Family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was in "poor area" - DM

puddy

some clarity is needed here, this family and others like them, have not been 'put' in this home. they found a rental property, are entitled to benefits and the lha amount for the area and size of property they are in pays for that expensive rent. no council officer decided to place the family in the home and would not have been able to do anything about the family living there if they had wanted to.

if you had the number of children which necessitated that size of house and went to rent it in that area and then claimed benefits that legally you are entitled to, you too, would be claiming the rent on the property.

the family wont be 'evicted by teh council', they will have to renegotiate with their landlord when the new rules come in to see if they will accept 400pw for the rent instead of 2000 and if not will have to find different accommodation.

ILW

What idiot set up this system?

Spartacus_Mills

ILW wrote: »

What idiot set up this system?

Ultimately this moron.

pardal51

puddy wrote: »

some clarity is needed here, this family and others like them, have not been 'put' in this home. they found a rental property, are entitled to benefits and the lha amount for the area and size of property they are in pays for that expensive rent. no council officer decided to place the family in the home and would not have been able to do anything about the family living there if they had wanted to.

if you had the number of children which necessitated that size of house and went to rent it in that area and then claimed benefits that legally you are entitled to, you too, would be claiming the rent on the property.

the family wont be 'evicted by teh council', they will have to renegotiate with their landlord when the new rules come in to see if they will accept 400pw for the rent instead of 2000 and if not will have to find different accommodation.

They main issue for me is that 1) You should only have kids if you can afford it. 2) If they need shelter Housing Association should find the cheapest available property to house them, not a £2K/week house in Kensington because this is taxpayer's money (I am still renting a shoe box, saving money to buy my first home. I'd love to have a house paid by the tax payer, however I cannot afford to have kids and I am lucky to be employed). 3) If he/she is unemployed and looking for a job he should, in the mean time, be doing something in return to society, i.e., helping elderly people, cutting grass, anything so they would value what we tax payers are providing them. It is easy for people to stay cool and live off the dole. What is the motivation to work if everything can be provided??? They shouldn't be able to choose where to live, instead they should be grateful if they were provided anything. This is my personal opinion anyway.

lynzpower

rickbonar wrote: »

I think whoever decided to let these people live in this house at this must either own the place or be working for the BNP.

My reasoning is that it isn't very good PR for refugee/asylum seekers.

This revelation has caused massive resentment and you know this "bus conductor" .... as someone else pointed out bus conductors were phased out more than 20 years ago in Britain.

Jack, Stan, Olive & Blakey never had it as good as this guy and you know I posted earlier about another Somalian family were in a house some months back similar situation. That post seems to have AWOL.
Can anybody explain why?

Now I remember; simply because I said they should seek refugee status in Bangledesh.
U R a better man than me Gunga Din.

Lovely 50" widescreen teles the lot they had too. Anybody else remember that.

All courtesy of our tax money thank you very much.

I know virtually everyone here would like to see this money cut. Though to be fair the letting agents and owners of the property are coining it too out of the Housing benefit LHA.

Yeah your old thread probably got racist as they tend t, so they get chopped.

Funny comment about Blakey, rep for that :rotfl:

kabayiri

Move the family to Salford or Hull or Bradford or Carlisle....etc

They can have a decent size house for a couple of hundred a week, not a couple of grand.

With the 1800 quid a week saving we can spend that on a major leafleting campaign showing other Somalians thinking of coming here the joys of Salford. They'd soon change their mind and head for other destinations on the globe.

TWH is bang on the money....we must be flamin' mental to allow this sort of thing to happen.

nightwatchman

Actually their previous landlord did not get his rent money…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295601/Somali-refugee-given-2-1million-taxpayer-funded-house-owed-7-000-rent-previous-home.html
They did not pay the rent for some months & then they make a runner.
Most likely the current will not get his money either.
However the system that permits such abuse is bonkers.

Housebear51

nightwatchman wrote: »

Actually their previous landlord did not get his rent money…..

They did not pay the rent for some months & then they make a runner.
Most likely the current will not get his money either.
However the system that permits such abuse is bonkers.

Does that 2 grand a week really go to the tenants? Its too tempting to not give it the LL.

Its so stupid. These wasters can spend it on what they like and it can take up to 6 months and lots of money to evict through the courts. The they trash the place when they finally are kicked out.

Then they move to another 2mil luxury home and start keeping the 2grand a week all over again?

Housebear51

Simple question about the rent on this house, if the rent goes to the owner who is out of the country, does he still pay tax on the income?

From that Dmail story

"The revelation that a foreign national, with unspecified tax status, is benefiting from taxpayer-funded rent payments will heighten concern about Britain’s broken benefit system.
The Mail on Sunday tracked down Dr Roman Keckeis, a lawyer acting for Brophy.
Dr Keckeis, who lives in a £5million mansion over the border in Austria and who drives a £120,000 Maserati sports car, is known as Dr Fixit and regarded as one of the shrewdest lawyers in Liechtenstein.
He declined to talk in detail about the house or reveal the identities of anyone connected with the Brophy group.
He said: ‘We manage assets and our clients expect confidentiality. I can confirm the house was bought as an asset. More than that I cannot say.’
Liechtenstein, in an Alpine valley between Switzerland and Austria, prides itself on its secrecy. It is estimated to hold £150billion of the world’s assets in its banks and 5,000 Britons are thought to have deposited more than £3billion in the principality simply to avoid paying tax."

rickbonar

RDB wrote: »

So for all anyone knows this tenant could be the actual owner of the property?

"The house is owned by Brophy Group Business Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company whose registered address is a post office box in Liechtenstein."

He probably pockets the rent.



Just out of interest I wonder how much rent this house can get after the 400 cap comes in? I wonder if someone will pay that out of their own pocket?

Just saw this and thought - How do we know that HE isn't Brophy Group Business Ltd. ?

Could be a good con trick for british dummies to pay out on.