To think these changes to the housing waiting list are not “cruel” but simply realistic?

[Eastie77Returns]

Our council has announced changes to the local housing waiting list from next month. There are tens of thousands on the list who will never be housed as they are not deemed to be in urgent need so they will now be removed.

The council has said they will be offered “personalised support to explore their options” which probably means advising they leave London, advances to help with private rent etc. I understand in many cases that is really not helpful but a close relative of mine who works in housing has been on the phone to me in tears because of the level of abuse she has faced from frustrated residents who have been on the list for years and are being removed.

Now a parent from DD’s school is organising a march on the town hall to protest all of this and has asked parents for support. She has been offered a council house 100+ miles outside London and is refusing to leave as her support network is here and I fully understand that. However, I do think a dose of realism is needed. There are 15,000 people on the waiting list here and a few hundred council properties become available each year. This parent has been told she does not fall into the 3 bands that will be kept on the list so she will never get a council house and she has responded by accusing the council of unimaginable cruelty

I don’t understand where she expects the council to magically just find thousands of homes and change that situation?

A lot of people have to move away from their support network and guess what? As an adult you just make it work. I think people are sometimes so entitled and unrealistic, why would the taxpayer have to subsidise your expensive rent because they don't want to leave London? These people need to wake up and realise the world does not owe them anything and that the government does not have a magic money tree, all this is paid for by the taxpayer. If I was in a position where I can't keep a roof over my families head and I was offered a cheap/subsidised home even far away from "home" I would be grateful that I live in a country that can offer me this kind of help.

"Not necessary for you perhaps. For many it is. If you have vulnerable family or children with disabilities then it may well be necessary."

I think you missed the point- not having support network means you don't have one, even if you tried to get one. It wasn't a choice... doesn't matter if you or family or children are disabled or vulnerable, if you don't have one, you don't have one. It is a luxury and not a necessity, and doesn't magically appear just because you want or even need one. Yours is exactly the type of privileged attitude that was being described!

I say this as a single disabled mum of two disabled children. If I can't/don't do something, nobody's going to swoop in and help, no matter if I beg, cry or plead. No babysitter can cope with my kids. Nobody will come if we're sick. Social services deem us to be coping too well to qualify for a carer's assessment. We've been living in unsafe housing for 2 years then in emergency accommodation for one year. Kids are 4 and t and have had to move house six times with no help and no car. Do you start to understand your privilege now?

We have social care funded respite carers because of our lack of support network. At £500 per month without taking into consideration any other indirect costs its nearly as much as my rent. Moving people away from their support networks can often cost the state more, just comes from a different department's budget

Fascinating to see the completely different attitudes towards London locals. Now when it's Cornwall or another Beauty Spot, we see a wildly different narrative.

The difference with Cornwall, in my experience, is that people are complaining they can’t buy homes even when they could afford to do so because of the large number of properties that are holiday homes for people who already own a home where they want to live most of the time. That’s not the same as expecting to be given house you’ll be renting, mostly if not completely with housing benefit.

Although there are some properties in London that are unoccupied because their owners live elsewhere, that particular problem is bigger in Cornwall.

The two problems are not the same. Even so, people who want to buy buy can’t in Cornwall face a similar problem to the one that most first time buyers face all over the country.

Although there are some properties in London that are unoccupied because their owners live elsewhere, that particular problem is bigger in Cornwall.

Nope. You're wrong.

Huge numbers of London property are second or third or fourth, etc homes. Aside from the many boltholes and holiday rentals, many are left empty all year round by investors.

And regardless of the cause. Either locals should have the right to live near their families and support networks, or it's ok for them to be priced out. It's one or the other.

That’s not the same as expecting to be given house you’ll be renting, mostly if not completely with housing benefit.

Absolutely. Hence the need for more social housing (across the UK). Affordable housing negating the need for housing benefit for many.

You're right too. Housing should be more affordable for locals to buy as well as rent.

It's not the fault of London locals that people from across the UK including Cornwall came to London and pushed the prices up. (unless you think it's their fault for being welcoming and tolerant - unlike more insular parts of the country).

You still haven't answered my question btw.

Where do all the very many displaced Londoners go? (Presumably not where the Lib Dems are busy with NIMBYism).

165,000 homeless in London. More people than the entire population of many UK towns. That's before we move on to the not quite homeless but struggling to afford the housing costs there.

A lot of housing needed. Where would you suggest? Wherever it is, it won't stay 'somewhere cheaper' for long. Not with hundreds of thousands of new people moving there.

Either locals should have the right to live near their families and support networks, or it's ok for them to be priced out. It's one or the other.

Then quite obviously, it’s ok for them to be priced out. This is what’s happening everywhere. Even the middle class homeowners in average to more affluent areas have to deal with it when their children can’t afford to rent or buy nearby. It’s normal, and really not that terrible.

Where do all the very many displaced Londoners go? (Presumably not where the Lib Dems are busy with NIMBYism)

The answer to that, again obviously, will be a list of different places. Presumably councils like the one in the OP have thought about that before they made offers outside London.

There seems to be 2 camps - the first is still invested in the idea that council/ social housing should be available to the majority of working class people - like the housing boom post WW2 . The 2nd camp believes that social housing should be available to those only in most need - a safety net for the destitute. I’m sure there must be a third way… but I don’t think the council are being unreasonable by being honest. And of course we live in a free county and people are free to demonstrate and express themselves

The answer to that, again obviously, will be a list of different places. Presumably councils like the one in the OP have thought about that before they made offers outside London

Nope again. What they do is dump vulnerable people in temporary and very often badly maintained (12 month private rentals). Meanwhile locals in that area start to get pushed out...and so they are displaced somewhere else...and so it continues.... until there's nowhere cheaper left.

And the demand on mental health care (including child and adolescent) and social services goes up and up. Costing the taxpayer.

Hmmm. Might as well instead spend the money on treating human beings with compassion and maintaining stable cohesive societies.

Keeping people who are unlikely to be housed on the list at least keeps a record of unmet needs.

We desperately need more social housing in this country.

Just seems like a way of fiddling the figures and whitewashing the situation.

Unreasonable is socially cleansing vulnerable families and disabled people, whilst lots and lots of overpriced new builds are going up. Particularly when many are snapped by absent investors - sometimes left empty year round. Build social rent homes instead.

Well the parent mentioned in my OP apparently now has 1 day left to accept a property she has been offered outside of London. She has updated everyone that she wants to refuse but has been warned that whether she accepts or declines, the council will discharge its responsibility to house her and the children. They have told her she has to sign a contract, pick up her train fare voucher and they will arrange to move her stuff.

I do feel for her as she does not know the area she is being moved to and says she had never even heard of it before this enforced move.

Over 150 families from our area have all been told they must move to this same town. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason in the council’s decision making process as other families have separately been told they must move to Newcastle but were given no explanation as to they couldn’t be moved to the first town (which is not quite as far away and apparently has plenty of social housing).

Obviously being housed is better than homelessness but honestly…how many of you would happily just up sticks and move to the other side of the country, to a city you have never heard of?

Agreed. Good post CatKittyCatCatKittyCatCat

I bet it's not a secure tenancy either.

The children will be uprooted from their home, sent to an unfamiliar area, away from friends and family and everything they've ever known. And not even for stability.

And people wonder why social problems are an issue!

People are currently talking about violence against women.

A lot of the homeless families and vulnerable individuals will be homeless because of domestic violence.

What a way to treat already traumatised, frightened, and distressed women and children. If ever there was a time when support networks are vital.

@Tealightsandd

The answer to that, again obviously, will be a list of different places. Presumably councils like the one in the OP have thought about that before they made offers outside London

Nope again. What they do is dump vulnerable people in temporary and very often badly maintained (12 month private rentals). Meanwhile locals in that area start to get pushed out...and so they are displaced somewhere else...and so it continues.... until there's nowhere cheaper left.

And the demand on mental health care (including child and adolescent) and social services goes up and up. Costing the taxpayer.

Hmmm. Might as well instead spend the money on treating human beings with compassion and maintaining stable cohesive societies.

You must be right, clearly the council won’t have thought about where people are going to go at all

Why are you so determined that everyone involved is ‘vulnerable’ and that children who have to move home are going to end up with social problems? It’s difficult for people yes, but people move home and children move schools all the time without it being a massive drama.

Well being homeless does tend to kind of make people vulnerable.

clearly the council won’t have thought about where people are going to go at all

Yep. Sadly this is true.

@Eastie77Returns

Well the parent mentioned in my OP apparently now has 1 day left to accept a property she has been offered outside of London. She has updated everyone that she wants to refuse but has been warned that whether she accepts or declines, the council will discharge its responsibility to house her and the children. They have told her she has to sign a contract, pick up her train fare voucher and they will arrange to move her stuff.

I do feel for her as she does not know the area she is being moved to and says she had never even heard of it before this enforced move.

Over 150 families from our area have all been told they must move to this same town. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason in the council’s decision making process as other families have separately been told they must move to Newcastle but were given no explanation as to they couldn’t be moved to the first town (which is not quite as far away and apparently has plenty of social housing).

Obviously being housed is better than homelessness but honestly…how many of you would happily just up sticks and move to the other side of the country, to a city you have never heard of?

Why would she not have heard of Newcastle?

I had to move away from where I grew up ( outer London) My parents then retired slightly outside of London to clear their big mortgage . But to get a family home I had to move a long long way away. I feel for people, being far is shit, but it's a decision always does the location or the space matter more?

@Eastie77Returns

Well the parent mentioned in my OP apparently now has 1 day left to accept a property she has been offered outside of London. She has updated everyone that she wants to refuse but has been warned that whether she accepts or declines, the council will discharge its responsibility to house her and the children. They have told her she has to sign a contract, pick up her train fare voucher and they will arrange to move her stuff.

I do feel for her as she does not know the area she is being moved to and says she had never even heard of it before this enforced move.

Over 150 families from our area have all been told they must move to this same town. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason in the council’s decision making process as other families have separately been told they must move to Newcastle but were given no explanation as to they couldn’t be moved to the first town (which is not quite as far away and apparently has plenty of social housing).

Obviously being housed is better than homelessness but honestly…how many of you would happily just up sticks and move to the other side of the country, to a city you have never heard of?

Rather than being stubborn and refusing she should of spent her time more constructively by researching the area she was informed she would be moving to so that she can become more familiar and as a parent be able to be more positive about the chnsgr to her children and help their transition.

Where is her sense of duty of care to her children's mental health by being negative and fighting it? Ah I guess that part of parenting isn't something she should do, judging by her current actions.

Zero sympathy for her.

Could taking people off the waiting list help to hide the severity of problem of the lack of social housing? By not showing true demand. Does removing those people mean the council removes any acknowledgement of their need and any desire to help them?

Support networks are so vital for mental and physical health, and it's good people march to demonstrate what they need.

Yes you're right - all of your post GLTM

Dreamstate she has looked up the area online now as she was completely unfamiliar with it. She didn’t particularly like what she read (high crime, deprivation, limited employment opportunities). So I’m not sure what she really has to feel positive about, moving far away to a random town where she does not know a single person. It isn’t a terrible town but I would’t live there by choice.

@GLTM

Could taking people off the waiting list help to hide the severity of problem of the lack of social housing? By not showing true demand. Does removing those people mean the council removes any acknowledgement of their need and any desire to help them?

Support networks are so vital for mental and physical health, and it's good people march to demonstrate what they need.

Demand and need are not the same thing. My London Borough had a totally open waiting list up until a few years ago. It was massive and anyone from anywhere could join it. It has to be managed sensibly and one criterion now is having local links although it isn't the only one.