Offer of £5,000 to swap council flat

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

But there is a difference - in rent arrears cases a judge has discretion and can make orders that a postponed on terms and monitor the situation. A tenant has their chance to tell their story, and the judge may be sympathetic.

In a case of an exchange for money, these options are not available. The council can show that a tenant had been made aware of the consequences and despite this had chosen to go ahead. This is much more clear cut and not a matter of interpretation.

Rather than making the comparison with rent arrears, the better comparison would be with possession claims made under Ground 5 - (where a tenancy is granted through a false statement). Judges do more easily offer possession on this ground.

But, more often than not, excercise discretion even in those cases.

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But, more often than not, excercise discretion even in those cases.

Really? Based on what?

In my experience judges have always awarded possession in these cases.

FOURCANDLES_2

maryjane01 wrote: »

Obviously there is a difference of opinion here but in no way would I ever suggest or condone spitting on anyone or anything.

If somebody is in private rental and receiving housing benefit, my understanding is that is means tested and if their circumstances changed they may no longer receive this financial aid. If somebody is in need I don't have a problem with it at all. It is probably not as likely that somebody in this situation could afford to run 2 cars and take multiple holidays abroad every year.

I started this thread becuase I thought it was a bit cheeky for somebody to offer £5000 to move to a bigger council house than they are already in.

Obviously there are people that are proud to live in council housing and also be able to afford many luxuries. I personally feel proud paying may own way, even though that means my family only runs 1 ten year old car and we have holidays abroad once every 2 years.

Yes I would prefer my taxes went on improving schools and hospitals than on maintaining properties where the inhabitants can afford so many luxuries. In utopia we would all live in lovely affordable homes, take a few nice holidays every year, have fantastic local schools to send our kids to, and clean hospitals with no waitng lists. It is a wonderful ideal.

I do like to hear differing view points to my own that is why forums like this are so great

So you really believe you are one up from a social tenant? either a a private tenant or mortgaged and owing the banks 1000's do you not think that is rather sad? . What percentage of your taxes go to H association tenants? but the tenant pays taxes also ? the saving on the rent to them is around £150 pm how much of your taxes go to affordable housing? about enough to keep my dog in dog food for a year. We do not pick and choose where our taxes go and neither should we where on earth would it end? and they are paying for all the luxury items from what? clearly they are working or are you saying they are getting benefits ?.
All seems rather odd to me but I am speaking from a rather sunny position.

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

Really? Based on what?

In my experience judges have always awarded possession in these cases.

Then all I can assume is that your experience is more limited than mine.

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Then all I can assume is that your experience is more limited than mine.

Which is ?

Wee_Willy_Harris

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

So you really believe you are one up from a social tenant? either a a private tenant or mortgaged and owing the banks 1000's do you not think that is rather sad? . What percentage of your taxes go to H association tenants? but the tenant pays taxes also ? the saving on the rent to them is around £150 pm how much of your taxes go to affordable housing? about enough to keep my dog in dog food for a year. We do not pick and choose where our taxes go and neither should we where on earth would it end? and they are paying for all the luxury items from what? clearly they are working or are you saying they are getting benefits ?.
All seems rather odd to me but I am speaking from a rather sunny position.

If you want to argue a case, then do that. But you will lessen the validity of your own argument if you reduce it to personal insults and crass generalisations.

Wee_Willy_Harris

squinty wrote: »

Which is ?

I won't go into my personal or professional life on a public forum such as this, so you will have to draw your own conclusions.

squinty

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I won't go into my personal or professional life on a public forum such as this, so you will have to draw your own conclusions.

I've certainly done that

g_attrill

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Making less (or even none at all) "profit" isn't the same as a subsidy. A rolls royce costs more than a mini. That doesn't make the mini subsidised. And it certainly doesn't mean that the mini should only be allowed to be driven on certain roads at certain times and be spat on by all it passes.

A more accurate analogy is two families who run identical Minis. One family pays £1.20/litre for their petrol, pay to get it serviced every year and get repair bills. The other pays 30p/litre (it's sold tax-free) and it is serviced and repaired for free, for life.

greendollar

eerrr but I don't own the mini ? If I owned it then I'd pay for the servicing and repairs .
If I've leased the mini and it broke down I'd expect a replacement , not pay for it to be fixed out of my own pocket .