[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is that comment that is nonsense.

First of all, the council houses that were sold had families living in them. So the number of Council houses would go down by x houses, but the number of families that the Council were responsible for, would go down by the same number.

Aah I see and just when would you expect those people to stop having children? Where were they going to live? Why then, do the councils now rely on private landlords, more and more, to provide social housing? Ironically many in the very same houses that were local authority owned in the first place.

Secondly, no matter how many Council houses were built, this family would not be housed in any of them, because of the size and make-up(ages of children) of the family.

And what evidence are you are basing that on what exactly? You have absolutely no idea that would have happened.

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

The rent in question here is £1600 pw - that's £83,200 pa

But that is not the fault of the family in question. That was decision made by the local authority. It is also down to the high property prices in Westminster. A house identical to this one, in Derbyshire, for example, would probably be a quarter of the cost.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Jon T

No, i think you'll find that benefit regulations are put in place by the DWP. Homelessness and Housing allocation rules also come from some central government department or another. Local authorities have no flexibility at all in this.

They most certainly do, despite what the media would have you believe. They are the ones who decide where to put the families, not central government. They could have quite easily rented two flats side by side, at a fraction of the cost, but oddly enough decided not to. Or they could have re-housed them in a different borough.