Social Housing Must be Offered by Law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by walter_mitless, Jan 2, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "Families of former forces' personnel should be offered accommodation as a priority by law.

    But many families are at breaking point because they are being forced to wait on long council lists.

    The news comes at a time when morale among serving and ex-service personnel is at an all time low over underfunding and appalling living conditions in Army barracks.

    "Though councils are required legally to give servicemen and women priority on housing lists, each local authority is left to manage exactly how they do this. " (Oh dear o dear....)

    The Legion claims that some councils are failing to prioritise cases properly, or that the status of former forces' staff is being overlooked and they are losing out because of red tape. !" End Quote

    Round my way, immigrants don't seem to have any housing problems.....


    Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
     
  2. This has been done to death.

    EVERYONE, both civilian and forces have major issues obtaining social housing.

    Buy or rent like every other fcuker has to.
     
  3. Thank you for that erudite and intelligent response to this recent and I suspect, relevant news item. Though not my News item, you understand. However, I'm sure people will be very, very glad for your input and for your views.
     
  4. Thing is Walter, it's NOT a recent news item. This argument has been going on for ages.

    The fact still remains that your chances of avoiding a long waiting list for a council house is as good as any civvies.

    You don't hear them moaning about it, they just do what they have to and that is to buy or rent privately.

    AND they manage to do all this without the prior added benefit of 22 years worth of subsidised housing.
     
  5. As moody has said...this has been discussed endlessly. There is even a sticky on this very subject in the welfare forums. Also, a link to the actual story, rather than to a papers front page might work a bit better
     
  6. Well, having seen your items I thank you for your responses to what is, actually a recent news item.You are entitled to your views.

    Since this is a forum for serving and ex-serving folks, who have served their country, made sacrifices and suffered in various ways, this News item would be of interest. Since the news item is dated late December, it's also relevant. And one woman has recently, even started to address the issue.

    Having suffered homelessness, it's a subject I won't give up, not for anyone or anything.I accept that you may perhaps, however, may know better than any of us.
     
  7. You may have missed it, but hitback and subsequently BAFF have been addressing the issue for a couple of years now - check out this thread to see what's been done to date.
     
  8. Actually, I can bring something to the argument because seemingly a wide number of serving member of HM forces lack a real concept of civvy life.

    There is a "grass is greener" misconception, and vice versa from a civvy point of view.

    All I am pointing out is that the social housing situation is no better for the hard working civvy as it is for the grafting soldier.

    We don't live in a society that has affordable housing for all, it's life.

    But families of servicemen who are now vacating their MQ, due to end of service have surely had plenty of time to save up for a deposit on a house of their own. Do you not agree?
     
  9. Without trying to start the same old argument again...when a soldier leaves the army after a 22 year career, its hardly a surprise is it? Its not as if your boss comes into you to say..Well, thanks a lot but do one..oh and we need your house back...

    Therefore, knowing that you will have to hand your accommodation back, most people would make provision for that...ie buy a place or secure a place for renting? Is it really that complicated?

    I have 3 years left to serve, and so bought a place for my family to live in so that they would not be homeless. Wasn't that difficult and I am hopeless with money. If more people thought for themselves and did a bit of planning, we wouldn't have this situation
     
  10. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Its been going on since before I was on the housing list 20 years ago and told to feck off by my local council. They came up with a house about 5 years later when I already owned one. If I had given up and sat in their offices with my belongings and j
    kids no doubt a seedy succession of bedsits and B&Bs would have followed but I am/was more resourceful than that! THE PEOPLE WE CHOOSE TO DEFEND ARE AS ENTITLED TO HOUSING AS MUCH AS WE ARE!
    Sorry for the caps lock, accidental but effective!
     
  11. I have to agree with Ugly and Moodybitch. I had to live with my family in a B&B when I left the Army, so anyone having to do it has my sympathy. But I cannot see any reason why the fact that I had served should have given me priority over people with a greater or equal need who had not served.

    Allocation should be based on need and ex servicemen given the same consideration as anyone else. I absolutely support the right of ex servicemen to have their local connection taken into account, and in that sense they have been discriminated against, but not what you seem to be suggesting.
     
  12. GWAILO wrote "Allocation should be based on need and ex servicemen given the same consideration as anyone else. I absolutely support the right of ex servicemen to have their local connection taken into account, and in that sense they have been discriminated against"

    Totally agree. In the late 60's my dad left the army after 22 yrs and was refused a council house in Worcester (Conservative MP at the time) as there was too many ex-servicemen wanting to settle in the Worcester area.

    We eventually settled into a council house in Burnley (Labour MP then & Liabour MP now) who were more than happy to house ex-servicemen.

    When I left I'd already bought my own house in Yorkshire (as Burnley had changed so much I hardly recognised it), moving my family into it so they could settle well before I left.
     
  13. Thanks, Dozy.

    The 'Social Housing Discrimination' issue is also explained on this BAFF web page: http://www.baff.org.uk/baff-social-housing-campaign.htm

    At present, there is just a straightforward explanation of the issue, with the actual text of the offending section of the Housing Act 1996, plus a bit about the Housing and Regeneration Bill which should, as a result of Hitback's campaign with firm BAFF and RBL support, resolve this particular problem.

    The page will be developed, with Hitback's kind consent, to include more of the background to his remarkable campaign.

    I do not disagree with earlier comments about the need for everyone to plan their future housing, but that was not the point about the 'Social Housing Discrimination' campaign. The legislation actively discriminates against people leaving the services and their families, including separating partners.

    Yes, everyone should plan for their post-discharge future but planning does not always help if you are involuntarily discharged before the 22 year point (remember that is no longer guaranteed), or if you have to leave prematurely due to illness or disablement, or if a marriage breaks up and the civilian spouse finds that he or she and the children are treated as having no "local connection" in the local area. (Even if those children have never lived anywhere else in their lives.)
     
  14. Personal circumstances are taken into account however, and if a spouse found themselves about to be made homeless then the council allocates an increase to the points system, thus ensuring they move further up the priority list.
     
  15. Moody, if they are treated as having no local connection they have less priority than a similar non-service family. You really want the legislation to remain as it is?