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

RDB

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?

nuttyp

After watching homes from hell and there was a housing estate of new homes not being able to be sold, why dont they move these people there. The rent would be cheaper and it will be basically better than somalia. Cant believe some random idiot in a council, oh yeah i could really!!! allow anyone in the country to be able to rent a house for so much at the expense of the taxpayer. If you work, and you have a small house you adapt to it, so should they. Or they could stop having children. Just a thought.

So angry that i have to subisitise peole like this and work my a**e off.

omen666

How the !!!! does the Local Authority miss this bit?

***He found it through a friend who owns the property

***It was recently advertised at £1050 per week

***The family are now paid £2k per week to pay the landlord.

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

I didn't miss your point, though you may have missed mine. House prices in the SE are more expensive, but not by that much.

I thought we were discussing rental prices?

Perhaps an example showing how a possible fixed fee system works against parts of the country:

If I were to lose my job and home in surrey (index value of 1286). I may have to move my family.
http://www.rentright.co.uk/surrey/00_rrpi.aspx

Whereas someone in Aberdeenshire (index value 642).
http://www.rentright.co.uk/aberdeenshire/00_rrpi.aspx
Would be far better off financially.

I agree that an appropriate maximum rent cap on is needed - I was debating against the introduction of a fixed benefit amount.

carolt

We were discussing rental prices - sorry if my post was unclear. The Tories cap will be on rental prices not house prices!

The point is, Surrey is a big area. If your housing benefit didn't cover you to live in the best bits, you'd live in the grottier bits. Or live in a smaller property. Or in the next county. Just as working people do. It may be tough, but that's life. Those working can't afford to live in any area they choose - let's face it, we'd all love this guy's home in Kensington, but can't afford it.

It would mean those on benefits would have to make choices, as Gen says - the same choices those of us in work have to do.

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

We were discussing rental prices - sorry if my post was unclear. The Tories cap will be on rental prices not house prices!

The point is, Surrey is a big area. If your housing benefit didn't cover you to live in the best bits, you'd live in the grottier bits. Or live in a smaller property. Or in the next county. Just as working people do.

So you're suggesting children have to move away from their School in the middle of their GCSE's to another county, because the area is more expensive than the north east? As a teacher I thought you'd be more considerate.

Housing benefit needs to be set according to area. There are no cheap bits in Surrey. Should HB be limited to stop people living in luxury properties, yes. Should it stop them living in a particular county, no.

carolt

No, I'd suggest they might have to get the bus to school till they'd finish their GCSE's to school, though. Counties aren't that big - I live in one but regularly travel by public transport to a number of neighbouring counties.

Ideally, I'd want to see a higher rate of benefits for those who've just lost a job ie 1-2 years before rates reduce drastically - to avoid those sorts of situations - so that people who have just lost jobs have time to find another one without needing to radically uproot their families. BUT knowing and having time to plan for the fact that if they haven't found a job in that time, then they have to move. Which is less of an upheaval for those who genuinely have just fallen on hard times - but should discourage the lifestyle choice benefits type.

Not remotely clear why my being a teacher is even faintly relevant to your argument, BTW. Oh, and of course their are cheaper bits in Surrey. Not as cheap as Newcastle, say, but then you pays your money you takes your choice.

RDB

omen666 wrote: »

How the !!!! does the Local Authority miss this bit?

***He found it through a friend who owns the property

***It was recently advertised at £1050 per week

***The family are now paid £2k per week to pay the landlord.

How many times does this sort of thing happen?

How much has it pushed up rents/house prices I wonder?

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

No, I'd suggest they might have to get the bus to school till they'd finish their GCSE's to school, though. Counties aren't that big - I live in one but regularly travel by public transport to a number of neighbouring counties.

Ideally, I'd want to see a higher rate of benefits for those who've just lost a job ie 1-2 years before rates reduce drastically - to avoid those sorts of situations - so that people who have just lost jobs have time to find another one without needing to radically uproot their families. BUT knowing and having time to plan for the fact that if they haven't found a job in that time, then they have to move. Which is less of an upheaval for those who genuinely have just fallen on hard times - but should discourage the lifestyle choice benefits type.

Not remotely clear why my being a teacher is even faintly relevant to your argument, BTW. Oh, and of course their are cheaper bits in Surrey. Not as cheap as Newcastle, say, but then you pays your money you takes your choice.

I agree with the middle bit. However to suggest children should commute into the expensive SE from Newcastle (or even a couple of hours each way per day) is just stupid.

If you were to give those on benefits a fixed amount regardless of where they lived, you may get 40 of them shacked up in the same property next door to you carolt, creaming off the extra monies.

olly300

Malcolm. wrote: »

I agree with the middle bit. However to suggest children should commute into the expensive SE from Newcastle (or even a couple of hours each way per day) is just stupid.

She is not suggesting that at all.

I see lots of children (when I take the train) taking the train to school when I'm working through out the SE. Due to where their school is and where they live.

Many of my friends use to spend an hour to an hour and 15 minutes commuting one way to and from school via various transport means. Unfortunately this is normally in the SE for people from secondary school age upwards.