whatever, (insert less than ideal situation of choice) then that is your absolutely your right of course, and if it works out well then great. But you cannot realistically expect to be flush with money even when in work, never mind to maintain the same standard of living if/when it all goes tits up, and you need to be a bit prepared to take responsibility for that. Anything else is naive.

I thought that when I read Caitlin Moran's story a couple of weeks ago about the reality of what it was like being a child brought up on benefits, in overcrowded housing. I had no argument with what she said - it sounded a bit crap. But her parents had 8 kids FFS! What did they expect, in a real world?! If you want 8 kids then fine - just don't bleat about how tough it is.

If CM's childhood was less than ideal due to lack of money then it was entirely down to the decisions and priorities of her parents, not the fault of the benefit system or the housing office!

OMFFG - Thanks for coming back. I'm glad your feeling calmer and can also empathise with how your feeling about everything happening without you.

I wish you luck.

Hunty I can only presume, from what I understand, that the 14 people in front of you didn't need a 4 bed house - as in that's not what property they are entitled to.

Hilly Council properties are usually cheaper. The council do not build houses anymore so they are owned by HA. The rent on these is cheaper than the local rent but usually higher than council. Also it depends on the size, type of property.

Re the Housing Benefit: Right now, if I was working PT, then I would still get ALL my rent covered. And if my childcare costs were very high AND I was on NMW, then I would still get the majority of my rent paid by Housing Benefit even if I worked FT.

However. When Universal Credit comes in, the fact that you have high childcare costs will make NO difference to the fact that you cannot get more than the cap. And they will no longer make an allowance for high childcare costs when working out how much of your rent they will cover.

It will basically mean that by the time I CAN go back to work, in 2 years time, due to the high cost of childcare here, that in effect, I will be getting less than half of my rent paid if I am part time, and NONE of it paid if I am forced by the DWP to go full time even though it will make my disability worse to go FT.

I will HAVE to be working at least 24 hours a week BEFORE DS3 is 5yo, because otherwise I risk being put on Workfare. Which ain't gonna happen. NO-ONE is getting my work for just £1.92/hr. So I am intending to be back at work before then, at least pt of 24 hrs a week. But the cost of my rent WILL become a massive issue then.

And WHY is my rent so high? It's NOT a Private Rented house. It is a Housing Association house. But thanks to this oh so sensible Government, who have decided that Council and HA homes should have their rent set at 80% of the market value. MY LA has already changed over to this as it's a lovely money spinner. They changed over on the 9th of January this year.

So if I had been given this house just 8 weeks ago, my rent would have been set at £550pcm. A full £230pcm LESS than it is. But thems the breaks.

It is still a HOME for my dc's. My two older DS's are over the moon that they will have a bedroom that is large enough for me to split it with a curtain to get some privacy. Which is more than they have now. And my DD is happy that her new bedroom will be big enough for a full-size single bed. Which is more than she has now. And I am happy because I can get my bed back because DS3 will have a room of his own for his bed.

And WHY can't Caitlin Moran bleat about it? She was one of the CHILDREN. SHE had no choice about whether her parents had 8 dc or not! Yes, her PARENTS shouldn't moan - but she has every right to.

Hunty, I really hope that something gets sorted for you and your children too.

And also RE: the high rent on my new house - it might be that I am in a different area to the OP. I am in the SE in a town where a LOT of the workers are commuting to London, and earning a GOOD wage in London. Which, obviously, pushes up the house prices here to a level that is unaffordable for the locals...

Seriously, the average 4-bed private rent here is £1,200pcm! So my £780pcm starts to look a lot better then, doesn't it!

Although it's a lot I think £780 is reasonable. (sorry!)

I pay £430/ mth for a 2 bed flat with the HA. I except yours is a lot more but guess on square footage etc and living space it pans out about right.
A 2 bed flat here would be £650-800 a month privately. (S.Hants)

I work FT in a school, pay childcare for DS and get £30/week HB. Doesn't sound a lot but it's nearly 1/3 of my rent paid.

Compared to private rents of £1,200, it IS reasonable! However, compared to £380, it's not. It's all relative, isn't it? And I wouldn't be so sure that the sq footage is much different - it might be different to your 2-bed flat, but I bet it has a smaller sq footage than the flat that the OP has been offered. It's a SMALL 4-bed, as all new build Social Housing is. They squeeze them in at the end of the development. There is no longer ANY minimum sq footage required for a Social Housing house. There used to be - which is why an older 4 bed COUNCIL property will be nearly DOUBLE the size of a new build 4 bed HA property.

I'm NOT complaining though - I am over the moon. It has 4 beds, it is in the right area, and the best things come in small packages! TBH, if it was a BIGGER, council 4-bed, the rent might have been anything up to £960 in my area - so it could have been much worse had I been offered a bigger house.

I get a rent of £780 because it is a small 4-bed, the next person on the housing list might have to pay £960 because they get a LARGE 4 bed IYSWIM.

Plus, being, erm, bijou, it will take less cleaning. .

When things aren't exactly as you want them, and life throws you lemons, make lemonade with them!!

I'm glad for you huntycat.

OP just because it's known locally as a 'rough' area doesn't mean the neighbours are.
I lived on a notorious estate and most of the neighbours were lovely. I missed them when I left. IMO it's just a minority that give these places a bad name. Yes, they have more trouble than some areas and given the choice I would probably choose to live in a 'quiet' area. BUT IME most people are skint because of the hand that fate has dealt them-like you. If the local school is crap though , it might be worth travelling to the old one.

I was beginning to warm up to you until you went back to your nasty, self-pitying self again at 23:56.
But it was late in the evening and I imagine you were tired.

Oh, guess what? For the first 3 years of my son's life I did take him to the local park to play, as I did when we had a house and garden anyway, and I do now in a flat again.
And we have never been in council accommodation.
IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD!
Seriously.

I wish you luck in complaining about the council and in getting back on your feet.

I get so tired of reading this sort of shite thread and dealing with the realities in every day life.

So from w girl who was battered but who took up the reins of her own life and sorted herself out and worked and saved and then bought a tony shitty flat but cant afford to have a baby and carry on going to work - to the woman with 4 kids free on the state, who expects THEM to give her her living while she makes her choices as per human rights apparently (but not for everyone) - fuck you.

But will she get a free goat ?

the moral here is never over extend yourself to the point that you cannot afford your huge mortgage when times get tough.

before you were repossessed you would have been in trouble for at least six months.

Has this thing kicked off yet?

I bet the op has by now moved into the flat

huntycat question for you re the universal credit and 24 hr per week minimum working hours. I was under the impression that that minimum woorking hours only applied to couples in claiming tax credit. Single parents being exempt from the 24 per week rule. I am a single parent and work 18 hours per week. will i be affected when the universal credit comes in.

Shit corrine, thats what I was just thinking...
The thing is, if you do have to work over 24 hours, thats bollocks, cos most jobs are either 37.5 hours or 16-18.

You can't find work thats 24 hours usually, so that means full time really.

You could get one job for 17.5 hours and then find another part time job...except then it would probably be a saturday job, whoch most lone parents can't do.
Aaargh.

For UC purposes, it will be 24 hrs/wk for all. To start with.

BUT if you are on NMW, and you want to avoid being put onto Workfare (read any of the numerous threads if you aren't sure what is so bad about it), then there are other conditions you have to meet in order to be able to receive your Universal Credit.

If you are claiming Universal Credit and you want to avoid being put on Workfare, you need to pay close attention to these additional rules:

To avoid Workfare:

If you are a Lone parent

And your youngest child is UNDER 5yo - You will have no conditions placed on you.

And your youngest child is OVER 5yo - You will need to work 24 hrs/wk @ NMW to avoid Workfare.

And your youngest child is OVER 12yo - You will need to work 35 hrs/wk @ NMW to avoid Workfare.

If you are a Couple

And your youngest child is UNDER 5yo - ONE parent will need to work 35 hrs/wk @ NMW to avoid Workfare.

And your youngest child is OVER 5yo - ONE parent will need to work 35 hrs/wk @ NMW AND the other parent will need to work 24 hrs/wk @ NMW to avoid Workfare.

And your youngest child is OVER 12yo - BOTH parents will need to work 35 hrs/wk @ NMW to avoid Workfare.

If you refuse to do Workfare - they will stop your UC. If YOU don't meet the hour requirements, they will make YOU do the Workfare. If your Partner doesn't meet HIS hour requirements, HE will be made to the Workfare. If NEITHER of you meet the hour requirements, then BOTH of you will be made to do Workfare.

However - if ONE partner is working 35hrs and the other is a SAHM, where the youngest child is OVER 5yo, then she will be allowed to continue being a SAHM ONLY if her partner earns the equivalent of 59 hrs/wk @ NMW. Anything less than that - not allowed to be a SAHM.

HTH.

Jesus motherfucking Christ.

I found this too:
Article from Guardian August 2010, which says what will happen if a lone parent fails to find work one year after their youngest child turns five.

""Changes to housing benefit could also hit lone parents hard. A year on from being transferred to jobseeker's allowance, if someone has failed to find work, 10% is deducted from their housing benefit.
That's the one that will really cut into income, because the parent can do all the right things, make themselves available for work, and still lose 10% of housing benefit," says Anne Begg, Labour chair of the Commons work and pensions select committee.
"The department's [Work and Pensions] own calculations are that only 10% of people will get jobs. And, yes, they have to take jobs if they're offered, but if there are no jobs, they won't be offered one." It could leave their children homeless, says Begg."

Nice. Cheers Dave.

And at a time when unemployment is (officially) 2.7 MILLION.

So, essentially, these jobs people are supposed to be getting are nowhere to be found.
Also, what if I am already emplloyed at 21 hours a week, in a stable job?
Do I have to do the other three hours as slave labour for Tesco, when I could be volunteering at my kids school, or helping my elderly neighbour?
Or looking after my child?
How are lone parents going to pay for childcare while they do this workfare?

Out of their ever-so generous benefits package, of course...taking money away from their food, utilities and rent money...