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.

Quoted from Barlow

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.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Do you have children in b&b with you because it seems to me that the points gained for requirements for a second bedroom add to the total.

Like Old Goat, I am very suspicious of the massive number of points that can be given for Social needs and a very vague Discretionary factor. Both of these, I would suggest, because of the very large additional points that can be won, could lead to a jump up the league table for persons who find favour with the association. From my point of view, if I was on the list and observed "toe rags" as you put it jumping the queue, I might ask some written questions of the association. You could use the Freedom of Information Act to get that information to ensure that there are no "sharp practices" involved.

I cannot see how getting divorced would improve your position, perhaps you could explain this.

Barlow, I feel for you. Finding housing is tough.
I've spent over a year trying to get rehoused myself outside the area. After suffering enough abuse from the locals (Which the police were not interested in) to have been judged homeless by WBC due to the risk of harm.
Myself I have fallen into a habit of regular, near constant travel. Every week or 2, just so I can avoid the trouble I have in West Berks.

If your having trouble making progress, I'd recommend you place a bit of pressure on which ever authority your applying to.
I'd imagine the toe rags get an easier pass, just because they are troublesome enough that nobody would want them on their case longer than necessary.
I'd say the first and most useful course of action would be to consult a housing solicitor. If you need help finding one. Then get in touch with 'Shelter' they should be a good source of advice, and should be able to help you find somebody professionally qualified to help fight your case.

Quoted from MoonPhoenix

Barlow,
I've spent over a year trying to get rehoused myself outside the area. After suffering enough abuse from the locals (Which the police were not interested in) to have been judged homeless by WBC due to the risk of harm.
Myself I have fallen into a habit of regular, near constant travel. Every week or 2, just so I can avoid the trouble I have in West Berks.

I thought that you could swop, without too much trouble, with another person in another area, assuming you are both in local housing accomodation.
So, assuming you have been allocated after a year a house or flat, then as a single person, you have done just what Barlow was complaining about, jumped the queue because of your special circumstances. ie Risk of harm from whatever trouble you have in West Berks.

That was not the point I was trying to make.
I have not found somewhere yet and was in social housing already. I've not moved anywhere yet and still officially live next to the loveable chavs involved. The point being even with extenuating circumstances its near impossible to get any additional help.
The area I want to move into has a 10 year waiting list and am looking to move OUT OF social housing to get there.
You can't get a swap if nobody in the new area wants to move here.

Will someone please remind me why there are so many unmarried mothers about now...

Because blokes don't like kids or spend most of their time hanging around motor cycle dealers.

Before this forum starts spouting the usual tabloid myths...

In 1998 24 per cent of families with children were single parent families.
In 2007 23 per cent of families with children were single parent families.

(That's almost no change over the last 10 years).

Just 2 per cent of single parents are teenagers.
The median age for a single parent is 36.9
The employment rate for single parents varies depending on the age of their youngest child. Once children are 12 or over, single parents’ employment rate is similar to, or higher than, the employment rate for mothers in couples (71 per cent of single parents whose child is 12-15 are in work).


Threep.

source: Gingerbread group-Factfile

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/365/Gingerbread-Factfile

* Nearly a quarter (24%) of children lived with just one parent last year, three times the proportion recorded in 1972;

* Lone-parent families are three times more likely to live in rented accommodation than couples with children;

* In 2005, 66% of single-parent families lived in rented housing compared with 22% of couples with dependent children;

* More than half (52%) of them rented in the social sector compared with 14% of two-parent families;

* Lone-parent families are also more likely to live in "non-decent" homes, according to the ONS;

* In 2004, 29% of lone-parent households with children lived in buildings which did not meet certain minimum standards, compared with 23% of "couple households";

* Since 1971 the proportion of all people living in "traditional" family households of couples with dependent children has fallen from 52% to 37%;

* Nine out of 10 lone-parent families are headed by mothers;


http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....rt-finds-444217.html

That article is some years old.

Gingerbread is up-to-date. Indeed, notes 13,15 and 16 are pretty much bang up-to-date


Threep.

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?

Hi Brian.

Social housing means council houses or housing association, whereas Affordable Housing is housing that is cheaper to buy, mainly aimed at first time buyers and those on a low wage / key workers (teachers, nurses, police officers). Two completely different things. Hope that helps.

Richard

Quoted from richard.garvie

Hi Brian.

Social housing means council houses or housing association, whereas Affordable Housing is housing that is cheaper to buy, mainly aimed at first time buyers and those on a low wage / key workers (teachers, nurses, police officers). Two completely different things. Hope that helps.

Richard

I am not really that thick Richard. What I am saying is that the "affordable" housing is snapped up by the housing associations before the lower paid workers get a chance. It then immediately becomes "social housing". Although as I understand it the housing associations are supposed to be promoting shared ownership. Ask a lower paid worker how easy it is to get a look in for "affordable housing"

Totally agree Brian. This is where our local authority should be having some input, but the elected members don't seem to have an interest so nothing is said!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Hi Brian.

Social housing means council houses or housing association, whereas Affordable Housing is housing that is cheaper to buy, mainly aimed at first time buyers and those on a low wage / key workers (teachers, nurses, police officers). Two completely different things. Hope that helps.

Richard

That in itself makes me cross about the low wage / key workers.....  I earn less than a teacher, nurse or police officer but because I am not in the public sector am not classed as a "key worker"  and aren't the "key workers" the ones threatening strike action.  I am not allowed to go on strike, I have not had a pay increase for 2 years and a lot of the people I worked with were made redundant.  

On the single parent front my husband and I were pushed down the queue when we were evicted from our rented house when I became pregnant and put into B&B.  Our housing officer actually admitted that being married did go against us. !!!

It is barmy. I get frustrated reading some of the stories and accounts on here. There needs to be a lot more affordable housing built, and there needs to be a lot more shared ownership schemes that allow people to move from rented property to home ownership. The problem here in West Berkshire is that people talk a good game about increasing affordable housing quotas and the creation of social housing, but in real terms we don't really see the end result. We need to move from ideas and words to physically building these properties.

Affordable Housing!
Poppycock
Build some houses- if you can't afford one...don't buy it-simple ain't it?

Quoted from dodgy

Affordable Housing! Poppycock Build some houses- if you can't afford one...don't buy it-simple ain't it?

No it isn't, because key workers move else where, like Swindon for instance.  We need people to live in Newbury that are prepared/can only do low-paid work, so they need somewhere to live they can afford.

Quoted from Greenham Common

No it isn't because key workers move else where, like Swindon for instance.  We need people to live in Newbury that are prepared/can only do low-paid work, so they need somewhere to live they can afford.

Maybe we could look to the colonies & bring some workers over? They like living together, 10 to a house.

Quoted from dodgy

Affordable Housing!
Poppycock
Build some houses- if you can't afford one...don't buy it-simple ain't it?

You do appear to be!

Quoted from Nobby

You do appear to be!

Did you want to make a point? Aside from the attempt at a jest!
Cuz you know I'm right..If you can't afford it you can't have it..
or do you live off credit like the other sheep?

Affordable housing gives people the chance to buy a house and get on the ladder. The more people in home ownership, the greater the benefit to the UK. With no affordable housing schemes, how can somebody earning £6 an hour buy a home???

And then one is accused of being a drain on the tax payer by living in social housing.

Quoted from dodgy

Did you want to make a point? Aside from the attempt at a jest!
Cuz you know I'm right..If you can't afford it you can't have it..
or do you live off credit like the other sheep?

Whilst I agree with you about credit isn't a mortgage a little different?

Personally, I don't know anyone who hasn't had to buy their house by taking out a mortgage. Perhaps you know some very rich folk though!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Affordable housing gives people the chance to buy a house and get on the ladder. The more people in home ownership, the greater the benefit to the UK. With no affordable housing schemes, how can somebody earning £6 an hour buy a home???

Spoken like a true Thatcherite!

Really??? I can honestly say I'm not a "thatcherite" or anything of the sort!!! Surely you can see that the more people in home ownership is better for the economy??? By building more affordable homes and with various schemes for part ownership, people would find it easier to stay here in West Berkshire.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Really??? I can honestly say I'm not a "thatcherite" or anything of the sort!!! Surely you can see that the more people in home ownership is better for the economy??? By building more affordable homes and with various schemes for part ownership, people would find it easier to stay here in West Berkshire.

1980 Housing Act. Designed to get people on the housing ladder.

Well, I have to say that Maggie Thatcher must be a "Garvie-ite"

Fair play to Maggie, not everything she did was bad then!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, I have to say that Maggie Thatcher must be a "Garvie-ite" Fair play to Maggie, not everything she did was bad then!!!

Except she at a swipe removed large a mounts of social/affordable housing that has not been replaced by subsequent governments - at a very good discount IIRC.

Typical Tory PM then, says one thing and does something quite different...

Quoted from Greenham Common

Except she at a swipe removed large a mounts of social/affordable housing that has not been replaced by subsequent governments - at a very good discount IIRC.

50% off the 'going rate' if you'd lived in the house 20 years I think .

The idea was that folk who'd been paying rent for decades could actually buy their house.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Typical Tory PM then, says one thing and does something quite different...

Is it her fault that those who bought (or their offspring) eventually sold and made lots of money which then may or may not have been spent at the pub!?

Quoted from Nobby

Is it her fault that those who bought (or their offspring) eventually sold and made lots of money which then may or may not have been spent at the pub!?

No, but I fault the policy that didn't take into account that house value could become a lucrative investment, which might have been a useful source of revenue from some sort of 'profit tariff' to help build new stock.

I actually agree that in principle, allowing people to buy their house after a certain period was constructive. That said, the housing stock was not replaced and we now have the shortage we have. Add to that that some people bought the houses on behalf of other people surely amounts to fraud which was never really prevented. Unless housing stocks are replaced when property is sold, it has a counter effect on the other end of the scale, those genuinely in need of social housing.

It is difficult for me to articulate this, but I am convinced housing policy, or the desire for 'everyone' to own their own home, is a significant reason we have the country we have today.  It has been socially divisive and has sponsored voting patterns that prevent politicians from making the changes they might need to make.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is difficult for me to articulate this, but I am convinced housing policy, or the desire for 'everyone' to own their own home, is a significant reason we have the country we have today.  It has been socially divisive and has sponsored voting patterns that prevent politicians from making the changes they might need to make.

It's true that this doesn't exist in many European countries and many are happy to rent for the whole of their lifetime.

On the topic of how hard it is for some to find suitable housing.
Stuff like this really makes me mad...

(Dailymail) Violent history of the feckless father who has '15 children by 14 women'

No doubt each women who had a first child to that chav que jumped straight into social housing.

I was born and brought up in a very working class town. In that town, a small percentage of teenage girls see children as a fasion accessory. What having a child also does, is give them their own house and pay for their food, drink and god forbid drugs. It is totally wrong and until the perception changes amongst our peers and people speak out, it will continue to happen. Another problem we face in West Berks is that we have a desirable place to live. People can't get council housing here if they have no connection to the area, so what they do is private rent a property and then apply for benefits. This particular type of benefit migrant needs to be erased, I would personally introduce rules that mean you must live here for a year before you are eligable to claim benefits. Obviously there may be exceptions to the rule that may arise and officers would have that discretion, but the amount of money we spend as a local authority on these "benefit migrants" from other parts of the UK is shocking.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Affordable housing gives people the chance to buy a house and get on the ladder. The more people in home ownership, the greater the benefit to the UK. With no affordable housing schemes, how can somebody earning £6 an hour buy a home???

My point exactly..If you can't afford it, you can't bloody well have it
By god we scrimped and scraped to get our first property..It's the way things are done!

But my point is even scrimping and scraping won't help those on a minimum wage with a family.

And if people are not prepared to scrimp and save from working a job. They should not be having a family.

With all this talk about affordable housing I realised I didn't really know what it actually meant in practice.  So I looked it up (see below) and see that it should continue to be 'affordable' - how do WBC ensure that this happens in practice?


Social and affordable housing

Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should:

    * meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices; and
    * include provisions for:
         1. the home to be retained for future eligible households; or
         2. if these restrictions are lifted, for any subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and RSLs, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.

Intermediate affordable housing is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria set out above. These can include shared equity (eg HomeBuy) and other low cost homes for sales, and intermediate rent.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/definitiongeneral/

Before all this messing about with titles and low cost this and social that, there were three sorts of accomodation.
1.Council Houses
2.Private rental accomodation (including tied houses, married quarters etc.)
3.Private ownership

There was a council waiting list.
Councils built new housing (Turnpike for instance) to provide rental accomodation.
Council houses were not sold at low cost so that tenants could buy cheap and sell at a huge profit.

I just see this low cost housing allocation as a smoke screen to make us believe that the council are doing their best for us and screwing the developers down.

Quoted from brian

Council houses were not sold at low cost so that tenants could buy cheap and sell at a huge profit.

Which it seems is what happened.

One of the things that I was told, was that the Tories were eager to sell of stocks of houses that no longer met certain criteria, this included houses that need re-wiring, etc.  When my dad bought his, it needed re-wiring, central heating and double glazing to bring it into the 21st century.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Which it seems is what happened.

One of the things that I was told, was that the Tories were eager to sell of stocks of houses that no longer meat certain criteria, this included houses that need re-wiring, etc.  When my dad bought his, it needed re-wiring, central heating and double glazing to bring it into the 21st century.

There were some that were a bit outdated but there were far more that were almost new build for instance, the Turnpike estate which was built in the sixties. They were built without central heating but a lot were retro fitted at the council's expense. Still, sell them out cheap, that's the way to get rid of the housing stock. The housing associations are still building the odd estate or two, Bishop's Green springs to mind, which is Housing Association stock for rental. I assume that the tenants pay the going rate to rent one but who pays the rent and rates for the single mum. Short answer. "We do".

Quoted from richard.garvie

I actually agree that in principle, allowing people to buy their house after a certain period was constructive.

I thought that was old Conservative policy. Is New Labour so close to the Tories that they are now agreeing with those private rather than state ownership policies.
Maggie did such a good job of turning us all into capitalists that even the labour party believe it is the right way.

There has to be a proper mix of housing types, everybody has different needs. It's a fact that some people don't wish to buy. But for those who do want to buy but can't afford a £200k house, part ownership schemes are a way to facilitate it. There also needs to be cheaper housing coming onto the market, and this is something that Labour did not do enough of.

With regards to buying council houses after twenty years, as long as the money is reinvested by local authorities into new housing stock, I can't see the problem. The fact is the tories sold off the housing and failed to replace it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

With regards to buying council houses after twenty years, as long as the money is reinvested by local authorities into new housing stock, I can't see the problem. The fact is the tories sold off the housing and failed to replace it.

I don't follow that one. Why sell a house and then have to build a new one to replace it and probably make a loss on the deal. If you are in a council house and want to buy, then go down the Estate Agents and by God, there are enough of them and do just that. Then move out of your council house and hey presto, the property is available for rental again.

Quoted from brian

I don't follow that one. Why sell a house and then have to build a new one to replace it and probably make a loss on the deal. If you are in a council house and want to buy, then go down the Estate Agents and by God, there are enough of them and do just that. Then move out of your council house and hey presto, the property is available for rental again.

Because of 'Assured Tenancies'; 'right-to-buy' schemes, and the like, are designed to get people off the books.  It is cheaper on HAs in the long run.  HAs don't agree to all requests to buy, nor on any social house.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Because of 'Assured Tenancies'; 'right-to-buy' schemes, and the like, are designed to get people off the books.  It is cheaper on HAs in the long run.  HAs don't agree to all requests to buy, nor on any social house.

It is the 'Right to buy' scheme which doesn't quite sit right with me. I see no reason to sell off the stock of houses, there is considerable rental income to the housing associations and loans have always been available to them to allow them to build new stock to reduce the waiting lists.
If we must have social housing for unmarried mothers then why not build flats to suit the purpose. One mother, one child, two single bedrooms a kitchen/diner and small living room. Change of circumstances, ie getting a new partner, then apply for a full double bedroom house like other couples have to do.

Quoted from brian

It is the 'Right to buy' scheme which doesn't quite sit right with me. I see no reason to sell off the stock of houses, there is considerable rental income to the housing associations and loans have always been available to them to allow them to build new stock to reduce the waiting lists.

The 'right to buy' scheme isn't actually, a right to buy.  I thought I already explained that.  Not all property is eligible to buy.  Certain stock is ring fenced, but there is, or was, the 'rent and buy' scheme that assists some people to move out, It is more cost effective to get people off the books who can be 'helped' on the property ladder, rather than remain indefinitely on the HAs books.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The 'right to buy' scheme isn't actually, a right to buy.  I thought I already explained that.  Not all property is eligible to buy.  Certain stock is ring fenced, but there is, or was, the 'rent and buy' scheme that assists some people to move out, It is more cost effective to get people off the books who can be 'helped' on the property ladder, rather than remain indefinitely on the HAs books.

I know that now there is as you put it, ring fenced property, but when it was introduced Right to Buy meant just that and virtually all Council House tenants, given they fitted the rules on length of ocupancy and continuity of rental payment, had the right to buy. I'msure the rules will have changed now that the properties are owned by a housing association but by then, the damage was done.

Oh I see, I'm sorry Brian, I thought you were talking about now, not then.