£1600 pw housing benefit!

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Osem

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

And that's after Tax etc.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

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

LOL I've only just realised it's a week not a month!

THROW THEM OUT. I'M NOT CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THAT!

If they were working they'd have to rent wherever they could afford to rent. if it's too small then do what everybody else has to do. sort something out for themselves.

Unless you live in Westminster, you're not contributing towards that.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Unless you live in Westminster, you're not contributing towards that.

I can't afford to live in Westminster.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I can't afford to live in Westminster.

my neither -- asylum please

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

my neither -- asylum please

I think the rules are that you have to be non British to be eligible.

Ah - those would be "Gary's imaginary rules".......

(which do not take into account that the family, although they come from Somalia, are now British Citizens, and their children were all born in the UK).

(or do you subscribe to a certain political party's definition of "British"?)

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Ah - those would be "Gary's imaginary rules".......

(which do not take into account that the family, although they come from Somalia, are now British Citizens, and their children were all born in the UK).

Qualifying for asylum depends on whether you are a refugee, as described in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention. It says a refugee is someone who is outside his or her country of origin because of a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five reasons:

You have to be Non British in the first place. what has this family got to do with anything now that they qualified long ago?

(or do you subscribe to a certain political party's definition of "British"?)

Do you mean the Labour party?

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

An incompetent council waisting money on an unnecessary home. Nothing new there.

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.

[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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But that is not the fault of the family in question.

.... and where did I say it was the fault of the family?

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

Obviously your work for a LA, and know the inner workings of one.....and on your days off your must do volunteer work for the DWP.

[Flyboy]

As a landlord, I too have a reasonable level of insight into this. I have seen some very "inappropriate" behaviour from some local authority employees and some very unscrupulous landlords. So, how does this, or any other, family not deserve to live in a house?

[Osem]

Was just trying to find out more about this case:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936223.ece

and another popped up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...taxpayers.html

This time it's £3,000 pw (£156,000 pa) if the source is to be believed.

it wouldn't be the first time that 2 council properties have been knocked into one ,i myself have worked in such properties this would have been much more preferable than moving them into the one they are in now and a fraction of the cost ,even ,as Flyboy has said they could be moved to a different borough or even different part of the country