15 year Army serviceman can't have a council house
Discussion
Countdown said:
I hadn't realised that pay was so bad in the Army that, after 22 years, you couldn't afford anything better than Council Housing. Maybe if Right to Buy hadn't been pushed so hard there would be more council houses available.
When I joined? Hell yes! No it is a lot better but back then it was awful. Since Help the Hero's etc public awareness has embarrassed our leaders to increase it but when I joined a dustman earned twice my salary. You also used to go to the top of the council list, anywhere in the country you picked to settle, not anymore.Edited by Grumfutock on Wednesday 28th January 06:28
johnfm said:
Why would soldiers be more at risk for critical ILLNESS.?
It is obvious that a soldier would struggle to get insurance from injuries suffered - and they get compensated if they do.
Critical illness cover is useful if you have family and are the sole breadwinner.
Because a: they are insurance companies. b: Insurance companies will dodge anything risky. c: Soldiers go to high risk combat zones.It is obvious that a soldier would struggle to get insurance from injuries suffered - and they get compensated if they do.
Critical illness cover is useful if you have family and are the sole breadwinner.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
So much fo Cameron's promise to honour the Military Covenant. 
Squaddies refusing to move out of MQs so that they can get an eviction order to bump them up the social housing queue is nothing new. I've been out for ten years so certainly been going on a lot longer than the last five. I don't expect ex-servicemen & women to be treated any better by the next lot; after all they didn't give a toss last time round either. there is a forces life insurance scheme, http://www.paxinsurance.aon.co.uk/paxinsurance/Per...
pay as much as you want, for as many 'units' of cover as you want
pay as much as you want, for as many 'units' of cover as you want
TBF, I can see Cornwall Council's point of view - it's an area with a low council tax take, plenty of social problems/unemployment, a big old land area to finance, and lots of incomers (old folk retiring etc) who are a big drain on social servces. They have priorities for scarce council housing, and this guy doesn't fit them.
If central govt. have entered into a military covenant to ensure this doesn't happen, they should fund housing for ex-squaddies. If local councils got a ring-fenced grant for this purpose, I'm sure they'd have no problem housing this fella and his ilk. Write to your MPs folks - this is one for Westminster to sort out.
If central govt. have entered into a military covenant to ensure this doesn't happen, they should fund housing for ex-squaddies. If local councils got a ring-fenced grant for this purpose, I'm sure they'd have no problem housing this fella and his ilk. Write to your MPs folks - this is one for Westminster to sort out.
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
I hadn't realised that pay was so bad in the Army that, after 22 years, you couldn't afford anything better than Council Housing. Maybe if Right to Buy hadn't been pushed so hard there would be more council houses available.
When I joined? Hell yes! No it is a lot better but back then it was awful. Since Help the Hero's etc public awareness has embarrassed our leaders to increase it but when I joined a dustman earned twice my salary. You also used to go to the top of the council list, anywhere in the country you picked to settle, not anymore.Edited by Grumfutock on Wednesday 28th January 06:28
I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
Bluebarge said:
TBF, I can see Cornwall Council's point of view - it's an area with a low council tax take, plenty of social problems/unemployment, a big old land area to finance, and lots of incomers (old folk retiring etc) who are a big drain on social servces. They have priorities for scarce council housing, and this guy doesn't fit them.
It would appear so. Their proirities are wrong and in need of revision.Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
I was refused one after 22 years service. Even though we moved back to the town we were both born and raised in, both sets of family living there at least 4 generations, I was told....."you haven't lived here for over 20 years so you have no ties to the town therefore you cannot go on the list".
After starring in mortified silence at the officious arse in front of me for 30 secs I then spent another 30 deciding if pulling him across the desk was a good idea. In the end I opted to politely but firmly tell him where and how he could insert his list.
The worst bit? He was a Nigerian with a very strong accent so not born here! Cheeky b
d!
I hadn't realised that pay was so bad in the Army that, after 22 years, you couldn't afford anything better than Council Housing. Maybe if Right to Buy hadn't been pushed so hard there would be more council houses available.After starring in mortified silence at the officious arse in front of me for 30 secs I then spent another 30 deciding if pulling him across the desk was a good idea. In the end I opted to politely but firmly tell him where and how he could insert his list.
The worst bit? He was a Nigerian with a very strong accent so not born here! Cheeky b
d! Edited by Grumfutock on Tuesday 27th January 21:03
It was completely different in the late 60s/early 70s when my father left the RN after 24 years service, we lived in several houses both in and out of the dockyard until my parents managed to buy one of their own .
Surely this should be the essence of the Military Covenant?
Asterix said:
Agreed - when I joined in the late 80's, the money abysmal. The excuse was that everything was being taken care of - sort of, it was still a deduction from your pay packet.
I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
And a dodgy pie at 10:00.I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
Grumfutock said:
Asterix said:
Agreed - when I joined in the late 80's, the money abysmal. The excuse was that everything was being taken care of - sort of, it was still a deduction from your pay packet.
I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
And a dodgy pie at 10:00.I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
Asterix said:
Grumfutock said:
Asterix said:
Agreed - when I joined in the late 80's, the money abysmal. The excuse was that everything was being taken care of - sort of, it was still a deduction from your pay packet.
I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
And a dodgy pie at 10:00.I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
Grumfutock said:
Asterix said:
Grumfutock said:
Asterix said:
Agreed - when I joined in the late 80's, the money abysmal. The excuse was that everything was being taken care of - sort of, it was still a deduction from your pay packet.
I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
And a dodgy pie at 10:00.I didn't seem to mind at the time though - As long as there was enough for beer and tabs.
I think there's more to this 'story' than the article spins it to (in typical DM style). There is a dire shortage of social housing in Cornwall, the authorities acknowledge this and their solution is to recommend renting privately and claiming housing benefit (I guess this is a similar line to other local authorities?). Presumably housing benefit puts people in a similar financial position as a council house? There just isn't the ongoing security from a private landlord.
The article states: "They did have a private landlord but moved out because they couldn't afford the rent and were given a temporary home." That flies in the face of the above though? Either their private rent was too upmarket, and well in excess of the housing benefit limits, or they do have enough of an income to reduce the housing benefit amount. I can see the council's point that they may have deliberately made themselves homeless in order to try and qualify.
The whole council housing selection process is flawed though, and it leads to false claims. The most common trick is a couple pretending not to be in a relationship, so the claim becomes poor single mother, young child so can't work, zero (employment) income, and they shoot to the top of the list. Six months after being given a council house, and she then tells the council that she's just got into a relationship. Was it the conservatives that wanted to introduce periodic reassessment for social housing? That seems fairer to me than the existing policy of 'house for life' no matter how your circumstances change.
In a bid to increase supply of social housing, what seems to be happening now is that where developers are forced to build 'affordable homes' in their schemes, the affordable homes are sold exclusively to housing associations (at the affordable rate), for social housing. Private buyers don't get a look in, which is something I really don't agree with.
The article states: "They did have a private landlord but moved out because they couldn't afford the rent and were given a temporary home." That flies in the face of the above though? Either their private rent was too upmarket, and well in excess of the housing benefit limits, or they do have enough of an income to reduce the housing benefit amount. I can see the council's point that they may have deliberately made themselves homeless in order to try and qualify.
The whole council housing selection process is flawed though, and it leads to false claims. The most common trick is a couple pretending not to be in a relationship, so the claim becomes poor single mother, young child so can't work, zero (employment) income, and they shoot to the top of the list. Six months after being given a council house, and she then tells the council that she's just got into a relationship. Was it the conservatives that wanted to introduce periodic reassessment for social housing? That seems fairer to me than the existing policy of 'house for life' no matter how your circumstances change.
In a bid to increase supply of social housing, what seems to be happening now is that where developers are forced to build 'affordable homes' in their schemes, the affordable homes are sold exclusively to housing associations (at the affordable rate), for social housing. Private buyers don't get a look in, which is something I really don't agree with.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff