Panorama; Council Housing.

and_another_thing...

Even when sub letting is reported and proven it doesn't necessarily lead to the tenant losing the property. My cousin lives next door to a HA property ( a house converted into two flats ) and for the last 9 years the first floor tenant has been sub letting his flat as he moved to Scotland. The Housing Association were informed as the people he sub lets to have had countless loud parties over the years. The HA have 'allowed' this sub letting to continue as the tenant has told them he only works on a temporary basis in Scotland and returns home every month. This is not true and he hasn't been seen at the property for years. The HA are not bothered as the rent is always paid on time and the parties have now stopped. The HA have not investiagted this and have taken what their tenant has said at face value. They just don't have the time, money or man power to pursue such things.
My cousin is now on speaking terms with the previously noisy tenant and knows that he pays £900 month whereas the family below pay £70 a week rent to the HA as they are official tenants! The tenant who sub lets is still reasonably happy with what he pays as it's still a little cheaper than other private rentals in the area.
It shouldn't be happening but it does.

Cat1

The program made me really cross too. I did have a lot of sympathy for the young couple in the damp house with the flooded cellar though as I ended up in a similar situation

When I fell pg with DS1 I was living in a shared house which was falling down around me, the landlord moved a bloke in who had a drug habit and would invite allsorts round and I never knew what I would wake up to or find in the kitchen in the morning. The shared house had no deposit and rent in arrears, so the landlord had me over a barrel even though I was working full time I couldn't afford to pay the rent on my room and get together the months rent in advance, month deposit plus holding fees for a new home - it would have been the equivalent of two months salary back then.

When DS was born he offered me another of his dodgy properties, this time a 2 bed flat. Again, rent in arrears and we fell into real problems as the rent was 350 a month and housing benefit fair rent department decided it was in poor condition and the housing benefit ceiling on it was 220. We were eligible for some housing benefit benefit as my take home salary was only about 550 (this is 1999 we are talking here!). Started out on the wrong foot as the original housing benefit assessment was based on 350 a month and when they made a final decision of 220 we had to repay the overpayment. Anyhow, 10 months later the idiots upstairs flooded the flat when the ll tried to evict them. You had to go down a step to enter the upstairs flat it so there was a hell of a lot of water! Luckily I had contents insurance as I lost everything to water damage and I used to insurance payout to clear up the arrears and get the hell outta there! I was on the council list but as I had a roof over my head I wasn't going anywhere! x

rsunder

Surely question should be why was panorama showing this crap and showing sympathy to these workshy lazy !!!!!!??

They should have take a different approach and really hammered home what a bunch of lazy gob!!!!!s we have in britain. The journo. should have asked each one of them why they not got a job or looking for one and why they are all such lazy f***ers?

The whole emphasis of this programme was wrong. Lazy workshy morons as were on this programme should be on the bottom of any list.

Come on Cameron where are the cuts?! Cut the handouts to these losers. Let them do what they like but why should hard working people fund these bleeders.

Cameron if u want to make savings just dismantle the whole welfare state stop handouts to these losers then you will get rid of the deficit overnight. :money:

zara*elise

The whole system is unjust. If people were honest and hard-working then the 'dream' of council housing back in the 50s and 60s would have worked. Instead we see a generation of workshy people who demand everything yet give nothing back because somehow they think it's their right. And morally bankrupt people who take advantage via loopholes.

No government can ever solve this problem because it's people's attitudes that need changing.

amorris72

I think one of messages that wasn't highlighted enough was the "social housing is there as a safety net". People expect too much as a given right, rather than a service for when they are truly in need. It was mentioned once, sandwiched between family scenes.

The council can not audit all its houses, all the time, so it relys on honesty. The only problem is they are dealing with humans in a money based society!

fritleyfrisp

Well I do declare I'm not one for posting on a forum these days but I watched this programme last night and went to bed rather baffled. I got the distinct impression from the reporter that I was supposed to feel sorry for the supposed victims who had been on the council waiting list for however many years it was. While I think the information presented about the council house fraudsters was interesting and very useful I felt it was an illogical leap to call the overcrowded family in Sheffield a victim of those frauds.

While I recognise that it can't be easy having 9 people live in a 3 bedroom council house I was wondering a few things:

* Why, having waited 15 years on the list, did this woman continue to have children knowing they couldn't be housed properly?

* The older boys sleeping on the sofa looked of a working age. Did they not have jobs?

* Without trying to be mean they also looked a good size as though they might have polished off a few pies so clearly they were eating well.

I felt similarly about the lady who was pregnant. My wife and I are expecting our first baby in a week so I realise how hard it must be to have to do that in a one bedroom flat whilst not being able to pay the rent. But my mind turned to other things. Why was her boyfriend unemployed? If he was ill I could understand her frustration at not being helped. Maybe he was, I don't know. As she was interviewed my thoughts turned to the recent programme with Lenny Henry where he lived in what could barely be called a house with children in Kenya (or somewhere such as). There was an open sewer running through their "room". Children are living in abject poverty the world over and this report would have use believe that an unemployed couple expecting their first child and having a percentage of their rent paid by the DSS are victims. Is it me or is something amiss?

Politically I stand between aspects of capitalism and socialism. I do think we have a duty to ensure the needy and poor are homed and fed but I also think the priority should be on us to work for ourselves first. The default attitude of many of the interviewees in this programme seemed to be that they were somehow entitled to social housing. That atttitude isn't as much of a shock as the fact that the documentary actually appeared to support that view. It cynically used these people and their 'give me a handout' attitude to paint the fraudsters in an even worse light. In fact, I think it did the documentary a lot of harm. The focus shifted from the fraudsters to the supposed victims as they tried to milk their stories so we could shake our fists at the bad guys who were cheating them out of what they deserved.

If I was meant to feel sorry for the victims I didn't. I felt bemused not that they would hold the attitudes that they did but that their attitudes were endorsed and exploited by Panorama. Terrible terrible viewing.

RuthnJasper

I watched this programme last night on the iPlayer (I'm in a Housing Association property, for which I was on a waiting list for over 7 years and cannot afford a TV. I'm in full-time work and have never claimed a single penny in benefits. I just cannot afford to house myself in the present climate and my parents don't want me).

Some of the cases featured DID make me angry, though not as angry as I'd anticipated - apart from the total sh*t who was sub-letting lovely Council flats in central London, trousering several £100s per week whilst living with a rich'n'thick here in England and owning a chateau in France ("PC" Hoult). Gitwizard. :mad:

On the whole, it made me feel so incredibly lucky to have the small things that I DO have. My house is VERY tiny, to be sure, but it is warm, safe, and I can have my dog Jasper with me. I feel I have been so very fortunate. It does make me FUME when I see unwanted babies being popped out for the sole purpose of securing extra luxuries for the idle parents, though. I have worked hard for everything for myself since I was 15. I'm not where I hoped I'd end up - but I have NO desire to play the system and stitch-up other, more deserving, folk just so that I can have a few extra luxuries.

I felt very sorry indeed for Jawad, the chap in the programme who was a good tenant, paying his rent, and didn't realise that his "landlord" was an illegal sub-letter, as well as for Nathan (the chap who had damp throughout the house and pooled water in the cellar where the fuse-box was - and the most incredible respect for the two London Housing Officers, June and Paul, who must have to deal with distressing circumstances on a daily basis.

State-funded assistance, whether financial or otherwise, is really a privilege and not a right. People should focus on what they DO have, rather than what they feel they SHOULD have.

fritleyfrisp

I think what I struggled to understand is why Nathan didn't have some recourse to do something about the house he was living in. Doesn't the landlord have an obligation to ensure that the house is fit for living in? Wouldn't he be in breach of contract for not?

zara*elise

Call me a cynic, but the person with the mould and flooded basement probably wanted it left that way. Probably though if they left it they could then moan to the council about it being unfit for living and how they NEED a new place. I'm pretty sure if they had those problems would be dealt with quickly.

MrsCrafty

Have not read entire thread but are the Beeb finally sucking up to the tories because they don't usually show the people claiming benefits in a bad light.