Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

lynzpower

No they wouldnt degenerate. I have worked in the EXACT department that this happens in.

They wouldnt need to.

In all LAs there are private lettings officers. Part ofd thier job is to liaise/ smooze with landlords to try and convince them to "take" HB/ LHA families in need.

Many will reject out of hand. Those that will accept will charge a premium. Same as renting with a pet- yes you can rent this place but we will charge you ex extra 100pw.

Thats the reality of central london private lets.

lostinrates

Shakethedisease wrote: »

To be fair, it's the landlord who's getting most of money and getting 'rich'.. ( even if they are now in receivership ).. not actually the family getting £1600 cash a week in their hands. Let try not to forget that as it seems to be getting lost in amongst the noise in this thread.

Still seems such an unbelievable story though...what kind of council allocates luxury housing like this when millions of others have to make do, or do without at all ??? Beggars belief..

While the fmily don't get their hands on the cash, a working family would need to in order to rent the same flat (or eqivalent) and the suggestion is this provides upwards pressure on rents. It might not be cash but for an earner I suppose it would constitute ''payment in kind'' or a benefit of employment if the same ''non cash'' payment were received. Is it so different to the earner who, lets say, takes home lets say, for ease, £100k and pays the £83k a year rent: has that rent payment still going to the same landlord benefited the earner significant;y more than the faily in question here?

The only thing I can see is the advantage of choice.

I wonder, if going through a letting agent, what the required income would be for a tenant wanting to rent the same appartment/s. Looking at my local agencies website earnings would need to be 2.5 times the rent. That's a considerable income of ...£207 500...is that right?

It would be interestig to hear from a non hysterical with understanding (lynzpower? ) how much money this family are likely to have for other expenses per month and see how well that would compare with the minimum earning require ment family. I can't see the benefit family would end up with more ''cash in their hands'' each month?

worried_jim

Good luck to the family concerned, they have done well for themselves and have "provided" for there family in ways that I could never dream of.
I quite often read about citizens complaining about immigrants getting priority for social housing and how others in the UK are struggling to get appropriate housing and feeling that the new arrivals are jumping the queue. Someone from the government is trotted out to tell us all to calm down and that this is not the case, however when I am identifying customers at work and many of them are from the horn of Africa they all have social housing tenancy agreements for proof of address so I know the government is lying to us.

zygurat789

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its not a race issue to me either, I think anyone born here (no matter what colour) should get priority over people coming here from abroad, especially if they have wroked and paid into the system......

This isnt a race issue at all so please dont imply my post was .....I'd still have the same view Carol if Australia had a civil war and the immigrants came from there........

So if this lot have another 6 children over here!!!!
That's what wrong here why should anyone acquire british nationality just because they are born here. Until foreigners/aliens become useful ( taxpaying) members of our society there should be NO WAY they can acquire British citizenship which should become a basic requirement of any benefit. After all we didn't ask them to come here.

carolt

lynzpower wrote: »

No they wouldnt degenerate. I have worked in the EXACT department that this happens in.

They wouldnt need to.

In all LAs there are private lettings officers. Part ofd thier job is to liaise/ smooze with landlords to try and convince them to "take" HB/ LHA families in need.

Many will reject out of hand. Those that will accept will charge a premium. Same as renting with a pet- yes you can rent this place but we will charge you ex extra 100pw.

Thats the reality of central london private lets.

But surely, while thatmight make sense with a 2 bed flat, say, surely no-one would be mad enough to attempt to rent out a 6 bed house and have a 'no children' rule?

I can't see why any premium should be paid for HB - after all, as others have pointed out, it is securely paid. Better for the landlord than a void or a private tenant who can't pay.

lemonjelly

Degenerate wrote: »

Yep, if £800 is the true fair market rent, it's an outright fraud. They should be investigating both the landlord and the council worker who approved it.

lynzpower wrote: »

No they wouldnt degenerate. I have worked in the EXACT department that this happens in.

They wouldnt need to.

In all LAs there are private lettings officers. Part ofd thier job is to liaise/ smooze with landlords to try and convince them to "take" HB/ LHA families in need.

Many will reject out of hand. Those that will accept will charge a premium. Same as renting with a pet- yes you can rent this place but we will charge you ex extra 100pw.

Thats the reality of central london private lets.

Surely as part of the assessment process for entitlement to LHA, someone in the LA should have passed the case to a rent officer, to assess the level of rent charged to see if it was reasonable & the market rate? My understanding of hb/LHA is that it can be capped if the rent is "excessive".

Having worked in social housing, I have little doubt that there regularly are cases where the authority which houses/moves families, will often find some sort of sweetener to "encourage" people to move quickly & quietly, or alternatively to keep them quiet.

Degenerate wrote: »

Yes, the Royal Family do get quite a bit of coverage.

Made I larf :rotfl:

SingleSue

lynzpower wrote: »

Sue its not clear if any of the children or the parents have disabilities?

I think that we all know that in order to "accept HB" the LL will ask a premuim.

The family are blamed for this and they to be fair will have had v little to do with the process. It will have been decided between officers at the LG and they will try t ofind somewhere that will take this family. There are all manner of houses in London- both rich & poor- that will not accept children.

I totally agree carol, lower the ceiling and prices will fall.

This government has never been on the side of the taxpayer- I dont think they know VFM if it punched them in the face.

Oh I know the decision to house them like they are hasn't been made by the family but by the rules.

Disabilities should not have too much of an impact when it comes to the size of house unless it is a disability which comes with a lot of equipment (wheelchair, machines etc)...with 2 disabled here (plus hubby also had disabilities), we were still only entitled to the 3 bedroom house despite middle son being extremely violent and a danger to the other two.

They did talk about a 4 bedroom house ages ago but none available so no can do.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Can't help wondering if they'd have 8 children if they had actually had to face paying for housing for them themselves...

This is what I've been saying for ages. If we stopped government incentives for having children, then a lot of the problems we have (not least, global warming and population explosion) would be solved.

If we have to subsidise other people's kids, then surely a maximum of two is adequate?

I keep coming back to the same argument, if people want kids they should work out whether or not they can afford them, and if they have to make personal sacrifices then tough. I'm sick and tired of paying tax that is then given away to subsidize the children of people who are far wealthier than me.

carolt

Sorry, I'm a 'leftie', but I think this case stinks.

drc

Another thing I don't understand is that if there is a rule about how many bedrooms a property must have in relation to how many people/esp children there are in a family in terms of health and safety or whatever remit that rule comes under, why does it apply to families in council housing or receiving LHA but not to families renting privately? Surely if it is 'unsafe' for this family to share rooms or whatever the concern is, then this needs to be applied to families renting in the private sector who might have 4 kids in a 2 bed flat or the equivalent?

Also, although this family are probably not actually seeing the money themselves so not getting it directly, they are getting a big benefit out of it, one that most working families could only dream of (certainly my family could never afford that sort of property). So I think it is understandable that people are focusing their anger at the family since they don't seem to have 'earned' this benefit, but I also understand that the whole system is completely wrong :mad:.