Wildcat Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The only ineligible UK born people are those who have lived abroad for a while, and may have sufficient business interests or a property abroad which means that they fail the 'habitual residence' test. I'd have thought that this in itself shows that there is bias towards people born here, not against them. A brief skim through Council websites and all I can see is stuff about eligibilty being for people who are homeless or for people already in Council Housing to transfer? If everyone is technically eligble it is only technically eligibility not practically so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I don't know of one Somali person living in Dore!! YES!!!!!....good isn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The report gives you your answer to the question in the last paragraph. Around 10% the same as the proportion in society. Was your second point the bit where ineligible migrants should be removed from the figures, whilst ineligible Uk born people are left in? My point was that all ineligible residents should be removed from the comparison. Why on earth would you want to include them? And I don't understand what you are referring to by 10% and the last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I presume that all the immigrants that come to the uk will have had some sort of employment and some sort of housing in there own country because it will have cost them a fair bit to get here. my question is if i get made redundant here in Sheffield and i think to myself i will go to London there are better prospects for me there so i make myself homeless here and travel to london and say to the relevant council i am homeless i have traveled all the way from Sheffield to London because there are better job prospects here, would i be classed the same as an immigrant saying the same who came from any number of countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 I presume that all the immigrants that come to the uk will have had some sort of employment and some sort of housing in there own country because it will have cost them a fair bit to get here. my question is if i get made redundant here in Sheffield and i think to myself i will go to London there are better prospects for me there so i make myself homeless here and travel to london and say to the relevant council i am homeless i have traveled all the way from Sheffield to London because there are better job prospects here, would i be classed the same as an immigrant saying the same who came from any number of countries Yes indeed you would, kidley. You (and anyone else) would have to pass 5 legal tests of statutory homelessness: 1. Are you eligible for housing assistance? If you are a UK or Rep of Ireland citizen, then yes you are. If you are not, then it gets complicated because there are different eligibility rules depending on your nationality, employment status, who you are married to, etc. 2. Are you really homeless? If you have accommodation available to you elsewhere, including in another country, which is reasonable for you to occupy (you won't be murdered the minute you turn up there, for example), then you are not homeless. A council may even pay your train or air fare to get to the town/city/country where your accommodation is, in order to make it available to you. 3. Are you in priority need? Complicated, this one. Probably best to read this http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/what_the_council_will_check/priority_need Note that being an immigrant, an asylum seeker, or being Johnny Foreigner, is not a priority need category 4. Are you intentionally homeless? Same test for everyone. If, as you say in your post, you make yourself homeless in Sheffield, you will fail this test and be sent packing at this point. 5. Do you have a local connection to the area you are applying as homeless in? If you went from Sheffield to London but had no connection with London, had never lived there, had no family there, the council in London who dealt with your application would still need to look at the first 4 tests. If they decided that you passed all 4, but that your local connection was to Sheffield and not in London, they would refer you back to Sheffield (unless you were at risk of violence in Sheff) who would have to offer you somewhere to live. Some people have no local connection to anywhere, so will have to be offered accommodation by whichever local authority they apply to. If it's in London, they should expect a very long wait indeed. I hope that answers your question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 A brief skim through Council websites and all I can see is stuff about eligibilty being for people who are homeless or for people already in Council Housing to transfer? If everyone is technically eligble it is only technically eligibility not practically so. There's a difference between being eligible to go on the housing register (waiting list) and being eligible for various priorities which will get you re-housed a lot quicker. All UK and ROI citizens are eligible to go on a housing register anywhere in the country (excepting people who fail the habitual residency test mentioned previously). I could put myself on the housing register for Bath and North East Somerset despite never having lived there, and in 20 years time I might even be able to get a council property there by using my waiting time. Anyone who is not a UK or ROI citizen has to pass a complicated series of checks to establish whether they are eligible to go on a housing register. Many housing registers are very long, because the amount of available social housing has shrunk massively in the last 20 or so years, due to a combination of Right to Buy and the failure to build new council properties in any great number. So in reality the only way to get a council or housing association property in less than 5 years + is to have a priority. Priorities are given for statutory homelessness (see my last post), fleeing domestic violence, statutory overcrowding, urgent health needs, etc. Only people who are eligible to go on a housing register will have a chance of qualifying for one of these priorities. Because only UK and ROI citizens are automatically eligible to go on a housing register, they have the upper hand over everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 ... Because only UK and ROI citizens are automatically eligible to go on a housing register, they have the upper hand over everyone else. Which should be reflected in the stats. But it isn't reflected IF you exclude ineligible nationalities. However there may be certain categories that are given priority such as asylum seekers. Without knowing the REAL underlying numbers it's impossible to have a genuine debate about what is really happening. Which is why the EHRC and the IPPR should be publicly humiliated for attempting to spin these stats rather than have a proper debate. Incidentally, if you look at the staff webpage for the IPPR, their biogs all start with media campaigns and end with qualifications - sometimes described in the thinnest of detail. Shows what the IPPR is really about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Which should be reflected in the stats. But it isn't reflected IF you exclude ineligible nationalities. However there may be certain categories that are given priority such as asylum seekers. Without knowing the REAL underlying numbers it's impossible to have a genuine debate about what is really happening. Which is why the EHRC and the IPPR should be publicly humiliated for attempting to spin these stats rather than have a proper debate. Incidentally, if you look at the staff webpage for the IPPR, their biogs all start with media campaigns and end with qualifications - sometimes described in the thinnest of detail. Shows what the IPPR is really about. People aren't eligible/ineligible because of nationality, but because of their status here. Some people of (for example) Indian;African;Chinese;Australian nationality will be eligible, some won't. If they fulfil certain criteria, they will have parity with people born and resident in the UK. If they don't, they won't. Scenario: someone who came here legally to work 10 years ago, was given the right to stay here permanently 5 years ago. If they have stayed, then they would have the same eligibility as a person born and resident here. However, they won't go to the front of the queue. If they are found to have priority (for any of the reasons Teafan explained) then they will be treated just the same as anyone else in need. If they haven't then they'll just wait like everyone else who wants social housing. If they are relying on waiting time alone, then people born in the UK must have some advantage, being able to build up more time than many immigrants. Most recent immigrants live in privately rented accommodation. For many its the only solution for a long time, or until they can afford to buy. And for the nth time, asylum seekers are housed on a temporary basis, they have no choice where they're sent. As long as they are 'asylum seekers' they have no right to any permanent tenancy. If their application is granted, they will then be treated like any other eligible applicant. I haven't seen anything anywhere that disputes this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 People aren't eligible/ineligible because of nationality, but because of their status here. Some people of (for example) Indian;African;Chinese;Australian nationality will be eligible, some won't. If they fulfil certain criteria, they will have parity with people born and resident in the UK. If they don't, they won't. Scenario: someone who came here legally to work 10 years ago, was given the right to stay here permanently 5 years ago. If they have stayed, then they would have the same eligibility as a person born and resident here. However, they won't go to the front of the queue. If they are found to have priority (for any of the reasons Teafan explained) then they will be treated just the same as anyone else in need. If they haven't then they'll just wait like everyone else who wants social housing. If they are relying on waiting time alone, then people born in the UK must have some advantage, being able to build up more time than many immigrants. Most recent immigrants live in privately rented accommodation. For many its the only solution for a long time, or until they can afford to buy. And for the nth time, asylum seekers are housed on a temporary basis, they have no choice where they're sent. As long as they are 'asylum seekers' they have no right to any permanent tenancy. If their application is granted, they will then be treated like any other eligible applicant. I haven't seen anything anywhere that disputes this. Presumably that's why the report tried to identify immigrants who had been in the country less than 5 years because then nationality and status would be much more closely aligned? For the rest of your post, you have described a process, just as Teafan has earlier. This is not the same as describing an outcome. And however you want to slice the cake as regards eligibility, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of a professional research organisation to come up with a proper test that measures whether any particular group, of those that are eligible, is getting a better/worse outcome than any other. I'm not saying there is any 'unfairness'. I'm just saying that this report is garbage because it claims to prove a point, whereas in fact it doesn't come remotely close to proving anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 So we have a survey that is bias showing there is no bias led by people who's own staff have complained about their behaviour which, has brought official statistics, the use of statistics and statistical work by official and public bodies into disrepute, swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.