Council House Crackdown

deFoix

Sorry rant...

I watched "Council House Crackdown" the other day on BBC where a likely immigrant (non British name and appearance [and YES I believe this is relevant]) with a British Passport was illegally subletting a flat in Greenwich. If that wasn't enough he then applied for "Right-to-Buy" which if he'd been successful would have netted him a windfall of over £103,000.

In the end (after a long and expensive investigation we are told) he was caught (with evidence gathered from his social media accounts that he didn't in fact live in the flat). Greenwich council took him to court and he was found guilty. He was sentenced to:

* 6-months in prison (suspended for 1 year) - So in effect ZERO jail time
* 100hrs community service
* £2000 fine

To add insult to injury a Greenwich Councilor rather smugly added at the end of the program how this "shows that we take this sort of thing very seriously and offenders would be found out and punished".

I nearly spat my tea out. We might as well as a country INVITE people to commit this type of fraud if that's the only deterrent we can muster up. No wonder this country is going down the pan! £100k+ fraud punished by a £2000 fine?!

And why must they have needed Facebook posts to prove he wasn't living there? Surely the onus should be on the applicant to prove without doubt that they've lived in the property for the required time, council tax bills, energy bills, bank account transactions etc.

And I'm sure that this sort of thing goes on unreported. I have a friend who knows a friend who works for Kensington and Chelsea Council who estimates over 20% of their social housing is illegally sublet.

Computer_Beginner

deFoix wrote: »

Sorry rant...

I watched "Council House Crackdown" the other day on BBC where a likely immigrant (non British name and appearance [and YES I believe this is relevant]) with a British Passport was illegally subletting a flat in Greenwich. If that wasn't enough he then applied for "Right-to-Buy" which if he'd been successful would have netted him a windfall of over £103,000.

In the end (after a long and expensive investigation we are told) he was caught (with evidence gathered from his social media accounts that he didn't in fact live in the flat). Greenwich council took him to court and he was found guilty. He was sentenced to:

* 6-months in prison (suspended for 1 year) - So in effect ZERO jail time
* 100hrs community service
* £2000 fine

To add insult to injury a Greenwich Councilor rather smugly added at the end of the program how this "shows that we take this sort of thing very seriously and offenders would be found out and punished".

I nearly spat my tea out. We might as well as a country INVITE people to commit this type of fraud if that's the only deterrent we can muster up. No wonder this country is going down the pan! £100k+ fraud punished by a £2000 fine?!

And why must they have needed Facebook posts to prove he wasn't living there? Surely the onus should be on the applicant to prove without doubt that they've lived in the property for the required time, council tax bills, energy bills, bank account transactions etc.

And I'm sure that this sort of thing goes on unreported. I have a friend who knows a friend who works for Kensington and Chelsea Council who estimates over 20% of their social housing is illegally sublet.

1. So you're forming your views based on what the mainstream media present to you?
2. You haven't explained why you think this man's ethnic origin is relevant.
3. A criminal case requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt to be presented by the prosecution. Presumably the council could have opted to just evict the tenant, relying on only a civil balance of probability. But perhaps that wouldn't provide such an intriguing narrative for the MSM to present...?

YoungBlueEyes

deFoix wrote: »

And why must they have needed Facebook posts to prove he wasn't living there? Surely the onus should be on the applicant to prove without doubt that they've lived in the property for the required time, council tax bills, energy bills, bank account transactions etc.

Because innocent until proven guilty?

I do often see these sorts of cases coming to light, and more should be done to stamp it out. Immigrant or no. Making £100k+ and fined £2k? Yeah, that'll stop it :rotfl:

Computer_Beginner

YoungBlueEyes wrote: »

Because innocent until proven guilty?

I do often see these sorts of cases coming to light, and more should be done to stamp it out. Immigrant or no. Making £100k+ and fined £2k? Yeah, that'll stop it :rotfl:

You probably see these cases, because they are presented by the MSM, (who's bosses have been proven in court to socialise with the politcal elite) who have an agenda to divide the population and distract them from the bigger issues.

sevenhills

deFoix wrote: »

I nearly spat my tea out. We might as well as a country INVITE people to commit this type of fraud if that's the only deterrent we can muster up. No wonder this country is going down the pan! £100k+ fraud punished by a £2000 fine?!

Mr Raji had been receiving £800 a month in rent for the property since 1 June 2014.


That does not ammount to £100k, does the name look right?


On 20 January 2017 Mr Raji appeared at Woolwich Crown Court and pleaded guilty to three charges. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months, ordered to undertake 180 hours of unpaid work within the community and ordered to pay the unlawful rental profit he had made of £4,330.29. He was also ordered to pay £500 costs and a victim surcharge of £100.

POPPYOSCAR

This has been going on for years.

At one time they would go from one borough to another thereby renting out several properties.

Not sure if they can do that anymore with more linked up technology but maybe they can.

Cakeguts

The councils are going to have to get on top of this. It isn't good enough to claim shortage of social housing while not getting rid of tenants who are subletting.

POPPYOSCAR

Cakeguts wrote: »

The councils are going to have to get on top of this. It isn't good enough to claim shortage of social housing while not getting rid of tenants who are subletting.

Agreed.

But it is not just the councils the law needs to be tougher.

eddddy

YoungBlueEyes wrote: »

Making £100k+ and fined £2k? Yeah, that'll stop it

When the tenant is convicted, the £100k+ can be recovered using the Proceeds of Crime act.

The £2k fine is on top of the recovered profit.

Here's an example news story...

Tara Chalk, 47, pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud relating to sub-letting her council owned flat at Elmore House on the Loughborough Estate and making a false claim for a Council Tax single persons discount, after an investigation by Lambeth council officers.

Lambeth Council will now seek to claim back all the money she made through the fraud via the Proceeds of Crime Act. This legislation enables Lambeth Council to recover the loss to the public purse as well as taking back any profit made by Chalk from this long running crime.

Link: https://www.londonpropertylicensing.co.uk/suspended-prison-sentence-lambeth-council-tenant-who-illegally-sub-let-her-home

davidmcn

eddddy wrote: »

When the tenant is convicted, the £100k+ can be recovered using the Proceeds of Crime act.

Yes, if they had even made £100k+. The OP appears to have been merely speculating about what they might have made in the future.

tlc678910

I have been watching this show and usually when they present the evidence to the tenant that is subletting they just get them to hand the property back and leave it at that so there is no deterrent at all.