Pregnant teenagers; should they be given housing? Options

[GMR]

OK... here goes. Should teenage pregnant girls jump the housing list and get preferential treatment? If no then who is responsible for keeping them; putting a roof over their (and the babies) heads?

Another question; how do we stem the tide of teenage pregnancies?

[Thetruth]

OK... here goes. Should teenage pregnant girls jump the housing list and get preferential treatment? If no then who is responsible for keeping them; putting a roof over their (and the babies) heads?

Another question; how do we stem the tide of teenage pregnancies?

Well you raise a fairly good point. IMHO i think pregnant teens should be given housing if they need it desperately, as in, being kicked out of home or being homeless.

I dont think that pregnant teens with perfectly good roofs above their head already should be able to jump the queue just because they want theyre own place and are leaving behind a perfectly good paid for home.

Priorities should go to the homeless or the ill or people that have been on the housing list for a long period of time.

[CBW137Y]

Someone is not automatically placed in social housing just because they become pregnant or have a child. The person/people have to prove they have no other suitable accommodation available to them (including immediate family). If they do become homeless, and are expecting or already have a child, then they will be given priority for the childs sake.

[GMR]

Well you raise a fairly good point. IMHO i think pregnant teens should be given housing if they need it desperately, as in, being kicked out of home or being homeless.

I dont think that pregnant teens with perfectly good roofs above their head already should be able to jump the queue just because they want theyre own place and are leaving behind a perfectly good paid for home.

Priorities should go to the homeless or the ill or people that have been on the housing list for a long period of time.

The problem here is that if you don’t allow pregnant girls to have a place of their own because they live in perfectly good homes all they will have to do is conspire with their parents and say that they were kicked out and are homeless. In fact the law only houses mothers/ pregnant mothers if they are homeless at the moment.

The other thing is; if you go to, say Sovereign Housing or the council, and say you or you and your boyfriend want a place of their own you’d be put on the housing list but won’t be regarded as a priority. If you then ask the council ‘how do I get to become a priority?’ they will say you need points and the more points you have will help you get a place of your own. You get points by being pregnant or homeless; easy to arrange and hay presto you’ve got a place and can jump the waiting list. It pays to get pregnant and be homeless. This all stems from the drama/ documentary 'Cathy come home'.

[GMR]

Someone is not automatically placed in social housing just because they become pregnant or have a child. The person/people have to prove they have no other suitable accommodation available to them (including immediate family). If they do become homeless, and are expecting or already have a child, then they will be given priority for the childs sake.

That is correct; as the law stands they won't house you (or you are not a priority) but your child is.

[CBW137Y]

If you want to discuss the ethics of social housing, and throw discrimination into the pot for good measure, how about those people who have nice big three bed houses who are getting toward retirement age whose kids have all grown up and left home? Should they be allowed to keep the big houses, or moved to smaller accommodation?

Always a good discussion point down the boozer!!

[Iommi]

I don't think that pregnant teens with perfectly good roofs above their head already should be able to jump the queue just because they want theyre own place and are leaving behind a perfectly good paid for home.

I understand that this is the case already. This is why, I presume, some are 'kicked out' of their house.

[GMR]

If you want to discuss the ethics of social housing, and throw discrimination into the pot for good measure, how about those people who have nice big three bed houses who are getting toward retirement age whose kids have all grown up and left home? Should they be allowed to keep the big houses, or moved to smaller accommodation?

Always a good discussion point down the boozer!!

A good point; and on that subject. I know many people who have a large house and wish to exchange their large property for a smaller one. But people like Sovereign won't allow it, they only allow the said tenant to be moved into flats.. not small properties so they stay where they are. And before you ask; how do I know this? I used to be a member Sovereign's Tenant Association and we always complained about this ruling as stupid. And Sovereign are not the only housing authority with this policy... they all have them.

[GMR]

I understand that this is the case already. This is why, I presume, some are 'kicked out' of their house.

if you had read my post you'd have noticed that I had already said that... but it is nice to have it confirmed.

[lordtup]

Oh what a chestnut to throw in the fire just as we are on the point of winning the ashes.

There is little doubt that the end justifies the means when it comes to getting a house , supportive income and opting out of your social responsibility .

Why should I as a tax payer subsidise the moral degenerates of this country in return for bringing into this world more of the same.

Though having said that do any of us want to see young girls begging on the streets because they have been thrown out by their parents because of a lax moment.

The answer is far more complex than condemnation from on high . For one thing we need more social housing ( council houses )so all those who need ,whatever their gender ,can be housed. Sex education , and education in general ,must place the emphasis on birth control , not the liberal fads of the loony left.

But of course all this comes at a price . We are over developed already in this area to the extent that soon London will join up with Bristol as one great housing estate.

When I was at school we were told that the UK population stood at just short of 50 million , now its in excess of 60 million . This can not be sustained.

Most annoying point though is that no political party has ever had the guts to grasp this particular nettle , or ever will

[On the edge]

Provision of housing should really be left broadly to market forces. The real issue is making sure those that have genuine needs have sufficient financial resource to secure a reasonable existence. The 'pregnant teen gets Council house' syndrome has been around for years. Really its a separate issue, which is again about the level of financial support we should give. In my view, if a girl chooses to get pregnant, then that's quite OK, she will have thought through the future needs. The safety net, where mistakes have happened could be our providing accomodation for parents and the baby but that does not need to be a separate house or a flat. A better solution would be an apartment hostel where a group of such parents could be housed together and have the added advantage of facilitating mutual support. An economic and effective solution until such time that the parents could start properly supporting themselves.

[Strafin]

OK... here goes. Should teenage pregnant girls jump the housing list and get preferential treatment? No If no then who is responsible for keeping them; putting a roof over their (and the babies) heads? The Parents

Another question; how do we stem the tide of teenage pregnancies? No benefits, and less sex education. Look at Holland.

[Iommi]

Well that's sorted then!

[On the edge]

Well that's sorted then!

Err yes it probably is!

[Rose8]

A good point; and on that subject. I know many people who have a large house and wish to exchange their large property for a smaller one. But people like Sovereign won't allow it, they only allow the said tenant to be moved into flats.. not small properties so they stay where they are. And before you ask; how do I know this? I used to be a member Sovereign's Tenant Association and we always complained about this ruling as stupid. And Sovereign are not the only housing authority with this policy... they all have them.

REALLY !!!!! I often wondered why people stay in large homes when they no longer need them. I can see why they wouldnt want a flat, its a shame there isnt 'smaller' properties for these people, small bungalows or one bed houses with a small garden. With so many elderly people now, you would think this should also be an area housing associations look into, that would then 'free up' the larger homes.

[CBW137Y]

Yup. I know three middle aged couples in HUGE houses (social housing) whose kids are now grown up and left home and now have a couple of empty spare rooms gathering dust. In the same breath, I know a young family who struggle to make ends meet on the private rental market. One of the couple has been made redundant recently, and has taken on part time work while looking for new full time employment, and the other works part time too in order to fit around their children. They have been on the housing register for a while now.

It's food for thought.

I can see both sides of things, but does spark interesting conversation at times!

[GMR]

REALLY !!!!! I often wondered why people stay in large homes when they no longer need them. I can see why they wouldnt want a flat, its a shame there isnt 'smaller' properties for these people, small bungalows or one bed houses with a small garden. With so many elderly people now, you would think this should also be an area housing associations look into, that would then 'free up' the larger homes.

Another interesting – and true – story. A couple near me; both had a 3 bedroom council house and wanted to move in together and wanted one 2 or 3 bedroom house. They said the council that if they gave up their two houses could they have a 2 – 3 bedroom house. The council – or Sovereign in this case – came back and said no they were only entitled to a 1 bedroom flat; that was the rules. They said ok, we’ll stay as we are. Bloody ludicrous... but then rules are rules.

[Sarah]

Another interesting – and true – story. A couple near me; both had a 3 bedroom council house and wanted to move in together and wanted one 2 or 3 bedroom house. They said the council that if they gave up their two houses could they have a 2 – 3 bedroom house. The council – or Sovereign in this case – came back and said no they were only entitled to a 1 bedroom flat; that was the rules. They said ok, we’ll stay as we are. Bloody ludicrous... but then rules are rules.

You've lost me here, if they both had 3 bedroomed houses, why didn't one move in with the other, why did they need to be allocated yet another one, or have I misread your post?

[GMR]

You've lost me here, if they both had 3 bedroomed houses, why didn't one move in with the other, why did they need to be allocated yet another one, or have I misread your post?

Yes, they could have done that; but they wanted to move and have a small house; 2 bedrooms. Sovereign said no and they stayed. They wanted to use it as a bargaining chip. The point I was trying to make was that Sovereign could have had two 3 bedroom houses if they had given them a 2 bedroom house.

[On the edge]

What is social housing? Stigmatising people by their accommodation went out when the right to buy came in. The problem is making sure people have sufficient money to meet their accommodation needs. Sure, there are people rattling round in rented accommodation that in some peoples opinion is too big for them, but hold on, that's also the case where people have purchased their homes. I also know of a pensioner couple in central London living in a massive detached house on their own (kids grown up) and yet just down the road another couple (with two young boys), he is still in work, but only just, living in rooms on the top floor of an old terraced house - but they aren't complaining!