to think that people who choose to have more children whilst living in social housing shouldn't expect to be given a bigger place?

[balsamicfundamentalist]

I am a member of another pregnancy forum and there is a woman there who has just had her 5th child (by choice). Neither her nor her partner work and she is complaining that the council will not giver them a bigger house (she is in a 3 bed). All the other members are sympathising with her but I don't understand why. Surely if you choose to have a child when you know your home is not big enough, you shouldn't expect the council to give you a bigger one, especially when it is sought after subsidised housing?

I would have though the Tory furore earlier in the year regarding people who earn a certain amount have to give up their council house would have given a little clue that you can have a job and a council house.

Do we have to start bloody cutting and pasting ACTUAL FACTS about eligbility for council housing for immigrants.
AGAIN?

Cant people use fecking google?

I think some folk would relish the idea of people on social benefits being hoiked back into the days of Victorian slums and workhouses.

I honestly didn't see any of that. Politics is a very big hobby of mine aswell, that just slipped through the net.

ooops sorry olimpia I misread your post I think. Soz

So you honestly thought all people who live in social housing are unemployed?

Oh is THAT why it's so demonised?
People on here are THAT ignorant they believe the fallacy that social housing = benefits central?

And of course, another myth is that ALL lone parents are on benefits.... Living in social housing....

It actually makes me quite cross that people are so ignorant of how social housing works.
If you're to have such an opinion on something surely do your research first.

Many don't like to be confused by facts. After all, their sister's husband's nephew's next door neighbour's father's cousin TOLD them this is how it is... so it MUST be true.

You don't have to work 24 hours if you get DLA just 16 whoever was posting about that.

www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/keep-up-to-date/changes-affect/work-changes/changes-to-hours.htm
Actually if you are single and have kids it says here 16 hours a week as well regardless of any disability you or your kids have.

I honestly don't believe how ignorant people can be. I've been a council tenant working full time since I was 19.

I now have a DS and me and DP are living in a council house paying full rent, council tax ect. In.. shock horror.. A nice area!!

I live in a 2 bed council flat with 3 other adults and a baby, I started working when I was 14 and only stopped last year when I was pregnant due to disability but am starting work again soon under the supervised work thing with ESA (my choice, I don't actually need to try to go back to work), DP (who is here right now to help with the baby when I have a flare up) works casual shifts and the other 2 adults also work.

Very possible to work and live in a council house, pay full rent and council tax.

YANBU.

I agree with you.

So veryangry you'd tell me I couldn't have children? They had to move me when I had DS.

You'd say I wasn't allowed another?

Am amazed by some of the comments and ignorance on this thread.

Fact is that if you have more children while in social housing you don't automatically get a bigger house. I have seen families where there are four children in a one bedroom flat. They may be entitled to bigger accommodation but the fact is the waiting lists are huge. I worked with one blended family where there were six children in a three bedroom house - they needed four bedrooms but the waiting list for that size was 10+ years because they had no other specific needs. In other words they just had to grin and bear it.

If a family grows while in social housing the parents will be told to allocate the bedroom(s) to the children and to sleep in the living room on a sofa bed.

AND lastly, I am in social housing myself and until my son's needs became difficult I always worked and paid my own rent and council tax. I was not able to work fulltime due to my son's disability hence we were deemed in need of housing. I am more grateful than I can express for this house and garden....it will never be mine, it belongs to the housing association but while DS needs a secure home we will be here.

I don't think I have read anywhere that anyone believes that it is the case that one gets a bigger council house if one has additional children. My read is that the outrage is the attitude of some that they should automatically be approved a bigger council house if they have more children, particularly in cases where nobody in the household works or has any intention of working.

If bringing up children was a breeze and inexpensive then lots of people would have big families.
Rich people don't particularly have big families, it is more oftne those in social housing and on benefits. or with old-fashioned traditions or religious beliefs that do
So is there a link between getting stuff for free /benefits encouraging people to have many children.

HOusing associations can break even with properties being rented which is good. But that doesn't take into consideration building the properties in the first place. Someone elses taxes has paid for that.

Just wanted to stick my oar in as on a previous thread many people said that housing associations/ councils make profti from housing but thinking about it realised that the building costs weren't being counted.

So MY taxes paid for my council house ... It's ok then.

Kate - I know what you were trying to ask.

As far as I understand it, controlled epilepsy is managed by medication that reduces or stops the seizures

Uncontrolled epilepsy (really should it be uncontrollable epilepsy?) is where the medication cannot do that and is therefore much more serious/dangerous.

I think that is the difference. - the ability to reduce or stop the seizures.

Tbh May I doubt the reason people have lots of children has anything to do with benefits or getting stuff for free. More likely is that those struggling with lots of children in social housing have additional issues that are not being addressed. I have seen girls of 21 with 4+ children in social housing but in every case they were the product of chaotic families. The excess number of children was the least of their problems. Benefits and any "free" stuff was a byproduct of their life.

ColouringIn, yes you are no doubt correct. But the 'excess children' probably were likely to go on to do the same. So anything that stops the cycle such as stopping child benefit for a fourth child.

No doubt I'll get rahrahrah about leaving children in poverty but the proverty isn't the problem, it's the chaotic life.

OhDoAdmit yes you did misread my post
I see it all the time (I work for a well known charity). People read the Daily Mail and know NOTHING about social housing allocation criteria but they make racist comments along the lines of OP or worse that the Eastern Europeans get all the houses and we should chuck them out or that all housing association (all ex council houses are managed by HA in my area) tenants are lazy scroungers on benefits, etc...I hear it all the time!