LHA gravy train still in full swing in London...

puddy

well you can put your pitchfork away, the maximum hb for that area in hampsted is 400 a week which is 1600 four weekly. so they dont get 8k a month (or their landlord i should say)

Eskimo12345

Oh my god how dare you suggest the Daily Mail lies!!

Anyone an idea where the DM got their figures from?

The actual figure aside (though fair point about the legitimacy of the claim), does anyone know who it was that allowed people housed by taxpayers to choose where to live?

olly300

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

Oh my god how dare you suggest the Daily Mail lies!!

Anyone an idea where the DM got their figures from?

The "journalist" probably went to rightmove and findaproperty to look at how much similar properties rent for and sell for in the area. They can also use the average price of a 6 bedroom house in the area.

And if they were really clever - remember they can get postcodes but aren't allowed to publish them - they looked at the land registry or a house prices site to find out how much the house or houses nearby sell for.

The DM always have to put house prices in their stories.

However what always amuses me is lots of high value houses near me that you can rent out quite cheaply for the area - i.e. students live in them - the landlord has owned the house for 20+ years.

BTW I wonder how much a 6 bedroom house costs to heat. I've heard stories where families are rehoused in large properties due to the number of children they have but can't afford to heat them properly.

puddy

the property appears to have been (according to the newspapers) advertised at 8k a month

privately rented people can live where they like. if they are entitled to hb/lha, then some or all of their rent will be paid for by that. there is no or little social housing.

Graham_Devon

puddy wrote: »

well you can put your pitchfork away, the maximum hb for that area in hampsted is 400 a week which is 1600 four weekly. so they dont get 8k a month (or their landlord i should say)

Is that not the new maximum?

I.e. don't think these people qualify for the maximum. New entrants will though.

Already a thread on this one though!

StevieJ

puddy wrote: »

well you can put your pitchfork away, the maximum hb for that area in hampsted is 400 a week which is 1600 four weekly. so they dont get 8k a month (or their landlord i should say)

We have had this one before and Lynzpower wrote, who is right?

If you read the article it actually says

"Housing benefit was recently capped at £400 per week, but the Khaliifs are able to claim more because they moved before the change came into force. According to property sources, the house was being advertised at a rent of £7,800 per month."

staffie1

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

Which government enabled this situation to be possible? Who championed the legislation for this?

Labour for a guess.

Eskimo12345

Wow, so it's possible (or was possible in the past) for us to pay £8k a month to house this family.

I can understand how the DM bend truths, in articles related to speeding and crashes they often quote original list price on cars - I saw a ten year old Freelander described as "a £40,000 Range Rover" a few weeks ago in the DM!

Still, I'd very much like to know, does anyone know who it was that allowed people housed by taxpayers to choose where to live?

staffie1 wrote: »

Labour for a guess.

That's my guess too, but I like to be sure before getting angry at something!

ukcarper

staffie1 wrote: »

Labour for a guess.

I think you might be wrong

puddy

StevieJ wrote: »

We have had this one before and Lynzpower wrote, who is right?

the previous cap was 950 a week, whether their tenancy agreement is in line with the dates of the change we dont know. i presume the daily mail has not seen it