This should be good.

PasturesNew

arthur_dent wrote: »

Ignoring the obvious house prices argument, £88,000 would have been one hell of a deposit. If you can spend that much money and only have a car and caravan to show for it there is something wrong with you.

I'm assuming they were unmortgageable. Not everybody can get one. Nor could everybody ever get one.

But, they could have looked at relocating somewhere cheap and buying outright.

wymondham

PasturesNew wrote: »

they could have looked at relocating somewhere cheap and buying outright.

why do this when the council can sort you out?

arthur_dent_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'm assuming they were unmortgageable. Not everybody can get one. Nor could everybody ever get one.

But, they could have looked at relocating somewhere cheap and buying outright.

I could have bought my old house for only a very small amount more than that and a pretty decent three bed for only about twenty grand more. Mortgage on that would have been much less than almost any market rent. They just seem to have wanted to live the high life and now make everyone else pay for them You would only need a job for 22 hours at minimum wage to afford a morgage of that amount.

(22 hours x £6.00 x 52 x 3 = £20592)

Kaz2904

I couldn't access it - couldn't find it via the link sorry.
Found it in the end.
Well I do feel for them because it must be awful. However there are millions of people with money worries. The amount of money they won would have cleared our mortgage, all of our debt, bought a couple of cars and a very nice holiday. It would have had enough left to fill our ISA for last year too.
Why on earth were they paying money to close accounts? If it's going to cost you money don't do it- just bide your time and do it when you won't lose money. They were earning £200 per month so surely that would have paid their rent?
Personally I don't think they should have been allowed to stay in council rented property with a win like that but that's because I think people should have to support themselves as far as they are able to in this life. Then there is more money left in the pot for the people who REALLY need it.

pinkshoes

carolt wrote: »

Agree with the rest of it, but this seems a bit harsh?!

Should all people on benefits not be allowed a drink, ever?

Where will it end? Fat people not be allowed enough food?

We may not like the life choices of people on benefits, but that doesn't give us the right, in a humane society, to police it down to that level.

If I was ever on benefits (which I believe to be a temporary thing to help people through a rough patch until they get back on their feet and support themselves again), then I would see alcohol and cigarettes as a luxury, and my priority would be being able to pay my own rent again rather than relying on benefits. Alcohol and cigarettes are NOT a human right! They are a luxury!!!

Why would fat people not be allowed food?? If they want to spend their money on over-feeding themselves, then let them.

It's not policing and invading human rights! It's merely making sure the benefit system is not abused.

Benefits is not a way of life. It is a temporary measure to help you out until you get back on your feet again.

carolt

I agree with the overall message, pinkshoes, but just think not having a drink ever seems a bit harsh. An occasional drink is supposed to be good for you on health grounds and there is no difference between food and drink that I can see. Personally, I'd rather have a smoothie anyday, but does that mean that smoothies should be banned under your system (assuming I was on benefits)?

Cigarettes I have more sympathy with, but even then, I understand it's an addiction and hard to stop (never been a smoker). So forcing people give up the second they lose a job seems somewhat unfair.

As long as they balance the books, if they choose to eat 3 pies or drink 3 pints seems, frankly, none of my business.

SingleSue

Blimey 100K gone in that short space of time!

I am on some benefits at the present time (hopefully not for much longer!), I don't drink but enjoy a cigarette from time to time but cut back on other 'luxuries' to get them.

If I won that sort of money, one of the first things I would do is get my own house, ok it would be a cheaper bottom of the market jobbie with work to be done but it would be mine .

Money would be gone but I would have something decent to show for it and free up a home for someone less fortunate than myself.

Or of course the other way would be to take out the average money around here (around £16-20k), live off that and stick the rest in a high interest account until such time that once I am back working full time again (and not the silly part sessions I am forced to do now to fit in around my children, 2 of whom are disabled and no childcarer will have them so I can go back full time) I can add to it and purchase my own property outright! (Have already said on another thread that I will never ever take out a mortgage again!)

headoutthesand

If it's the same people who were in the paper at the weekend then they are a joke.

I'm sure they are both in their 50's, went on holiday and gambled away a lot of it.

The council were refusing to pay their rent as they could not account for 2 withdrawls - one for £12,000 and another for £20,000 withdrawn from a bank account.

The man said his wife has a gambling addiction and she blew the lot on fruit machines.

He also said that they went out a lot and "it's not cheap going to the boozer".

He said it was almost £3 for a pint so that was almost £6 a round then by the time they both bought fags etc the night to the local could get quite expensive.

It's a real shame for them........

PasturesNew

arthur_dent wrote: »

I could have bought my old house for only a very small amount more than that and a pretty decent three bed for only about twenty grand more. Mortgage on that would have been much less than almost any market rent. They just seem to have wanted to live the high life and now make everyone else pay for them You would only need a job for 22 hours at minimum wage to afford a morgage of that amount.

(22 hours x £6.00 x 52 x 3 = £20592)

Not if you're deemed too old to get a mortgage.

robwend

so how they going to pay the bills and rent now?? are the council going to change there mind?