Council House Crackdown

Computer_Beginner

So what happens to the people who are actually living in the flat?
They are paying to live somewhere.

Yes, these subletters are fraudsters, but the real underlying issue here is the housing shortage.
If there wasn't a housing shortage, why would anyone pay money to the subletter in the first place?

People should not allow the MSM to distract them from the main problem.

The politicians and the MSM are feeding the population crumbs and laughing as everyone fights over these crumbs. Much easier to blame immigrants, single parents, the disabled etc. Rather than the politicians who sit in their mansions having dinner with the MSM newspaper editors (proven in court) etc.

How much are these 'top' BBC presenters paid?
How did these politicians end up with so much money?
Did they REALLY earn it all?

harrys_dad

I believe the latest figures show that over 35% of Conservative MPs are landlords, and yet they presumably claim living expenses for a second home whilst in London. They have a vested interest in not reforming our housing laws or tackling the housing shortage, making it impossible for Councils to borrow to build more social housing, and subsidising their donor friends in the housebuilding industry £10 billion through Help to Buy.

But of course, according to what the OP saw on BBC the main cause of the housing crisis is "Immigrants subletting council property". Pathetic.

AdrianC

deFoix wrote: »

...a likely immigrant (non British name and appearance [and YES I believe this is relevant]) with a British Passport

So he was a British national. How's his place of birth or appearance or name relevant to anything?

was illegally subletting a flat

There should be a law against it!

If that wasn't enough he then applied for "Right-to-Buy" which if he'd been successful

So he wasn't successful?

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

No "in effect". If he breaches the terms of the suspension within the year, committing any other offence, then he is serving that six month sentence.

£100k+ fraud punished by a £2000 fine?!

Except he didn't benefit by £100k, did he?

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.

Then perhaps K&C council should stop their staff from wasting their time whinging, and get their staff doing something proactive about it instead. Greenwich can, it seems. The ball is in their court.

Cakeguts

What I gained from watching the programme was that the councils didn't do enough checks on the tenants that they handed properties to. Perhaps they have tightened up on that now and do the credit checks on the tenants more often and before the agree to a letting?

theartfullodger

Phishing 4 kippers

00ec25

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.

in what way would the owner producing bills in his name addressed to that address prove he was in physical occupation?

• the tenants use the utilities so there is evidence of occupation
• the LL pays the bill by DD
• the utility company does paperless billing so the LL downloads a copy from his online account and there is no need to produce an "original" bill as delivered by mail to the property (since such would have been thrown away by the tenants as mail they did not want)

"proves" nothing. On the other hand, social media where a named person's account shows open discussion of lifestyle is much more compelling. Hence why some employers include it in a recruitment process. Hence why I have multiple e mail and IP addresses, each for their own purpose :cool:

sevenhills

Cakeguts wrote: »

What I gained from watching the programme was that the councils didn't do enough checks on the tenants that they handed properties to. Perhaps they have tightened up on that now and do the credit checks on the tenants more often and before the agree to a letting?

They do enough checks, but councils are very PC, they should send someone around on the quiet.
Instead they would send someone in council uniform and ID.

seven-day-weekend

Cakeguts wrote: »

What I gained from watching the programme was that the councils didn't do enough checks on the tenants that they handed properties to. Perhaps they have tightened up on that now and do the credit checks on the tenants more often and before the agree to a letting?

I saw one where a woman applied for a two-bed ground floor flat for herself and her Granddad, for whom she said she was his carer.

Three years later, she was offered one, despite the Council never having set sight upon the Granddad, even though home visits had been made both before and after she was offered the tenancy.

She had the tenancy for several years, claiming HB on it. Then it was discovered that neither she nor her Grandad were living there and someone else was.

Further investigations found that Grandad had died two years before she was offered the tenancy, and she in fact had never lived there, because she owned a house elsewhere (which ironically the Council rented from her to use as Emergency Accommodation at over a grand a month). She had always sublet the Council flat.

Her punishment was a short suspended sentence, some community service and a two grand fine. This for fraudulently obtaining a tenancy, fraudulently claiming HB, and subletting the flat. It was nowhere near enough, imo.

It is to be hoped that the Council are more vigilant now and would expect to see proof that applicants entitled to apply for a tenancy and that they are actually living there.

Teamocil

UK nationals of all colours have been doing this for decades.

Of course, if decent affordable housing with security of tenure was available to all then there'd be no market for the criminals.

Cakeguts

Teamocil wrote: »

UK nationals of all colours have been doing this for decades.

Of course, if decent affordable housing with security of tenure was available to all then there'd be no market for the criminals.

Some of the criminals on this programme owned properties elsewhere and still applied for social housing so they had security of tenure but still wanted to get a council property to sublet. You can't stop that unless you check the tenant out properly before you let the property.



If the councils can do credit checks on current tenants they can also do them on new tenants.