Why is it that here in Newbury young unmarried mums take priority over married couples with children who have to make do with temporary accomodation?

My wife and I lost our house after I was made redundant. We can't get social housing proper because there are so many single parent familes around.

I often think that these girls get pregnant deliberately just to get a council flat.

I get confused between "affordable" housing and "social" housing.

All new housing developments over a cetain size have to have a per centage of "affordable" housing. My understanding of this is that the houses are cheaper to enable the lower paid workers to get on the ladder to buy their own home. What seems to happen in reality is that the housing associations snap them up and they immediately become "social" housing used for unmarried mums, people who have already smashed up their existing social housing, and immigrants who have no homes. The lower paid WORKERS seem to stand no chance.

Which leads me on to who will get the "affordable" housing in Parkway?

...of what there is left of it.

As upsetting as your situation must be, it's pretty obvious why a lone parent (irregardless of gender) would take priority against a couple.
And it isn't just in Newbury that this happens.

Quoted from BrianB

I get confused between "affordable" housing and "social" housing.

All new housing developments over a cetain size have to have a per centage of "affordable" housing. My understanding of this is that the houses are cheaper to enable the lower paid workers to get on the ladder to buy their own home. What seems to happen in reality is that the housing associations snap them up and they immediately become "social" housing used for unmarried mums, people who have already smashed up their existing social housing, and immigrants who have no homes. The lower paid WORKERS seem to stand no chance.

Which leads me on to who will get the "affordable" housing in Parkway?

There will be no 'affordable' housing in Parkway.

Quoted from Nick91

As upsetting as your situation must be, it's pretty obvious why a lone parent (irregardless of gender) would take priority against a couple.
And it isn't just in Newbury that this happens.

In my younger days, either the girls parents used to shoulder the responsibility or the baby was adopted by loving couples who for one reason or another couldn't have their own children.

Today, more children to unmarried mums = more social benefits = more burden on the welfare state.

Quoted from Nick91

As upsetting as your situation must be, it's pretty obvious why a lone parent (irregardless of gender) would take priority against a couple.
And it isn't just in Newbury that this happens.

Is it safe for 2 parents and child to live on the streets then??

Quoted from BrianB

In my younger days, either the girls parents used to shoulder the responsibility or the baby was adopted by loving couples who for one reason or another couldn't have their own children.

Today, more children to unmarried mums = more social benefits = more burden on the welfare state.

I'm sure many parents of single-parent Mums/Dads do contribute heavily to the baby and it's parent's life. Unfortunately, not all grandparents are so lucky as to be able to do that, much like 'back in your day' I'd imagine.
You also seem to be saying that these parents do not love or want their children? And that they should simply hand them over to another family for the mere crime of not getting on the property ladder before giving birth. Bizarre.

Quoted from Nobby

Is it safe for 2 parents and child to live on the streets then??

Err, no.
Is it safe for them to live in temporary housing whilst their situation is resolved, such as the OP here? Yes.

Quoted from Nobby

Is it safe for 2 parents and child to live on the streets then??

We are not living on the streets, we are living in bed & breakfast. Whilst we have been here, we have seen 8 or 9 young mums plus a couple of toe rags overtake us on the housing ladder purely because we committed the sin of getting married.

I suppose that we could divorce and manipulate the system, but we like to think that we are both honest.

Quoted from Barlow

Why is it that here in Newbury young unmarried mums take priority over married couples with children who have to make do with temporary accomodation?

Do they get priority. Isn't there some sort of points rating that will determine a position on the housing list and if that points system is unfair then perhaps this is something that could be taken up with the local MP.

Do you know how the allocation works in fact rather than a possible urban myth statement. I'm not sure what constitutes temporary accomodation. Does the fact that you have a roof over your head reduce your need and if you could find this type of accomodation, why does the young unmarried mum not have this ability.

Who pays her rent and rates, and what responsibility towards the financial support of the child and the mother falls on the father.

A lot of questions to which I don't have the answer but it would be good if someone out there does.

I think I have a solution to your probmlem... get the wife pregnant!

There's a points scheme as brian says.

http://www.homechoicewb.org.uk/Scheme2.aspx

There are no points awarded for not being married or being a single parent as the incorrect original post suggests.

Quoted from user23.3

There's a points scheme as brian says.

http://www.homechoicewb.org.uk/Scheme2.aspx

There are no points awarded for not being married or being a single parent as the incorrect original post suggests.

Thanks - that avoids any confusion and seems pretty fair.  Just a couple of minor concerns, which are probably nothing, but then I'm always the cynic - what are these:-

Description - Social Needs Factors
Criteria: To be agreed by Housing Operations Manager
Points awarded - 100/50/20/15/10/5 or 0 points

Description - Discretionary Factor
Criteria: To be agreed by Housing Operations Manager
Points awarded - 100/50/20/15/10/5 or 0 points

Would be nice to know how these are calculated and what criteria are included otherwise (heaven forbid) they could be considered 'fudge factors' to enable just what has been mentioned in the original post!  

Quoted from Barlow

Why is it that here in Newbury young unmarried mums take priority over married couples with children who have to make do with temporary accomodation?
My wife and I lost our house after I was made redundant. We can't get social housing proper because there are so many single parent familes around.
I often think that these girls get pregnant deliberately just to get a council flat.

Strange post, as West Berks Council don't actually have any 'council flats' or indeed 'council houses'.

The 'discretionary factor' (above) is to cover their own arses with regard to applications under the Homeless Persons Act.
The 1977 Act (which as I recall was amended in 2002) gave local authorities the legal duty to re-house homeless people if they fall into one of four priority need categories:

Pregnant women.
People with dependent children.
People who are vulnerable due to old age, mental illness or physical or mental disability.
People made homelessness as a result of an emergency such as a flood or fire.

The 2002 Act added five further categories of priority need:

People aged 16 or 17.
People under 21 who have been in local authority care.
People over 21 who are vulnerable as a result of having been in local authority care.
People who are vulnerable due to an institutional background such as having served in the armed forces or having spent time in prison.
People fleeing violence or the threat of violence.

Priority need is automatic under the first two categories of the 2002 Act but vulnerability must be proved for the remaining three categories.

Asylum Seekers are not eligible to apply for Council Housing.


Threep.