Why didn’t Shelter find somewhere for Stephen?

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 03/09/2018 - 16:39
But......responsibility doesn't arrive at 30 or 40 or 50 years of age . It arrives between the age of 17-26. ( I can quote multiple case studies ) . After that you have missed the bus and there is no other bus. End of. You just don't have it in you. The maturation process is complete. You either have it in you or you don't.
Furthermore this is NOT the tenants money. It is TAX PAYERS money and it should be ring fenced and locked in for the purpose it was allocated for. The government is encouraging HB tenants to act in the same reckless way they act with any public funds. There is an issue of attitude of irresponsibility - for f*** sake if you went to Eton, Harrow, Oxford, bloody Cambridge, Dulwich College , LSE... and you can't manage the public purse how do you expect an ordinary average joe on a limited budget to manage ? It seems the further up the tree you go, the thicker the foliage !

So well put AA. There are times when you just cannot understand that 'they' can be so blind. But, I am reminded of the saying : "There are non so blind as those who do not want to see"

AA. If u can find these studies evidence, why aren't the Govt taking notice. Oh that's it, they not bothered if tenant spends taxpayers money and becomes homeless. Let's not worry about that eh.
As u say, the tenant just doesn't have it in em.
I have lots that ain't disabled, but they just ain't employable. They get everything wrong. Basic tasks. Yet the Govt wants to hand em money willy nilly to become responsible for their own accommodation.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 04/09/2018 - 06:49
This serve two purposes for the Government:
1. the "hostile" environment for private Landlords (along with 3%SDLT, sec.24 , Right-to-Rent, Licensing, Tenant Fees ban, etc, etc);
2. the "hostile" environment for benefit claimants. The Government want to get people off benefits, using Landlords as a weapon against them.

Here’s a basic question I have struggled with for quite some time and relates to the current PRS and Universal Credit chaos.
Is the UK Government incompetent or just plain evil?
I ask because it’s clear the Government constantly messes things up like UC benefits, housing, NHS, transport etc etc, is it because they are just too stupid to understand the outcomes of their own policies or is it that they have a cunning plan and deliberately want to mess up the country in support of a hidden agenda?
I’m starting to think the plan is to kill as many people as possible, starting with the poor but later moving on to the middle classes, by making life so miserable they kill themselves out of sheer desperation, then they don’t have to pay out so many benefits to the needy and can instead give out nice government contracts and tax cuts to their wealthy bizznessmen pals.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/08/barn-s08.html

I think we need rather more basic housing as the rents needed to mainain a property under the current regulations, centrally heated and furnished with white goods etc, even with a cheap mortgage, are quite high. Thus we have restricted Housing benefit and other controls and, I agree the worst of scenarios, rent paid directly to the claimant. I remember dealing with Fair Rented properties in the 1980s many of which had no bathroom and certainly no fitted kitchen or furniture! These would not be easy to let nowadays but there must be a need for slightly more basic accommodation. There is really no excuse, after all these years, for inefficiency in the payment of benefits - we just need more experienced staff! I am enjoying my retirement!

In reply to Bristol Landlord: I favour cock-up theory over conspiracy theory myself. Ministerial changes are so frequent no one person has the time to fully understand the status quo never mind the possible ramifications and wider effects of proposed measures before being pressed to take action in order to appease the vociferous Generation Rent, Acorn, Shelter and now even Citizens' Advice and the Archbshop of Canterbury, in a bid to garner votes.
In reply to Richard Oakman: Unfortunately the sort of houses you describe and in which we happily spent our youth would now be unlettable, categorized as "non-habitable". Any landord letting out such properties without what are now considered basic amenities would be liable to prosecution. Time's moved on, this is the 21st century and standards have changed don'tcha know? Today's millennials have never woken to Jack Frost's beautiful patterns on the inside panes of their bedroom window prior to dashing down the garden to the lavatory or, in summer, found it necessary to keep their milk in a bucket of water in the coldest place in the house. They therefore expect all mod. cons. but don't realise and/or don't want to pay the cost of supplying and maintaining them. With regard to the payment of benefits and the need for more experienced staff, well unfortunately all the experienced staff are at the council offices but the introduction of Universal Credit didn't only totally change the system, it also moved its administration to the Department for Work and Pensions whose staff had zero experience, with the predictable consequences we are now seeing. As Mick Roberts says, even his dog could tell them where they are going wrong.
Glad you're enjoying your retirement Richard.

Reply to the comment left by Bristol Resident at 08/09/2018 - 16:51
Yes,
You have the conspiracy theory people saying the Govt's secret plan to get people off benefits.
But I seriously reckon they just plain stupid with no common sense. The Govt people are intelligent in what they've done at college etc. to get where they are, but dealing with normal common people, some of 'em not got a clue what happens on ground level.
It's the same with some council staff that have never lived among these communities or had them as friends.
I've got some mates who will never buy a house who are earning good money 'cause that part of their brain is not wired right.
Govt don't get that everyone is different.

The Govt always mess up, hence that's why they're always on the news. You pay peanuts for someone to run this massive business ie the Country, u get peanuts.
Alan Sugar & Richard Branson wun't run this big business on PM's salary, so we get poor service, we get people who just want votes to stay in power.

Very good words Old Mrs.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 09/09/2018 - 06:13
Same at local level, Mick…myself and/or any of my LL or business friends could run the Council, but it doesn’t pay enough to give up whatever it is we’re all currently doing, so you get idiots. It’s worse when you’re not in a city because the pool of (no-hope) candidates to chose from is of lower quality because nobody with anything resembling talent wants to live/work in Grimsby…mainly because there’s literally nothing going on here - we cannot even support national chains, be that cinemas, restaurants, branded shops etc.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 09/09/2018 - 09:44Perfect Luke, spot on.
What gets annoying is, just come & ask us. Say what do u think?

Things I've suggested in Nottingham to Licensing, they've just scoffed at. 3 months later, they've done some of the things I've suggested 'cause it wasn't working the way they was going.

Same as HB as u know, when LHA was bought in 2008, we knew it wouldn't work in current format, took the councils 4 years to get more relaxed about paying Landlord, so tenants wouldn't get kicked out.

But why take 4 years of so many homeless? Not one person should have been made homeless.
Same with UC. All these people should not be made homeless cause Govt is obsessed with paying tenant direct the part that is supposed to be for rent anyway. Why give someone with little money so much temptation? It's baffling.

I mention it to mates & they say you what? Why pay 'em the money when it's for rent anyway? They not even in the industry & they know the answer.