Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Sub-letting of council accommodation. Why are so many mothers on welfare who still have active sexual relationships with the father of their child, are not living in the flat or house allocate for the

(292 Posts)
SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:30:36

I know of at least five relationships where this is happening.

The fathers are still, actively in the children?s lives, and there is no apparent relationship problem, but they are living apart.

The mothers live part or most of their lives at the parents? (council) houses and in some cases the fathers do as well, so that they can sublet their council houses. I have not reported them yet. Should I?

Hattifattner Mon 25-Mar-13 13:33:09

you'll get loads of people telling you that you should mind your own business.....

I personally think you should report because a) they are not paying tax on that income b) the property should go to someone who needs to be housed - there are 3500 people on our local authority lists, for example. They would be most glad of a place of their own.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:33:43

Apostrophes appearing as question marks.

Your first post?

I would think you'd be better off minding your own business in all honesty.

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Mon 25-Mar-13 13:33:54

Your OP title does not make sense. Reword it and see if we get anywhere then.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:36:01

Hatti, that is what is most unfair, some people are in desperate need of their barely occupied flats.

There is something about pubs being used too but don't know how they are scamming the system.

lysteddy Mon 25-Mar-13 13:37:01

Sorry do you mean both mum dat and children not living in their council house but renting it out?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:37:45

It's meant to say

"Why are so many mothers on welfare, who still have active sexual relationships with the father of their child, not living in the flat or house allocated to them both by the council?"

WireCatWhore Mon 25-Mar-13 13:37:47

hmm

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:38:17

Yes, lysteddy.

fancyabakeoff Mon 25-Mar-13 13:38:46

Oh god, here we go again.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 13:39:27

Illegal subletting should be reported, if you are 100% sure that is what is happening.

The rest of your title/post doesn't make much sense tbh.

I wouldn't say '5 couples you know' equates to 'so many mothers'

The pubs bit makes no sense at all.

I prescribe a lie down in a dark room.

2cats2many Mon 25-Mar-13 13:39:57

If you really know of someone doing this, you should report them.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 13:40:41

You do know that a couple can make a joint claim for benefits don't you?

Are they subletting? do other people live in their home?

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Mon 25-Mar-13 13:41:02

I would actually report.

There are many many people living in B&Bs or hostels. Many of them women who have fled an abusive relationship, who are waiting for a home and it is not fair that someone takes the piss like that.

The fact that they're women, the fact that they're on 'welfare', the fact that they're sleeping with the father of their child/ren - is irrelevant to me.

All I think about is that woman sitting in a hostel with her kids and her healing bruises and waiting for somewhere to call home.

And yes, I know that's not the only category of person who is waiting for a home. I just used that one example of many.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:41:54

Yes, four of them are subletting on weekdays.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 13:42:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

lainiekazan Mon 25-Mar-13 13:42:52

Why should she mind her own business?

I know someone who sublet their (very desirable) council flat in central London. She had been allocated it because she said her mother had written to the council and said her boyfriend (the mother's boyfriend) was a danger to her dd. Then the girl moved back home and was able to get hundreds of pounds in rent. It rankled badly that she was making an extra living out of this.

It is considered a big issue, as many as 160,000 social properties are suspected as being sub-let illegally.
New lgislation is planned www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06378

kinkyfuckery Mon 25-Mar-13 13:45:43

As others have said, I think the fact that they are 'single mothers on benefits' is irrelevant. Subletting council properties without permission is wrong, and should be reported when known of.

moogy1a Mon 25-Mar-13 13:45:54

Why are so many people unwilling to accept that this sort of dishonest practise goes on? Same as with people playing the benefit system. Every time someone says she knows of this happeining, they're accused of lying, or having their facts wrong, or being told it's none of their business.
It is everyone's business when we all pay taxes.
YANBU , report them

specialsubject Mon 25-Mar-13 13:46:00

minding your own business when fraud is being committed costs us all money.

this is quite a common scam. Council flats/houses are for those who need them and are NOT to be sublet.

report. Please, please report.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:46:02

archilles, I speak to them and know them well. They tell me, that is why I question whether I should report them or not. Yes, there are two or three council houses on the go. The parents on both sides of each family have large council houses and there's plenty of room. Not bored, just seeing children being carted from one place to another a lot and not seeing their fathers much in order to gain more income.

moogy1a Mon 25-Mar-13 13:48:01

Good enough answer Archilles?

belfastbigmillie Mon 25-Mar-13 13:48:14

Just report them. Job done.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:49:14

They're not single mothers, as such.

They are in active relationships with the father of their children. They just appear to be single to many when they spend most of their lives at their parents' home (council house) and partner doing the same at his parents' council house.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 13:49:48

With some councils it's not illegal to sublet a council property, but you can only rent it out for the amount the council charge for rent, so you can't make a profit on it.

lysteddy Mon 25-Mar-13 13:50:09

Just checked my council website and they consider this as fraud "sub-letting council property to tenants without consent".

Maybe they have consent..

lysteddy Mon 25-Mar-13 13:52:07

Catchingmockingbirds: that sort of sublet is allowed by my council but you just have to tell them.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:52:20

That interesting cathcingmockingbirds.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:54:11

This is certainly for profit. Many trips abroad. BMW and no employment with no effort at finding jobs.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 13:54:41

My council allows the same thing.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 13:56:04

If they're acting illegally and you feel strongly about reporting them then you should do so.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 13:57:59

Oh here we go, holidays and BMWs now and I bet flat screen tellys and designer clothes, Yes?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 13:59:03

Gaining profit from a small pool of money allocated for welfare housing is, I think, immoral. The council is not vetting who they are letting to. What would happen in the case of a fire due to overcrowding? Who would know which tenants have consent to be there? The children haven't asked to be in this situation.

edam Mon 25-Mar-13 14:01:30

If this is really about concern for homeless families, why are you specifically attacking mothers and not fathers as well? Why are you getting so excited about 'sexual relationships'?

Seems to me it's not sub-letting that bothers you, what you actually get your knickers in a twist about is mothers on benefits.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:01:30

Yes, they do have BMWs and brag about their D&G clothing. It's a sad but true stereotype. Flat screens aren't expensive however, are they?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:05:44

edam, the fact that they are having ongoing sexual relationships with the fathers of their children, is simply to illustrate, that these men haven't left, they are still involved in their children's lives but the children are being moved about quite a lot.

Mothers on benefits don't concern me (that is another issue), couples on welfare who aren't declaring their true situation in order to gain profit from a small pool of council accomodation, does.

Sallyingforth Mon 25-Mar-13 14:08:00

My local council has put up posters on estates saying that it's illegal to sublet. That sounds very reasonable when there is such a long queue of would-be legitimate tenants. In your case I would certainly 'shop' them.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 14:10:01

I doubt op knows anybody that does this, let alone 5 separate couples.
She read it in the Daily Mail probably.
It's an 'interesting' first post though.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 14:10:42

With an interesting nn to match wink

AuntieMaggie Mon 25-Mar-13 14:10:56

I don't understand why a council would allow this... surely it contradicts the purpose of council housing?

Please report them. Only by people reporting people that are misusing these systems will anything ever get any better.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 14:11:14

Tbf, my council allows this and I still don't know anyone who does it.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:14:26

Do I call up about it and who do I ask to speak to?

Just to add, that the parents are quite stealthy, the money being made is used for Euro Disney, swimming, horse riding, nails, hair etc. Children are being taken to many activities. The older matriarchs in each council house, still cook their supper, do their washing and baby sit for them while the mothers go to coffee shops in respectable towns.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:17:32

I genuinely do know these people. It does sound like something from the Daily Mail, doesn't it! I am astounded that they actually exist, what has interested me is the business like manner in which it's being done very well.
They have log books for the tenants.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:18:53

Maybe you should have used the title "people" rather than "mothers".

I would love to know how they were able to get a council house each, considering that they are as rare as hen's teeth now.

Still, if reporting them doesn't stop them I expect the bedroom tax will.

moogy1a I just wonder why people don't just report them rather than frothing here.
Personally, I get more pissed off with the dishonest "renting in catchment brigade" and the excuses people make for them, when to me, that is Fraudulent and clearly recognizable as such, but seems to be tolerated here. Whereas any mention of council house, benefits, lone mum and the self righteous frothers cannot trip over themselves fast enough to complain.

I live on a council estate and have never encountered one of these people who just cannot seem to help sharing their financial and domestic arrangements.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 14:18:58

Do you think that only single parents get council homes?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:19:14

Given my, inept title, it's a good job that my nn has summarised the content more accurately. grin

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:19:19

just call the local council and report them

let them sort it out

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 14:19:45

Surely if they were being stealthy they would be much more discreet about it?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:20:46

Amberleaf, they are not single, they are unmarried but in relationships with the fathers of their children.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:21:55

Log books? Don't you mean rent books. I wouldn't worry neither they nor their tenants will be covered by any insurance should they wish to claim.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 14:22:35

and?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:22:56

They are stealthy in using the income well for their children's extra curricular activities.

They have told me because they believe that they can trust me hence my reluctance to report.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 14:24:05

They wouldn't be telling anyone if they were stealthy about it.

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:24:28

did anyone know that an anagram of SubLetFun is SlebButFun?

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 14:24:32

Your posts are getting more ridiculous by the second Op grin
How on earth do you know so much detail about the lives of five different people and their extended families?

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:24:40

They have told me because they believe that they can trust me hence my reluctance to report

Well that will learn 'em won't it?

Euro disney you say?

SadGiantPanda Mon 25-Mar-13 14:25:46

^ go to coffee shops in respectable towns. ^

Ah, respectable towns. You've just made this sad giant panda a little less sad. smile

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:25:50

They tell the council they are single but they are not. I have no idea if this is some kind of dodge.

ophelia275 Mon 25-Mar-13 14:26:03

Definitely report them! Not only are they committing a crime - fraud, but they are probably not declaring rental income and they are depriving others who may be in desperate need of a council property.

All the people who say ignore, mind you own business, would you apply the same logic to someone breaking into a house or stealing from a shop. It is still a crime and is NOT victimless.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 14:26:07

Oh it's you.

SadGiantPanda Mon 25-Mar-13 14:26:28

Now I am very sad again because the italicisation failed. sad

hmm unbelievable, do they all go to Euro Disney together after having their nails done?

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 14:27:17

You'd have thought Disneyland Florida at least, wouldn't you archilles.
Cheapskates.
Won't someone think of the children?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:27:20

Subletting must be fun for them, it is tax free cash for extra curricular activities for the children, at least they are putting their children first.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:28:19

Not much fun for the tenants either if they can only access the property during the week.
They are stealthy in using the income well for their children's extra curricular activities.

Not very wise to buy a BMW and go to Eurodisney then is it? Do they have a horse too?

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:28:29

go to coffee shops in respectable towns

there you go

is it your massive fluffy paws getting in the way, Panda?

christ, these pandas need help with porcreation, now itallicisation

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 14:28:41

I wouldn't 'shop' them even though I'm in a one bedroom flat with a DP and two children, on a never-ending waiting list. To my eyes, a few poor people making a bit of money in the way that all the rich landlords have done to the detriment of us all (I've got a good job, DP is self-employed but we can't afford market rents/ to buy in our area) isn't the problem. The problem is we have no rent controls, that the housing market is a free for all and people with family money are somehow granted access to housing, wealth and security that I don't have, just because my (very hard working) parents weren't middle class (in the proper sense, rather than the naice ham sense). People wouldn't be moved to manipulate for every penny they can get if their options for actual social mobility weren't so beyond the gift of all but a few.

Like I say, I'm no slouch - I've worked since I was 15, put myself through my under and post-grad degrees, bought a tiny house when I was still a student in a poor area that has accquired just a tiny amount of equity that I used to support myself and my family through my mat leaves (mat pay being what it is). I regard the whole shop-a-neighbour thing part and parcel of the fact we are NOT in it together, that the privileged classes want us fighting for a few tiny crumbs rather than have any part of their (inherited) wealth. No one is asking George Osbourne how many bedrooms he has. Or taxing him on them. Or using that tax (which given his substantial personal fortune would be impressive) to create enough social housing to fill needs - which we only have to do because our housing marked is so unregulated that while there are enough private residential homes to house everyone on the housing list and everyone on the streets and then some, some people still are insecurely accommodated and have no agency to change that situation.

So, I'd only say shop them if you want to support that inequity, OP. Even if there are thousands doing what you say, and illegally, they are only doing what people of every other social class does, but with impunity, i.e. manipulating the housing shortage to make some money. If you find that repugnant, fight the real enemy, and demand structural change in the housing market to make people who can afford it give up some of what they've got rather than the poorest class of people in the country give up the tiny amount that they have.

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:29:05

#pisstake fail

pRocreation

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:29:40

tell you what, don't report them, report me

because i'm going to call you a goady fucker

bochead Mon 25-Mar-13 14:30:07

Not 100% convinced this isn't another troll thread.

In my neck of the woods it's been a couple of decades since this sort of skullduggery was even possible for council or social housing tenants. The waiting lists are frighteningly long -we are talking years and overcrowding is the norm, not the exception for most families. Home visits by Health visitors, nursery workers, schools etc would soon pick up on anyone not reported by neighbours, (who tend to know someone on the list iyswim).

The move to local housing allowance (& the coming bedroom tax changes) mean that local councils have recently/will shortly be reviewing all benefit claimants ACTUAL housing situations.Council officers can and do make home visits, as do estate officers on the housing association estates.

SadGiantPanda Mon 25-Mar-13 14:30:14

Thank you, UnChartered. Yes, this keyboard is not very practical for sad giant pandas. sad

We are not really welcome in coffee shops in respectable town either. sad

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:30:32

I agree LBE, poor kids. Only having their nails done, I would have expected at least leg waxing and possibly a tattoo for the youngest kids?

Do the children have double barrelled first names?

badfurday Mon 25-Mar-13 14:31:49

My next door neighbours are council tenets. Single parent family with three children in a 3 bed house. 10 years on and all the children are in their mid 20's. 2 years ago her son who must have been around 22/23, moved himself and 3 mates in. The mum was no where to be seen. They completely trashed the house and held house parties til 5am every weekend. I reported it to the anti fraud council department, and asked if they knew their council house was being sub let, 5 days later, mother of said son appears, boots son and friends out and pretends to live there when the council turned up. All seemed fine, then a year later, the woman's oldest daughter moves in with her abusive voilent husband. Neither of them work. I called the council to inform them and they couldn't give a toss. How is this fair? I and my husband work full time to pay our mortgage, and they live in a 3 bedroom house and don't work, and shouldn't even be living there! Id much rather the house is given to a family who needs it.

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:31:55

you're welcome Panda

i wasn't calling you a goady fucker btw, you'd be anything but, eh?

want me to make you a coffee? it'll be a fair trade one, to make sure no-one hassles you while you drink it

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:32:17

I don't know if it was EuroDisney or Florida, I think it was done by train so must be the former. Nails are very important to four of the women, it's just their fashion. CentreParks is also great for their children as they get to do lots.
I suppose if they are able to do so and they are being so defended, then it must be fine and I will leave it. I don't want to betray trust but there are hospitals in need of machines while this is going on. Four of the five couples are not attempting to find employment in any way. Up to them, I suppose.

ComposHat Mon 25-Mar-13 14:32:29

Welfare Bingo!

Holidays, 'Designer' clothes, BMWs,

I just need a 50" plasma for a line and a pony for the full house.

5 seperate people, who are all so brilliant at hiding it, have all told you that they are subletting their council houses and staying with their parents in large houses while they fund their eurodisney trips from their ill gotton gains.

Suuuuuure they did.

SadGiantPanda Mon 25-Mar-13 14:35:22

Goady fuckery is too much effort. I think I need a nap even thinking about it.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:36:17

Don't report please unchartered. I am having fun.

I don't want to betray trust but there are hospitals in need of machines while this is going on.

Well, you're fucked then.

Do the children have spray tans?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:37:35

Yes, unfortunately, there would be little point in having the money without them bragging about it, would there? Perhaps you're not playing the game well enough. Why is it inconceivable?
I can only state what I see and am being told. I'll complete your Bingo and let you know about their drug dealing with young children in tow, but it wouldn't be believed.

Catchingmockingbirds Mon 25-Mar-13 14:38:00

Plasma tv has already been mentioned compos grin

Do you follow these people around OP or do they also tell you about the drug dealing? hmm

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:38:55

No, if the children wanted to have a spray tan like their mother, it would be understandable, wouldn't it. Children like to copy what they see.

SadGiantPanda Mon 25-Mar-13 14:39:16

Horse riding has also been mentioned. We've got a full house! Possibly even in a respectable town.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:39:44

I am told by someone another family member who despairs of it, sadly.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:40:12

I just need a 50" plasma for a line and a pony for the full house.

Plasma tvs are very last year composHat. We prefer LED now, so we can hang them on the wall. Lighter you see. That way we can have chardannay-jaydee and tyler-kanen-lager's wii, gameboy, ipad and x-box on the media centre without any fuss.

We do horses here, not ponies.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:41:31

What is wrong with them wanting a plasma tv. They like footballers and what they have, it isn't a crime, is it?

UnChartered Mon 25-Mar-13 14:43:27

LetsBunUf is another

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 14:43:55

This is a wind up, just not a very funny one.
Unfortunately it's been done to death by people who aren't making everything up.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 14:44:33

I don't want to betray trust but there are hospitals in need of machines while this is going on

Tax the rich more, then. Tax banking profits by a further 1% and we'd not need to shut down another A&E in this country. Tax private sector letting. Stop blaming poor people for emulating the values they see the well-off displaying. If you have a problem with those values, address the source of them rather than the symptom

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:44:47

Well, no self respecting benefit single/not single/part time cock lodging fraudster doesn't do drugs you see.

It's just that when cinzano-rose started the ritalin and we accidentally filled our free prescription twice it kind of went from there really. You can't blame us really, seeing as the free school dinners don't give the kids chips any more and they come home hungry and need more and more fruit shoots which all cost money.

ComposHat Mon 25-Mar-13 14:46:48

I'll complete your Bingo and let you know about their drug dealing with young children in tow, but it wouldn't be believed

I wonder why it wouldn't be believed? Sudden odorous waft from the bull's field.

edwardsmum11 Mon 25-Mar-13 14:47:07

I'd report as people are desperate for these properties.

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 14:48:30

Only read up to page 3, but thought that I would add that this is a thing that happens, and not made up (although don't know about these specific families obviously)

Some councils have specific teams that investigate his sort of subletting and take people to court to get the houses back to return to the 'pool'. My friend works on a team like this.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:49:59

Sparklyboots, there are plenty of hard working people who are in council accomodation/private housing who don't scam anyone and live straight lives. Posting about extremes at the other end of the scale doesn't justify it at the poorer end.

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 14:50:16

But I do see the wider point re other classes exploiting housing and others people's lack of it for financial gain and the parallels here.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 14:51:19

Thank you binkybix. I am astounded that this is going on too. It isn't a myth.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 14:52:33

Yes I know there are, I'm one of them - did you read my earlier post? I've got a good job and DP is self-employed but we can afford neither market rents or buying in our area. I don't begrudge other poor people making money out of what they can. I think if you find it all so terrible, fight the real enemy - the well off making money out of our unregulated, out of hand housing market.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 14:54:40

And it's not the extremes at the other end of the scale, it's the normal, legal status quo. £850 month for a tiny one bedroom flat round my way unless you're in social housing. That's the NORM not the extreme - it's absolutely exploitative, too.

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 14:55:02

Not if it was after page 3, or if earlier I just missed it. Apols.

I don't think that either things you describe are right tbh.

kerala Mon 25-Mar-13 14:56:26

Because the state has stepped in to support children so now in some sections of society the way welfare is structured has rendered the fathers role obsolete. I saw this when the council let the flats next to us to council tenants when we were in central London. The women all claimed to be single mothers but the fathers lived there and sired more children. There was much discussion of it at toddlers groups - it was the norm. Just stating what I saw/heard. Glad we moved I found it depressing.

archilles Mon 25-Mar-13 14:57:48

I save my anger for people who buy their elderly relatives' council house, thereby gaining a huge discount and profiting from an increasingly rare resource. Often these properties end up either being resold once the relative dies or being rented out at market rent.

Strangely you don't hear complaints about that here.

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 15:00:17

I agree that is also v bad archilles...I guess because it seems to amount to the same thing in my mind - stopping people that really need these houses from getting them.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:00:23

I know good landlords. Not every landlord is exploiting people. Some landlords are surviving on the money as a pension and treat their tenants as they would their own children, if a washing machine needs to be fixed, it is done during the day while their tenant is out at work. After mortgage and other charges, there isn't always a huge profit to be made from being a private landlord. Tax free would be another ball game.

lainiekazan Mon 25-Mar-13 15:03:20

But, Sparklyboots, if some people are making hundreds of pounds a month from subletting, then they're not poor. They are those very landlords you profess to hate for their exploitation. The girl I knew was making £2K a month from her London council flat.

I agree kerala. Men in certain communities are just stud dogs. They have no other purpose. Apparently now their names aren't even on the birth certificates.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:05:16

Thank you, Kerala, that is exactly what I am talking about.

Sometimes, it isn't the father that doesn't want an active role, sometimes the mother can't deal with him and the children. It is a complex issue. Three of the women I know have very low expectations, they tolerate the fathers going off, having children with other women, they will then return and have 'another go'. The children are then carted off between different family homes, feeling insecure about why their father wasn't more involved in their lives. Why can't they think about how they would feel as a child?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:07:58

Yes, lainie. I don't think the people I know are making as much a £2k a month, but it is a lot, cash in hand.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 15:15:00

* The girl I knew was making £2K a month from her London council flat* Still way less than private sector landlords. And also only possible because of the unregulated housing market. Solve the housing market and all of these things won't happen. The reason we don't is because well-off people, with clearer access to social power, would lose out relatively. It's those people resisting that that are the source of ALL these problems, not the otherwise disenfranchised trying to get in on the game that much richer people make much more money out of, to the cost of us ALL. Sort out the housing market and these opportunities wouldn't exist for poor people or the rich.

PS £2K a month isn't really a lot in London. It's like the basic, living wage.

timidviper Mon 25-Mar-13 15:22:18

I think if you feel something is immoral or dishonest then you should do what you can to stop it. Simple answer.

Sparkling Yes it is wrong that there are huge immoral corporations exploiting people but that doiesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to individuals doing the same. A zero tolerance approach to all immoral profiteering would benefit society as a whole

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 15:23:27

I agree about doing something about high rents that pay off mortgages for second homes (don't understand the economics of rent control but that't the option I hear spoken about most), but I don't think that excuses sub-letting property that others are in need of either.

I live in central London, and do think 2 grand per month (presumably tax free) is quite a lot for just renting out somewhere you have been given because you are in need of housing. That's what, about 38 grand full time salary?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:23:44

Sparklyboots, private sector landlords make much less in many cases.

Without knowing the value of the property, how can you speculate.
On top of the interest on the mortgage, ground rent, service charges, maintenance, fee to the letting agent and declaration of tax, there isn't a huge amount. Most landlords don't make enough for it to be a salary, the ones you are talking about are often forming companies, dissolving them and moving around vast portfolios - they are often rich to begin with! The private landlord with one or two doesn't make much unless all that (including maintainance)is being paid for by the council. The council subletter will be making more for a lot less time, invested emotion, to and froing with contractors, letting agents etc.

£2k a month, as a wage in London, is low - are we talking about before or after tax? For someone subletting, tax free with little effort, it is a great little earner.

grovel Mon 25-Mar-13 15:24:56

Report them. Simples.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 15:32:00

On top of the interest on the mortgage, ground rent, service charges, maintenance, fee to the letting agent and declaration of tax, there isn't a huge amount. Most landlords don't make enough for it to be a salary, Agreed. It's not all/ just private sector landlords but it is specifically the other kind that you name that produce all of the problems you name here. The value of the property is the problem; the housing market is the source of the problem. Sort it out and nothing you have an objection to here could/ would happen. And the value of the property/ housing market is structured to benefit the very rich to the cost of us ALL. Solve the housing market problem, solve the problem of low-availablity social housing which would mean you couldn't make money out of social housing. And noone could exploit peoples' basic need to be housed for profit and at the explicit expense of most people who aren't 'rich already'

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 15:41:17

But people would still want to rent, even if it was cheaper, so people could still make money by sub-letting council properties. Granted, if there were more council properties available this would cause less of a problem for those waiting, but still don't think it makes it ok. Or do you see a world when there are no private landlords?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:43:02

No, sparklyboots, the people I am talking about see a way to make a quick buck and will do so if they can. The money is being spent on extra curricular activities and luxuries, they are not poor. The people who are poor are those on low incomes, with dignity who are holding on and working hard, they save and hope to get on the housing ladder.
In Central London, you will be waiting a long time before housing falls in price over a ten/twenty year period.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 15:45:19

the people I am talking about see a way to make a quick buck and will do so if they can these are the values of those who DO make a vast profit out of the housing market. They do very well out of it. Why wouldn't others emulate them?

Xenia Mon 25-Mar-13 15:47:45

Subletting - report them. It's ridiculous they get away with it. It is money taken away from the mouths of poor children. Tell your MP at the same time so proper action is taken against them.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:48:34

Therre is a lack of responsibility. The government has experimented with giving money directly to the tenant to pay to private landlords and it is being spent by the council tenant in many cases, it is hardly a revelation if they have not been educated about how to budget. Perhaps the money should be shown coming in and then automatically paid out a second later so those who aren't actively seeking work and are fit, well and able can see how it feels to earn and then see it disappear. It's how most people feel when they see their bank account!

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 15:51:19

I don't get what that has to do with sub-letting. Am I being stupid?

TheRealFellatio Mon 25-Mar-13 15:54:18

Why do you think they do it? And yes, you should report them - they are breaking the law. Do you really need to ask? confused

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 15:58:41

Looking at some of the responses, I suppose I do.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:00:27

sparklyboots, see previous post on private small holding landlords.

We are living in a capitalist society with much free educational help on the internet, BBC, free entry to museum etc. More than ever before. People want to advance and can within the limits of taxation and supply and demand (whether imposed or falsely created).

Rather than the focus being upon multi-millionaire landlords (these people don't encounter them or try to emmulate them, they are too concentrated on fast money, football outfits and immediate gratification)

For what it's worth, I think it is obscene for the vastly rich to pay paltry amounts of tax but I don't think this is justification for subletting of council homes. At least many of the rich are working and employing others. These people don't - they just sit and procreate and their children end up confused when they are asked what job they want to do. Job? What?

AudrinaAdare Mon 25-Mar-13 16:06:52

My cousin did this and I thought it was awful for the reasons mentioned up-thread. I was in emergency accommodation with DD which wasn't safe.

Mind you, my Dad lives on an expensive private estate and it's amazing how many women are having sexual relationships and children with the landlords their housing benefit is paid to. That's how couples are affording buy there these days.

TheRealFellatio Mon 25-Mar-13 16:10:45

I very much doubt it Sparklyboots. Most landlords will be paying far, far more on their buy to let mortgage than a council tenant will be paying in rent. so her monthly yield will be very healthy indeed in comparison. Not to mention that a like for like ex-LA flat in the same block but owned privately and rented out would cost the landlord many hundreds of pounds in management and maintenance charges each year that she will have waived as a council tenant.

And if she is letting it on the sly then she is probably pocketing all of the rent without paying tax on it.

Anyway - why are you trying to defend someone like that by saying it's not as bad as what the professional landlords are doing? She is cynically profiting from a home she clearly doesn't really need, and keeping a family who are in need out of a home, and she hasn't even invested any of her own money or taken any financial risks to do it! She's a parasite. She doesn't sound too 'disenfranchised' to me - she sounds pretty wily and lacking in morals.

You can hate professional landlords all you like, but don't be a total hypocrite by defending what this woman is allegedly doing. It isn't 'less bad' on any level. If she wants to get ahead she can do it the legal way, like everyone else.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 16:14:56

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:15:11

Do they have to see their landlord face to face? Not paid directly from account? The landlords could surely get sex more cheaply nowadays, I would have thought that would be expensive sex in lieu of rent.

You are correct that many council tenants are being placed in private developments although rental caps will now make it tricky.

AudrinaAdare Mon 25-Mar-13 16:15:43

I once rented a house which was owned by my landlady's ex partner. She had six months rent upfront and when I claimed housing benefit two officers turned up to say that they were already paying for it.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:18:06

BeagleEyes, what agenda? I didn't come on here to talk about the housing market, other than to ask about people who were subletting. The conversation developed as conversations have a tendency to do. You seem very angry and cynical.

AudrinaAdare Mon 25-Mar-13 16:18:18

Rent / benefit officers that is. I had to go into temp accommodation because the house was immediately put up for sale.

Binkybix Mon 25-Mar-13 16:20:31

LadyBeagleEyes - whether or not the OP has made up those families, sub-letting does happen in this way, so feels like it is a legitimate discussion regardless of whether OP is being truthful?

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:24:29

I swear that I am telling the truth, although I should not have to justify myself. For what gain?

Thank you binky and Audrina, how awful for you.

I see nothing wrong in what Xenia has said in this thread?

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 16:26:29

Most subletting of this kind is done by professional people who have the ability to buy their own home while keeping on a tenancy, not benefit claimants like the OP is lying about suggesting.

Remember that programme about it? I remember one man who was really raking it in....he was a serving police officer.

ThePathanKhansAmnesiac Mon 25-Mar-13 16:27:36

Women having sexual relations. And nails.
The bare faced frontery.

Report OP. Why have you even asked, when you feel so strongly? Or have the nails tipped you into a froth?.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:40:19

Sexual relations - only to demonstrate that still have a relationship with the father of the children. The fathers haven't left them - it's an agreement that they appear single. Both parties spent most time at their parents' council houses.

I've defended their nails, tvs, holidays - their taste isn't the issue, illegally gained money, is.

Just asking for an opinion. I wanted to talk it through. You seem very hostile Pathan.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 16:44:12

Amberleaf, it's offensive for you to suggest that I am lying. How would you like it?

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 16:50:11

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 17:01:38

No I am not lying BeagleEyes, you have repeatedly said that I am lying and I am not. I have listened to what they have said repeatedly.

it sounds as though you have an agenda in perpetuating that these people are not scamming the system.

Why would you want people doing that? Who do you think is regulating these people? Do you think officers have their eyes trained on their sublet accomodation and are able to see cash in hand? Who is the cash strapped council going to pay to do that job? I cannot fathom the deception and the lack of dignity in not working when you are offered a job and are fit and healthy. It is so greedy to just lie and take from other taxpayers' money. We are all working hard to finance help for those who are in genuine need. Their children will grow up thinking their grabby mentality is normal and if they are not so fortunate, what then? We are all responsible for not turning a blind eye.

ThePathanKhansAmnesiac Mon 25-Mar-13 17:04:08

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 17:11:23

Yes, over a number of years, it is easily five. Why do you think it is fantastical? Do you live in counciil accomodation?

You're obsessing about the 'sexually active' part. They are still having relations with the fathers of their children (good for them), they are not married (their choice), they sublet and use both sets of parents in council houses' accomodation.

Yes, they have nails. Don't most people?! So they like to paint them, they have to do something with the money. They like spending the money on their children. Good for them. Subletting is using taxpayers' money. That money was allocated for accomodation for them. It has saved them from the worse alternative - the gutter. Rather than applying themselves to going for that job, they are taking those who work hard for fools.

Sparklyboots Mon 25-Mar-13 17:33:45

I'm not defending what she's doing, I'm just saying shopping her in won't solve the long term problem of the housing market which (a) enables her to do what she's doing and (b) means others with real wealth are doing it legally on a grander scale which ultimately causes the problem. I just think jumping on the individual people trying to take advantage of a small part of a total system which is utterly stacked against them isn't as useful as TACKLING THE REAL PROBLEM - a housing market without sufficient regulation to allow everyone in our wealthy country to easily meet their basic, social need of housing. Even while there are more than enough houses to go round.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 17:35:10

report them. job done.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 17:35:40

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KateSMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 25-Mar-13 17:46:58

Hello everyone,

Just a note to say we have no reason to believe that the OP is anything other than genuine, and please keep your comments within our talk guidelines.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 17:56:32

Fair enough Kate.confused
<Leaves thread>

2cats2many Mon 25-Mar-13 18:05:14

I really don't understand the ongoing debate on this thread.

OP- if you know someone who you believe is acting fraudulently then report them. If they aren't committing fraud, then they won't have a problem. If they are breaking the rules, then the council will take whatever action they think necessary.

End. Of.

ThePathanKhansAmnesiac Mon 25-Mar-13 18:05:27

Oh Rightyo.

<follows LBE>.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 18:12:24

Yes Oh righty.

Yet another goady thread left to stand by MNHQ.

Follows Pathkan and LBE.

AmberLeaf Mon 25-Mar-13 18:14:25

You really must update your talk guidelines to exclude goading now that it's ok to do so MNHQ.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 18:49:14

Didn't know MNHQ had stepped in. Have been busy preparing a meal for framily. The level of agression and accusations of lying are baffling.

Amberleaf, how on earth, am I goading anyone by asking for an opinion and having a conversation?

Surely the only people who could condone subletting (gaining a revenue from taxpayers' money allocating for housing) would be those are benefitting from the practice in some way?

As I have said, subletting on council accomodation is going on. The people involved move out of the accomodation allocated to them. They live at a parents' council house. I don't know how it works but it seems more advantageous for them to assume singlehood when they are still with the father of their children. They take the money cash in hand. It seems disrespectful to all hard working taxpayers to make a profit from those helping them through a time of hardship.

As Xenia has recommended I will speak to the local MP, speak to a social worker friend and in the end, inform the council of what is happening. So many people are working hard and forgoing money in the form of taxes in the good faith that people will not squander the help given to get them started or back on track.

Thanks very much for the varying opinions.

Xenia Mon 25-Mar-13 19:06:18

Look if this country is so full of idle scroungers, no matter what Guardian readers might think, that there are actually women who think it's fine to sublet which is in effect stealing money from hard working working women and other tax payers then they are the goaders.

it is extremely important that this issue is highlighted. The coffers are bear and if people are lying and stealing from the state they need to be stopped as soon as possible.

The new benefits cap will be £26,000 next month (which is £34,000 of gross income if you actually work for a living) . It is far far too high and there is no incentive to lift a finger in the UK.

shock personally i cant believe some?/most? councils allow this to happen. council houses should be for those that actually need them... not for those that use and abuse them and profit off them! confused

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 19:27:39

Agree with you Xenia, not on to steal from the state. There has to be some education in helping families who are hoping to do this forever. In fear of looking religious, values of morality are being lost - they can be taught separately, surely? What classes in school are covering the fact that taxpayers' money is not a neverending stream - it may end, everyone needs to prepare for that eventuality, budget, anticipate the costs of home upkeep, retirement, looking after children without being a burden to others as much as possible.

InLoveWithDavidTennant, I can only assume that it is misdirected entrepreneurship. The officers who do the jobs are few and far between, they aren't well paid, aren't liked and would have to live well out of the area. People try it, don't get caught, word spreads that it works and fast cash can be made. The housing waiting lists get longer, unfortunately.

I didn't know this was a wide-spread fraud issue (though OP I find it very hard to believe you know 5 couples all doing this with impunity - are you sure about the number?) I did know that properties given to younger mums do stand empty some of the time because mum is struggling to cope with parenthood and goes home to parents for some respite. That in itself is no reason for them losing the home - they'll never be able to develop independance without an opportunity to do so.

JuliaScurr Mon 25-Mar-13 19:40:58

people do sell keys to Council or HA houses for £K's; also sublet at a profit. It is hugely immoral and selfish esp when they have been in the hideously stressful situation of homelessness on waiting lists themselves to exploit the vulnerability of others. Dirty money. I sublet my HA flat when I had to move out temporarily due to illness; my tenant was astonished I only wanted the actual rent without profit. I believe the same about buying council houses under 'right-to-buy' - several friends passed up their chance to profiteer on principle.

JuliaScurr Mon 25-Mar-13 19:44:31

depriving the State of money is bad but trivial compared with Tax avoiders Amazon, Starbucks, Philip Green etc etc. Depriving people in need of secure homes is worse, imo.

JuliaScurr Mon 25-Mar-13 19:46:27

Xenia - most benefit claimants are working. Minimum wage jobs don't cover private landlords' rack rents.

SubLetFun Mon 25-Mar-13 20:21:46

NorthernLurker, yes again, it is true.
I help out a friend who visits family. I go with her. Over the years the circle I have got to know has got bigger. Her family members have grown up and got to together with partners. Have met friends at parties. Older relations visit and talk about it too. I can put a face to them all. They tell us as not in the area and not in their situation. Sometimes, they talk about each other getting more out of it than the other.
They are all doing it and therefore see little wrong with it.

Yes, they always justify it with the old Starbucks, MPs' expenses stories. That too is wrong. MPs do work (although some would say not enough!) Many people see others scamming all sorts of systems but don't do it themselves.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 03:28:17

Sparkly I understand what you are driving at but I stlll think you are wrong! Wealthy people are not doing 'the same but on a grander scale' they are doing an entirely different thing all together - one which is legal, and not so directly exploitative. They may end up with a tenant who is funded entirely by HB, and who would otherwise be in a council house, but not necessarily. And it isn't the landlords fault there are no council houses, is it? They themselves could only ever have been responsible for buying one of them at discount under the RTB scheme. If they have gone on to buy ex-council places then the only people to have profited hugely by that will be the council tenants who bought under the RTB scheme.
I do completely agree with you about the dire lack of social housing, and the fact that landlords profit from this. Although I disagree that it is down to insufficient regulation. It's down to insufficient units still in council control.

So many landlords own ex-LA properties, bought cheaply, as the areas are mixed between LA and private so tend to go for less than market rate, and the owners can sell below market value because they generally bought from the council at such silly money that it's still all good profit to them. And then the tenants claim HB to pay the rent, so the HB levels are always pitched against the going rent for private rentals. I really do not understand why councils themselves do not start buying back these properties instead of shelling out endless HB. It would be cheaper in the long run, and easier than trying to find more land for rebuilding.

Given that since Mrs Thatcher sold the houses off no government has properly tackled the fact that more needed building in their place, the least they could do is buy back the ones already in existence when they become available. Likewise all the endless streets of boarded up properties in cheap towns (mostly in the north but not necessarily). Why do they sit derelict and empty while councils line the pockets of landlords - who may buy these places by the dozen, dirt cheap and do them up? It's madness.

I was recently given the opportunity to buy an ex-council flat in a block still part-council owned. Because it was a high rise and of concrete construction it was no mortgageable, so the only people that could buy it would be cash purchasers. Which 99 times out of a hundred is going to mean a BTL investor. I decided not to buy it for various reasons, but it was not an expensive flat compared to others similarly sized in the area, so where is the logic in the council then quite possibly paying me to house a tenant on a low income? No family on a modest income is going to get a foot in the property ladder by buying that flat cheaply, so IMHO, while they still own and run the rest of the block the council should just buy the place back themselves. But that would clearly be too sensible for anyone in public office to consider. hmm

And it's not just an issue with this Tory government - the problem was woefully ignored for the whole of the last labour tenure. In fact if anyone is to blame for the stronghold that private landlords have over housing low-inome families at huge cost it is Tony Blair.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 04:00:45

and Amber and LBE for crying out loud, people must be allowed to discuss a range of topics and opinions and experiences without constantly being censored and stifled by people who happen to feel uncomfortable with what they are saying. Yes we have some true Goady Fuckers from time to time, who come here purely to make trouble and be deliberately offensive and inflammatory, but I am starting to really hate this war cry of 'Goading! Delete! I demand it!' every time someone voices an opinion that doesn't fit with the loudest most vociferous party line on here.

If you want to see 'goady' I can C&P you 'goady' MN threads all day, ad nauseum. But they will all be goading the people that you love to hate. Rich people. And Tories. If you want to analyse the style of the threads with your bias spectacles off, you'll find them equally or more goady. Why the fuck should those threads not count too? confused Oh, hang on - don't tell me - that is not goading - oh no, that is just is merely raising important issues that need discussion.

hmm Well maybe - but it still reads like goady to me. I don't discriminate.

You cannot silence people or duck all difficult discussions with cries of 'Goady Fucker!' You can silence people for inciting hatred of certain minorities and discriminatory behaviour in this country, and on MN, but so far you cannot silence them merely for having different politics, opinions, beliefs or concerns to you. Thank God. I am not making a political point here - I am making a point for free speech and against censorship.

Do you know why MN lets all these apparently 'goady' threads stand? Because believe it or not, this is not a private members club where you, or anyone else get to veto the guest list according to your own agenda. It is a business with clients to appease, advertising to attract, and despite what we might like to think, we are not the clients.

Ah! lightbulb moment! We are just a bunch of lab rats who over-estimate our own importance in all of this. People may be busy analysing 'what they think on Mumsnet' at Labour Party HQ, and patting themselves on the back, but you know, Pampers still want to put nappies on the arses of all babies, regardless of how their parents vote, and they won't keep paying MN if MN keeps allowing certain factions to shout down and drown out others, and eventually drive them away. Remember, we ended up with Dave as PM because quite a few people voted for him.

The minute it becomes a political private members club where hapless posters are taken outside and shot for asking questions or expressing views that don't sit comfortably with the most politically vociferous among us, MN is finished as a business model.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 05:07:41

I save my anger for people who buy their elderly relatives' council house, thereby gaining a huge discount and profiting from an increasingly rare resource. Often these properties end up either being resold once the relative dies or being rented out at market rent.

Strangely you don't hear complaints about that here.

Absolutely, Achilles. It is a mystery to me how that was EVER allowed to happen.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 05:10:01

I save my anger for people who buy their elderly relatives' council house, thereby gaining a huge discount and profiting from an increasingly rare resource. Often these properties end up either being resold once the relative dies or being rented out at market rent.

Strangely you don't hear complaints about that here.

Absolutely Achilles. It is a complete mystery to me how that was EVER allowed to happen.

confused

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 08:08:22

and Amber and LBE for crying out loud, people must be allowed to discuss a range of topics and opinions and experiences without constantly being censored and stifled by people who happen to feel uncomfortable with what they are saying. Yes we have some true Goady Fuckers from time to time, who come here purely to make trouble and be deliberately offensive and inflammatory, but I am starting to really hate this war cry of 'Goading! Delete! I demand it!' every time someone voices an opinion that doesn't fit with the loudest most vociferous party line on here

Read the talk guidelines. Goading is supposedly against the 'rules'

I was deleted on this thread for answering the OPs question to me, saying I don't care if I was accused of lying because I don't lie.

The OP same as anyone on here can discuss most things of course but when someone lies to make their point, then what is the point?

When did calling someone on an untruth they post become against the rules? I must have missed that memo.

This post will probably be deleted too, but again I don't care, there is no point sticking to guidelines when others are allowed to flout them.

I don't care which political side a poster of a goady thread is on, if its goady and MNHQ choose to delete- fine. Rules are rules after all.

I posted about the panorama programme that discussed this issue, the factual account of illegal subletting I posted about was totally ignored, why? because it didn't fit the OPs agenda.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13231419

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 08:44:45

goading present participle of goad (Verb)
Verb
Provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.
Drive or urge (an animal) on with a goad.

1) I fail to see how the original post was an attempt to goad, for the purpose of making mischief, or causing offence. If anything, some of the responses were aimed at goading her into saying something that would expose her in a negative way - not the other way around. She has a (presumably truthful, and perfectly legitimate in her eyes) issue with what these people are allegedly doing, and is seeking opinions on it. Or perhaps she just wants to vent because it is frustrating her. That is not a crime, whether you agree with her or not.

2) If you are calling a poster on an untruth with no proof then you are either troll hunting or making a personal attack in in the form of calling them a liar.

3) You have no proof that she has lied, merely your gut feeling about this thread. Therefore see above.

4) I wish it were true that accusations of goading are apportioned equally across all opinions on socio-economics, politics and religion but sadly my experiences on this board do not bear that out. An indignant cry of Goady Fucker seems to the new loophole through which you can attempt to silence someone whose opinions you do not care for. They may well be an ill-informed arse, but that is not really the point.

And of course where actual politics and social policy is concerned it is almost impossible to have any form of robust debate without the risk that someone will see your challenges as goading, (as per the definition above) so we do need to exercise a bit of leeway there where guidelines are concerned, IMHO.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 08:54:50

In fact I know 100% that someone lied blatantly to ellicit sympathy and strengthen her own argument on a very highly charged benefits thread the day, but I did not call her on it, because I just don't have the energy for the fallout, and because (somewhat bizarrely) it would seem to be bad form to c&p from previous threads and point out that someone has a conveniently selective memory.

so if I can let it go when I know someone is lying and have the proof, I'm sure you can let it go when you just think they are.

chris481 Tue 26-Mar-13 08:56:00

As far as I know, in the 25 years I've lived here, subletting has always gone on in London. Though I don't move in circles where I would have direct personal knowledge.

Subletting may be against the rules, but I don't see it as a huge wrong. The benefits system has determined that they are entitled to this accomodation, if they want to convert their entitlement into cash, they are doing no more than implementing what I think should be government policy anyway. I don't believe benefits system should provide housing, it should provide cash that includes an allowance for housing, which people then prioritise spending of according to their personal circumstances.

(On the other hand, if their entitlement to the property comes from lying about being single parents, I object much more to that.)

Effectively the money they are spending on Eurodisney etc. is coming from the parents who are subsidising them by providing free accomodation. The cash from the sublet is, in an economic sense, money they were legally granted when they were given the council flat. ("Legal" if they didn't lie to get the flat.)

Binkybix Tue 26-Mar-13 09:09:21

To be fair, Amber, watching one programme on it does not mean you're an expert, and obviously any programme will have a particular narrative or angle (I've not seen the programme btw, if it had stats showing that it was exclusively professionals who do this, then my apologies).

Honestly, I have no wider agenda here at all. Tbh am normally on the 'left-ish' side of this sort of thread and don't comment on the truth or otherwise of posts because I just don't know the facts.

However, on this occasion I do actually know that this happens, and is done by a range of people (yes, including professionals of course) because someone I know very well does the job that gets the houses back off of the people doing it and has spoken about it a lot to me.

I don't know if the poster is making it up or not, but don't understand why you are so adamant that she is based on what she has posted.

Binkybix Tue 26-Mar-13 09:12:15

But I think the rents they are charging are a lot higher than those they are charged, and obvs don't necessarily go to the people who really need that housing..

toddlerama Tue 26-Mar-13 09:50:35

The OP has outlined a scenario and asked for essentially a poll on would you/wouldn't you shop them? This is not goading.

Some people are so defensive they shut down any conversation!

Of course this happens. Don't be so naive! Calling the OP a liar is entirely unfounded.

She hasn't had a go at benefits claimants, she's had a go at people committing fraud and theft. They aren't the same thing. If you think it's 'goady' to discuss theft, perhaps it's you that's lumping everyone together??

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 10:25:43

She has kind of had a go at benefits claimants eg 'mothers on welfare' as if these were the only people who were doing this. I think it is goady because of how it was worded. 'Mothers on welfare', 'still have active sexual relationships'. If OP had simply said, 'I know 5 people with council tenancies who have gone back to live with their parents and now sublet the council properties at a profit; should I report them?', people would have then replied yes or no according to their own opinion.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 10:37:56

Exactly CecilyP you have said it much better than me.

Her title implied there was an abundance of 'mothers on welfare' doing this, when offered an alternative [ie my post about the serving police officer] she totally ignored it.

She has a (presumably truthful, and perfectly legitimate in her eyes) issue with what these people are allegedly doing, and is seeking opinions on it

Again when offered an alternative opinion- ignored.

She hasn't had a go at benefits claimants, she's had a go at people committing fraud and theft. They aren't the same thing. If you think it's 'goady' to discuss theft, perhaps it's you that's lumping everyone together??

Re read the title.

It doesn't say 'people committing fraud and theft' it says 'mothers on welfare'

To be fair, Amber, watching one programme on it does not mean you're an expert, and obviously any programme will have a particular narrative or angle

Im not claiming to be an expert, Im also not starting a thread saying all police officers are illegally subletting or 'why are there so many police officers subletting' because that would be silly.

Groovee Tue 26-Mar-13 10:38:54

I knew a mum who got her own flat after living with her mum but it was all electric heating so she spent more nights at her mums who had gas heating and was on a cheaper tarrif. She didn't rent it out though, just didn't stay in it as it was too expensive to heat.

Binkybix Tue 26-Mar-13 10:48:36

I agree that the wording of he title was a bit weird, but I suppose I saw it that the OP used the example that she is actually seeing to ask the question about what she should do about this situation.

Looking back at the title though (I only skimmed it because found it hard to understand) I can see that saying 'so many' mothers on welfare does extrapolate that one experience somewhat, so I see your point on this, Amber.

I was more replying to the point that some people seem don't believe this happens at all, and/or think for definite that the OP was making up these situations (which seems unfair tbh).

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:06:42

Thank you to those defending me for simply posting a question.

Defending an experience of people I know is becoming very tiring.

Amberleaf, how am I lying? You do not detail what you know differently, I'm telling the truth and see the effects it is having on the older members of one family in particular. They are worried that everything will be exposed. It's unlikely much will happen anyway.

Anything I have posted about 'mothers' is because they are mothers, mothers who are pretending they are single when they are not, like I say, I don't know if it is to get some extra benefit? They still see the father (no one has mentioned that I keep saying the word 'father'!) They sublet and live all/most of their lives, depending on the couple, in their parents' council house - both have council houses with spare rooms. I can only say how it is.

Some of the men they are involved have always been trying to make a quick buck but once you have a child, the severity of the implications of committing the crime of fraud becomes deeper. The responsibility, if she wants the best for her child/ren sadly, often fall on the mother to say that she isn't comfortable with what is going on.

Having 'sexual relations' with the father is just a way of saying, they are not estranged, the father is very much on the scene but to all intents and purposes it is made to appear as though they are.

Amberleaf, the situation you're talking about was a PRIVATE landlord, these are council tenants, they are subletting their accomodation to other people for cash in hand.

Amberleaf, without talking about the tv programme about the private landlord, detail why I am lying. It is thoroughly offensive to accuse someone of lying. Do you live in council accomodation? You must see it going on. Others here have said they have seen is happening. In London and the South East it is widespread.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:10:15

That should say

Having 'sexual relations' with the father is just a way of saying, they are not estranged, the father is very much on the scene but to all intents and purposes it is made to appear as though they are not

I am questioning why they are doing it. Why are they lying about their situation and causing stress to other members of their family?

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:16:57

I can see that the title was somewhat clumsy.

Perhaps a more understable title would have been.

AIBU ' To ask whether welfare parents pretending to be single and estranged should be subletting council accomodation for cash in hand and living at parents' council houses while doing so? Implications for children and elderly relatives ?

MNHQ can change it if all the words fit.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 11:28:20

Fair enough Amber but I don't really know what you expected the OP to say in response to 'well I saw a documentary where a policeman did that.' confused

I'm sure you are right and that most people who do it are not like the women in the OP's example, but that doesn't somehow negate or override the fact that these people are apparently doing it now.

I think the reference to the 'single mothers having sex with the fathers of their children' was clumsy, but it was to illustrate that not only are they sub-letting the houses illegally, but they are obtaining financial advantage though benefits by pretending that they are separated from their children's father when they are not. But that's a different issue. Although it seems to have compounded the OP's annoyance in this instance. grin I agree it's a bit of a Daily Mailesque thread title but that is not illegal and worthy of automatic deletion yet. wink

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 11:28:51

Whoah - massive crossed posts!

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 11:29:47

Amberleaf, the situation you're talking about was a PRIVATE landlord, these are council tenants, they are subletting their accomodation to other people for cash in hand

Um, no read it again, he was a council tenant. NOT a private landlord, he was illegally subletting his council home for cash at a profit

Here is the link again

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13231419

Amberleaf, without talking about the tv programme about the private landlord, detail why I am lying. It is thoroughly offensive to accuse someone of lying. Do you live in council accomodation? You must see it going on. Others here have said they have seen is happening. In London and the South East it is widespread

I live in a housing association property yes, On a rd where most of the properties are privately owned, I have known of someone who did this, she sublet her council flat when she moved into a flat she bought, I sort of knew of another case, but I knew the tenant who was 'renting' off the subletter, again the original tenant moved out when they bought their own home

I have also know of housing dept workers who have fraudulently enabled friends/relatives to be given council properties

I haven't known of anyone in the sort of situation you describe that happens with 'so many' mothers, Im sure there are cases like that but not 'so many' and I don't think it is the biggest issue of that nature

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 11:33:04

To ask whether welfare parents pretending to be single and estranged should be subletting council accomodation for cash in hand and living at parents' council houses while doing so? Implications for children and elderly relatives

Two issues no? fraudulent benefit claims and illegal subletting.

Fellatio
Fair enough Amber but I don't really know what you expected the OP to say in response to 'well I saw a documentary where a policeman did that

Well, I would have liked her to actually read the article which she clearly didn't.

KateSMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 26-Mar-13 11:33:53

Hullo all,

As we said yesterday <broken record> we don't think anyone here is goading. We would like to say that whatever the subject matter, people should post within our talk guidelines, with particular emphasis on the troll hunting part.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:36:55

I'll have to learn to type faster, TheRealFellatio.

Thanks for the reference to the bloody Daily Mail. I am truly offended now.

I would have to accompany it with photos of families with 10 children, wouldn't I?! The families I know, have between one and three children per household.

Some of the men are actually fathers to more children but they go between alternate households. I don't know why their partners tolerate it but that a whole other issue.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:38:39

Thanks Kate.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:46:09

Amberleaf, you've outright accused me of lying and are now giving examples of people you have known who have sublet council accomodation.

You say that you don't know any mothers who have done it. Why would having a child prevent someone from doing so if they have a mind to do it?
Being a mother doesn't preclude someone from committing fraud.

To me, it is 'so many'. Five sets of people that just little old me knows, when visiting one family and their extended family and friends is a lot, as a sample. Others have said it is happening.
You have said that it is happening.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 11:46:50

Why has KateSMumsnet withdrawn her message? confused

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:47:55

Wow AmberLeaf post has just been withdrawn.

It detailed the subletting that she has witnessed in her housing association accmodation. Kate MN? Is that fair?

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:49:10

It is ok, now there again. As you were, ignore above post.

KateSMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 26-Mar-13 11:49:18

TheRealFellatio

Why has KateSMumsnet withdrawn her message? confused

because I'm an eejit Had to do a wee adjustment.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 11:51:07

Adjustment relating to her post?

Viviennemary Tue 26-Mar-13 11:54:56

I think they should be reported. People are living in difficult circumstances on endless waiting lists and then you have those cheats making money.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 11:55:14

Subletfun

Have you read the link again about the policeman subletting his council property?

You say that you don't know any mothers who have done it. Why would having a child prevent someone from doing so if they have a mind to do it?

You are being obtuse.

You know that is not what I said.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 11:59:33

This is not about mothers it is about people [in your example] fraudulently claiming benefits as single parents and illegally subletting.

One of the people I knew of was a mother, but she wasn't a benefit claimant fraudulent or otherwise, she was a working professional who was able to buy her own home with a mortgage...but still kept her council tenancy and sublet it.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 11:59:57

grin

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:11:31

The goalposts keep on changing AmberLeaf! So it is about some mothers who have the ability to buy and then sublet. Still fraudulent but not quite what I am talking about.

The people I'm talking about don't own any property, they don't have mortgages. One set of parents may have bought their own council house. I don't know if they have or not but as they have extravagant holidays and have an income below £30k before tax, I am presuming that they budget very well or have come into money. The job of the parent is sporadic and low skilled. Only stating the fact without judgement.

Four out of five of them have been promised their parents' house when they die. I can't see it ending well as each adult child will want to live in it. There is little way of them buying their parents' houses even with the discount as they cannot budget and with a house above 400k in the area, it will not easy to save for.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 12:17:40

The goalposts keep on changing AmberLeaf! So it is about some mothers who have the ability to buy and then sublet. Still fraudulent but not quite what I am talking about

What are you talking about?

Im not stating what it is about, I was just reminding you what your OP was stating!

Ok so we are clear then, this is about only subletting fraudsters who also claim benefit fraudulently?

Is that why yo keep ignoring my point about the police officer who sublet his council flat?

Four out of five of them have been promised their parents' house when they die

Well thats laughable really, as they have their own tenancies they wont be able to take on their parents council homes under the right of succession [if such a thing still exists by then]

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:23:55

The issue of people in a relationship pretending to be single and pretending that the father does not care enough to see his children when he does, is odd, is it not? What effect does that have on the children?

Somehow, and I don't know how, hence my asking on here, it is related to subletting of council accomodation and living in parents' council house.

Does it increase the benefit capacity? They have council accomodation allocated to them and yet they are at parents' houses while it is standing being let or standing empty waiting to be let for cash in hand. The older women in the council houses, not working, some of pensionable age are acting as babysitters and cooks without a break while the mothers are engaging in the cash in hand activities.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:25:56

I think the right of succession just states that you have to be living there for a few years doesn't it. They will presumably just move in as carers in the last years.

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 12:31:41

Intriguing thread. I've nothing much to add to it but would like to clarify one point.

SubLetFun says these five women are claiming to be single despite having sexual relations with the fathers of their children. She also says these women spend most of their time at their parents' houses, and the fathers spend their time at their parents'. That suggests the mothers and fathers in question haven't set up home together.

For benefit purposes, one can be single, married, divorced, widowed, civil partnershipped (or whatever the verb is), or one can have a partner. "We use partner to mean someone you live with as though you are married" is the standard phrasing on benefit forms. In other words, you can be shagging whoever you like, but if you haven't set up home with them, then you're classed as single.

I've no idea if the allocation of council houses uses the same definition, but would assume they do, or at least a similar one, otherwise choosing to have a sex life would affect your entitlement, and that's a bit bonkers.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:32:17

No they are not policemen or in any uniformed job. If they have a job it is sporadic and cash in hand. Otherwise, no work, little attempt to find work although offers have been made.

Amberleaf, to sublet any council accomodation that has been allocated for you is wrong. To take cash in hand is wrong. To put people whom the council has no idea about is wrong, if there is overcrowding, fire etc it will cause problems.
To sublet when in a decent job and already owning a property is wrong. The policeman should be taken to court, severely fined. It isn't supposed to be a money making enterprise that is tax free and cash in hand. There is little connection made between the money they are given and the fact that working people are willingly trying to help them via taxes paid.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 12:37:15

Of course it is wrong, that is why I said in my first reply on here to report it.

No the adult children will not get succession of tenancy rights, as they are in their own council properties!

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:37:56

StormyBird, can you define what setting up a home together means?

They were allocated a council home. They both put furniture in it. Now they let it cash in hand and live at their parents' homes which are council funded.

The fact they are having sex is irrelevant if only to demonstrate, as said before, that they aren't single mothers struggling with children on their own. On paper it appears that they set up the home with the father and then he left, only he hasn't truly left. A couple of the men are already fathers and visit the other women. Trying to understand it all.

TheRealFellatio Tue 26-Mar-13 12:44:57

I think Stormy is right actually. i don't think it matters if you are with the father of your children - even married to him. If you can say that he doesn't live there or stay over more than 3 nights a week then you are assessed by the benefits system as being a single mother and the sole occupant.

Or something. confused

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 12:47:08

Ah, I see. If they were allocated the house as a couple then at that point they'd be classed as partners. Claiming anything as a single parent when they're both living in that house together is fraud. Are they staying at their parents' houses together or separately though? If together, then still fraud, but if she's at her mum's while he's at his dad's or whatever, then they're not actually living together, and so claiming as a single parent wouldn't be fraud. (Plenty of other bits of fraud in there though, obviously.)

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:49:22

Thanks for the clarification. Do they ask him to state where he is for the rest of the time? Where is he living and why he cannot be participating in his children's lives on a daily basis? If the father is present sometimes he must be able to say, no?

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 12:55:35

Crossed posts!

They split the time up between alternate parents whoever can babysit. Often one of them is there on her own with child and baby, and he is at parents' house doing what I don't know. This particular one goes on about what a great father he is. Odd as he is rarely involved. He collects her at weekends and visits her at parents' for affection/sex.

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 13:01:06

He'll be expected to provide a tenancy agreement or other proof that he lives at a separate address and bills in his name at that separate address, and so on, if she's investigated. He'd need to keep his stuff elsewhere too, in case of a home visit. But people aren't required to provide proof of estrangement upfront, because that would mean assuming the majority are out to commit benefit fraud where possible, and that's a) not the case and b) discriminatory.

MrsKeithRichards Tue 26-Mar-13 13:04:57

Even the three Times a week thing is a bit of a myth. Thankfully the state aren't interfering in relationships.

The phrase goading may well be incorrect but there's something irritating about the feigned innocence and ignorance along with the passive aggressive style of some posters which is capable of winding people up.

They'll protest but they know what they are doing!

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 13:18:30

Who are you talking about exactly?

Define what has been passive aggressive?

If someone is genuinely trying to undertand something and cannot fathom a situation, MN is a good place to ask.

archilles Tue 26-Mar-13 14:23:35

The thing is that you have put irrelevant stuff in your posts that have nothing to do with the subletting issue.

It isn't relevant that both sets of grandparents have council houses is it? They would have those whether or not the subletting is going on and last time I looked it isn't fraud to actually live in your own council house. Although judging by some of the posts on this forum you would be forgiven for thinking it was.

Next, It isn't relevant wheter or not they, the subletters, are in receipt of benefits, as the rights and wrongs of fraudently subletting are unaffected by benefits.

So that leaves a couple pretending to be single to get 2 houses which they sublet. If they weren't subletting they could live in one of the houses instead of 2. So the issue boils down to 2 allegedly illegal sublettings.

Why the hell can't you just post that instead of all the goady bullshit about where the money goes.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 14:39:01

Highly relevant

1) They stay at their parents' council houses while subletting. If they stayed elsewhere, they would have to pay rent. They pay for some things from the cash in hand for the babysitting/cooking/non working grandmothers. They cannot work because they are looking after many grandchildren.
Of course it isn't fraud to live in a council house, where did I ever say it was?!Not actively seeking work while living in one if you are fit and healthy for decades, however would be.

2) They live in counciil accomodation, receive benefits and hardly ever work, have no intention of working. The council accomodation makes it possible for them to sublet. The benefits give them something to live on from day to day. Subletting in private property would be fraud between private landlord and private tenant. The taxpayers' hard earned money would not be fraudulently used.

3) They do not sublet 2 houses. Where did you get that from?
Couples pretend they are single and used parents' council houses as they can stay there and get free babysitting and cooking while subletting allocated counciil housing for cash in hand.

I don't like the swearing or the accusations. Remind me, who is doing the goading?

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 15:02:45

Since when did you have to be actively seeking work to live in a council house? I admit I'm not an expert, but I'm fairly certain that's not one of the requirements.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 15:26:47

Why would anyone want to live in a council house with other taxpayers working hard to support you unless studying, ill, children under 4yrs, disabled, retired, finding their feet, actively job seeking?

Doesn't lack of dignity come into it? Many of our grandfathers and ggrandfather fought hard and lost life and limb for the country. They didn't anticipate this lack of responsibility and lack of self-respect. Using that as an analogy, you could say that they say, "I'll sit in the trench today mate, you go over the top. I'll put my feet up and have a cup of tea and watch you all being shelled and shot." How would that have gone down?

How could anyone bear to look at themselves in the mirror, knowing that some people are struggling to earn an income that is taxed to enable others to relax? I am not talking about those not able to work, they are capable and put a lot of energy into subletting for cash iin hand.

Don't you think the system is strained, it's there to give a helping hand for a short amount of time while seeking work rather than a lifestyle of being able to work but taking advantage. A classic one I have heard from them is that both parents need to be on hand throughout the day for children older than 2yrs, if you ask how they cope with working and parenting the answer is that some mug pays for it to happen and that working is for 'losers'. They aren't grateful that the system is there. I know that some people are but this group are not. The system we trust and pay our taxes to is being abused.

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 15:44:20

Um. Not everyone in a council house is on benefits? Some of them work, and are taxpayers themselves. So it looks as though you're lacking some rather pertinent facts about the topic you're now ranting about. Can you see why people think you're stirring now?

And for the record, I don't think the system's there to give a short-term helping hand, I think it's there to provide the basics for those who can't provide for themselves, for as long or short a time as may be required. But that's totally irrelevant to your original post. If these five couples exist and their fraud offends you so much, report it. Don't use them as an excuse to preach about the moral failings of the poor.

Binkybix Tue 26-Mar-13 15:48:15

I too agree that people illegally sub-letting is not a reason to vilify whole benefits system. Things seem to have moved on a bit since I put my tuppence worth in!

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 16:01:55

Of course some people in council houses work. Not the ones I am talking about. It is very sporadic and mostly cash in hand. Their thirty something children sublet and live with them, using non-working, tax payer financed gran(in her sixties) to babysit, wash and cook.

Moral failings of the poor? Not in general, this group. I doubt they are original. Many poor people have risen out of the mire and done brilliant things in life. Even before the benefits system existed. It would be interesting to follow three generations now against three generations on census forms from the past (1851, 1861, 1871)

Defending moral failing and letting them sit in their own metaphorical excrement. What is good about it? That is why social workers' load has increased so much. It's having a profound effect on society, without talking about crime, children are growing up insecure, with lack of affection and not realising how to have decent relationships or conduct themselves in the workplace. It 's a burden.

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 16:19:17

^Highly relevant

1) They stay at their parents' council houses while subletting. If they stayed elsewhere, they would have to pay rent.^

Totally irrelevant whether their parents live in council houses, are private tenants or own their houses.

They pay for some things from the cash in hand for the babysitting/cooking/non working grandmothers. They cannot work because they are looking after many grandchildren

The grandmothers' work, or otherwise, situation is totally irrelevant to the illegal subletting.

Of course it isn't fraud to live in a council house, where did I ever say it was?!Not actively seeking work while living in one if you are fit and healthy for decades, however would be.

No, it is of no interest to the local council whether their tenants are seeking work or not; so not seeking work while having council tenancy is certainly not fraud in any way, shape or form.

2) They live in counciil accomodation, receive benefits and hardly ever work, have no intention of working. The council accomodation makes it possible for them to sublet.

Yes, it makes it possible; it is also illegal, so, yes, report them.

3) They do not sublet 2 houses. Where did you get that from?

That is kind of the impression that you gave amongst all the other irrelevant waffle.

Couples pretend they are single and used parents' council houses as they can stay there and get free babysitting and cooking while subletting allocated counciil housing for cash in hand.

Blimey, do you mean their parents don't even charge their resident offspring for cooking meals from them? Definitely report them!

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 16:28:25

Why would anyone want to live in a council house with other taxpayers working hard to support you unless studying, ill, children under 4yrs, disabled, retired, finding their feet, actively job seeking?

Security of tenure.
Not wanting the insecrity of a private tenancy
Not wanting to add to the coffers of a buy-to-letter.
Not earning enough to cover a morgage to buy a house in the area you are living.
Not haveing the job security to be considered for a mortgage.
Not being able to save enough to pay for a deposit.

Doesn't lack of dignity come into it? Many of our grandfathers and ggrandfather fought hard and lost life and limb for the country. They didn't anticipate this lack of responsibility and lack of self-respect. Using that as an analogy, you could say that they say, "I'll sit in the trench today mate, you go over the top. I'll put my feet up and have a cup of tea and watch you all being shelled and shot." How would that have gone down?

I don't normally swear, but WTF. What on earth do you consider undignified in living in a council house. And if you consider it so undignified, how on earth do you know so many people of different generations who are both council tenants and who take you into their confidence.

You seem to have gone off on one again, conflating being a council tenant with expecting to be permanently on benefits.

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 16:32:41

Of course some people in council houses work. Not the ones I am talking about. It is very sporadic and mostly cash in hand. Their thirty something children sublet and live with them, using non-working, tax payer financed gran(in her sixties) to babysit, wash and cook.

So one minute your are complaining that the grandmothers don't work because they are looking after so many grandchildren and the next you say that gran is in her sixties; so presumably retired and would be taxpayer-financed whether she was looking after grandchildren or relaxing.

digerd Tue 26-Mar-13 16:35:29

So, the mother fraudently wrote to the council that her partner was a danger to the child, so council would give her dd and gd a council house/flat. Then the daughter moved back with her dd and illegally sublet her council place.
That was fraud by the mother aiding and abetting her DD -
Report them both to the council fraud dept. and Benefits fraud dept as she undeclared income and is claiming a householders benefit, when she is living as a member of of her parent's household which is a much lesser amount of benefit she's entitled to.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 16:58:49

I'll answer Cecily in a minute.

digerd. Nowhere did I say the mother wrote to the council saying any partner was a danger to the child? You've misread. Are you giving an example of someone you know? No way are the partners a danager to the children, having some other relationships but not hurting them physically, no.

They set up home with partners they've had children with. Move back to parents' homes - both council. The houses are big and high market value. There is spare capacity in the homes with room to accomodate their adult children and their grandchildren. They often alternate between grandparents' homes as siblings vacate and do the same. They sublet cash in hand to tenants who use their allocated flat/home.

So, just moving back to the parents's house and doing that in itself is benefit fraud before the subletting for cash in hand?

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 16:59:27

Meant to say danger.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 17:06:21

Doesn't lack of dignity come into it? Many of our grandfathers and ggrandfather fought hard and lost life and limb for the country. They didn't anticipate this lack of responsibility and lack of self-respect. Using that as an analogy, you could say that they say, "I'll sit in the trench today mate, you go over the top. I'll put my feet up and have a cup of tea and watch you all being shelled and shot." How would that have gone down?

Interesting that you should bring that up.

You are not familiar with the term 'Homes for Heroes'?

Have a read of this;

www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylobbying/housing/supply/homesforheroes.htm

a brief history of housing in London

Home for Heroes” is among the most famous promises ever made by a British Prime Minister and one that had a profound impact on the nation’s housing, nowhere more so than in London. Nearly one hundred years on though and the capital still faces an uphill battle to provide decent housing for its growing population

The queues of young men signing up to join the war had provided the government with a startling insight into the impact of poor housing on the nation’s workers and, once the war was won, Prime Minister Lloyd George famously promised to pro­vide them with ‘Homes fit for Heroes’

The Housing Act of 1919, known as the Addison Act after its author, the Minster for Health Dr Chris­topher Addison, pledged substantial government subsidies to build half a million new homes within three years. In fact, as the economy weakened during the 1920s, the originally ambitious fund­ing was successively cut and only around 200,000 ‘homes for heroes’ were actually built

Nevertheless, the passing of the Addison Act was a hugely significant step that made housing a na­tional priority - and made local authorities re­sponsible for delivering decent housing as a social necessity

Further legislation during the 1920s extended the housing duties of local authorities and a fresh act in 1930 obliged them to clear all remaining slum housing. The 1930 Act led to the clearance of more slums that at any time in history and the building of 700,000 council homes to re-house their former inhabitants

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:08:33

CicelyP, I get the impression that you are rich and not understanding the demands and struggle that the average hard working person has to endure.

Wasted tax revenue on unproductive people is a shame for the country. Not ill, disabled, nursing, studying but just sitting and laughing. Some people with inherited wealth do the same with different pursuits. People are slogging hard to finance fraud via paid taxes, that is the difference.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 17:12:07

Of course it isn't fraud to live in a council house, where did I ever say it was?!Not actively seeking work while living in one if you are fit and healthy for decades, however would be

Oh dear, are you one of those people that thinks only people on benefits live in/are eligable for social housing? WRONG

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant eh.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:17:38

Amberleaf - quite right that those poor after fighting in the war were helped with housing. The point is that they all fought, nobody stayed behind in the trench, they all went over the top. They were somewhat rewarded with housing when they were in need.

All the more reason for their male offspring to concentrate their minds on that fact when they have their feet up watching others go out to work and not subletting for cash in hand. How lucky they are that they are not living in slums, how can they repay the taxpayer? They could have a go at working and living a straight life.

I know of gggrandfathers who fought and did not get help with housing.
They managed to work and not sub-let throughout their lives. It must have been a struggle for them.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 17:17:47

CicelyP, I get the impression that you are rich and not understanding the demands and struggle that the average hard working person has to endure

Some of whom live in social housing!

Wasted tax revenue on unproductive people is a shame for the country. Not ill, disabled, nursing, studying but just sitting and laughing. Some people with inherited wealth do the same with different pursuits. People are slogging hard to finance fraud via paid taxes, that is the difference

So this isn't about illegal subletting is it? Its just an attempt to set up a benefit bashing thread.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 17:19:58

Yep, just another benefit bashing thread.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:23:51

This is about subletting council accomodation and parents' council accomodation enabling that and the housing of up to three children. It is about lying on forms, making councils think that you will be living in accomodation and cash free money to be made from letting to others more vulnerable.

I don't think that only people on benefits live in social housing. Some people do work and live in it. I question why these people I am talking about are not at least taking up the offers of work and filling their time with fraud. They are able body and energetic enough for illegal subletting for cash in hand!

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:29:36

I have friends who have pulled themselves out of a council house environment. They work hard and have no desire to ever go back that. It's a very good motivator. They have achieved a lot.

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 17:33:46

No, sadly, I am not rich!

I am still wondering how you know so much about these families - 5 did you say - where you know that each couple has a council tenancy which they sublet, whilst each lives with their own parents - so making 15 households in total. You know details of their working lives or lack of, the grandparents babysitting and cooking activities, and yet living in a council house would be beneath your dignity, and you don't even seem to know that the majority of council tenants are in paid employment. It just doesn't add up.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 17:35:58

This is about subletting council accomodation and parents' council accomodation enabling that

It is irrelevant what sort of housing their parents live in though, makes no difference if they rent privately or own, they are allowing their adult children to live with them [allegedly] how they are housed has no bearing on that.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:44:43

CecilyP, in London and the South East, it isn't difficult you have a broad spectrum of friends. Yes, if you read a few pages back I explained the situation. Many have backed me up and said that subletting for cash in hand is widespread.

Those living in the council accomodation seem happy enough and subletting cash in hand seems to be good for them. I do know some council tenants in paid employment, not the group I am to referring to, however.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:49:06

The parents don't live privately.

They live in council houses with high market values. They barely work. Those in the houses that are now private, do.
Many would dream about being able to dodge work and live in a house of that worth. They are dodging work, as they refuse work they are given. Their chidren give them cash from the sublets to keep them babysitting, cooking, cleaning. One of them is pregnant again, the system is working well for them.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 17:57:30

So it is ok to sublet fraudulently if parents are in private accommodation? The grandparents have enough energy to work in their 60s. Their lives have been set for them by their children, They will look after their children and grandchildren during the week as 24hr carers. They have the children because they have cheap, childcare for them. The state is paying for the adults who have barely worked, the children who have barely worked, never worked and housing three generations and financing fraudulent sublets. As I say, they do not want to work unless it is cash in hand and sporadic.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:01:18

So it is ok to sublet fraudulently if parents are in private accommodation?

What like the policeman?

Nope as I said in my very first post on this thread, illegal subletting should be reported. whoever is doing it.

So the parents are pensioners? no requirement for them to work then if they are of pensionable age.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:07:05

Amber you're the one who has been repeatedly talking about some policeman who let his property. None of them work or if they do hardly ever, they are all in council accommodation! You know that by now.

Some grandparents late 50s, some early 60s. Nothing these days. Retirement could be 30-40 yrs of baby sitting great grand children. The rooms in the council houses are available to be used for this purpose. The council regularly have to visit - do they paint and refurbish if they are asked to? Is there an inspection that takes place? Genuine question.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:09:15

The council regularly have to visit

No they don't.

do they paint and refurbish if they are asked to? Is there an inspection that takes place? Genuine question

Ha ha, no they don't to both.

aquashiv Tue 26-Mar-13 18:17:41
SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:34:37

So how far can the house deteroriate before someone steps in?

Someone can live in a council house for decades and let it go?

Bad wiring is the responsibility of the council or the person living in the council's house?

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 18:36:13

None of them work or if they do hardly ever, they are all in council accommodation!

You do realise that your sentence construction implies that none of them work because they're in council houses? Froth about people on benefits if you must, but at least try and get a little bit of logic in there, it'd make you seem a lot more credible.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:37:18

Thanks aquashiv, I doubt they care or have the people out there to check it out but shall do so re: the subletting.

suburbophobe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:37:45

Oh dear, another single mum bashing thread....

I've known loads of mothers who did this, <I didn't> but I don't care to bother myself about other people's choices. It's their karma.

And my life is too busy anyway.

Did work black tho for a a couple of years, cleaning friends' houses, while on the dole (not UK) many years ago... So I'm no innocent....

Thing is, I think it is for everyone themselves to feel if they need to report it or not....

Trouble is, I live up the road from the Anne Frank House, and we all know what happens when you mind others' business.... sad

<I do know that is a ridiculous comparison>

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:41:14

Is that Godwins law now suburbophobe!

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:41:29

StormyBird, you've taken it out of context.

Amber you're the one who has been repeatedly talking about some policeman who let his property. None of them work or if they do hardly ever, they are all in council accommodation! You know that by now.

That was the full context in relation to the lack of work despite offers of it.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:43:07

So how far can the house deteroriate before someone steps in?

why would it?

Someone can live in a council house for decades and let it go?

why would they, they live there?

Bad wiring is the responsibility of the council or the person living in the council's house?

That would be down to the landlord be it a private one or a social housing one as they own the property and are responsible for things like that.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:43:26

suburbphone, they are not single mothers! Do read it properly! Anything but, that is part of it. Well organised subletting of council flats for cash in hand. Father goes back to parents, she goes back to hers. They go between.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:45:13

The Anne Frank comparison is an awful comparison, suburbphone, if you ever said that to a Jewish person they would really put it into perspective for you.

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 18:47:59

We've been over this part before. If each is living with their own parents, they are not living together, and thus are classed as single for benefit purposes. That is not fraud, nor is it immoral, nor is it anything to get your knickers in a twist over.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:48:38

At the other extreme, and you are bringing up concern for others' welfare, and going off topic quite a bit. BabyP and VictoriaC issues went unnoticed
Sublettees (those who are living in the sublets are very vulnerable and the council can't see that they are living where they are)

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:50:23

This is becoming comical.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:53:00

StormyBird they have council flats/houses allocated to them that are being sublet for cash in hand.

They have filled out forms telling the council that they will be living there. They are not.
They are claiming that the father has left, he has not.
Others have already said they get more benefits for doing so
They get cash in hand sublet cash.
Grandparents' houses (shh, council) have plenty of rooms for making it possible.

Not getting anything in a twist. You seem so keen to defend the fraudulent.

suburbophobe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:54:08

Well of course I know that SubLetFun...

I did mention it after all..

Ah, been out of UK too long really.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 18:54:32

Yes, sublets are hilarious.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 18:56:18

Yes, sublets are hilarious

Errm and your username is?............ SubLetFun

suburbophobe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:56:28

Yea, I get it now. Not only single mums, but "supposed" couples each living with their own parents.

Ah well, you can't get the kids out of the home nowadays grin

digerd Tue 26-Mar-13 18:57:00

People have the right to make a choice to defraud the council and benefits dept. ?? Now it's called benefit/council fraudster bashing is it, because she is a single mum? <shakes head with disbelief>

suburbophobe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:58:06

Where I live, if you subletted your council house that is allocated to you, you'd be turfed out and fined about 20K euros.

They should make that a law in UK too really....

Simple.

suburbophobe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:59:32

Plus, of course the income tax bill that would follow...

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 18:59:57

The council regularly have to visit - do they paint and refurbish if they are asked to? Is there an inspection that takes place? Genuine question.

See, one minute you are telling us you have a broad spectrum of friends (seemingly only possible in London and the South East) including people who live in council houses and the next minute you are asking this stupid question because you literally don't know the answer.

AmberLeaf Tue 26-Mar-13 19:00:05

suburbophobe, there are laws in the UK to cover this sort of thing, thats why people keep telling the OP to report it.

I wonder if she has done yet.

StormyBrid Tue 26-Mar-13 19:05:02

I'm not defending fraud. You've described an awful lot of fraud, and I'm not at all bothered if you feel you should report it. I'm just pointing out that one of these examples of fraud is not actually fraud.

If these couples have illegally sublet their house, they are not living in it themselves. They are committing fraud if they claim housing benefit for it; they are committing fraud for not truthfully informing the relevant authorities about their housing situation when claiming other benefits. But by your own admission they are each living with their own parents, separately; that is to say, not together. They are committing fraud by being counted as distinct households rather than part of their parents', but they are not committing fraud when they say they're not (to use the DWP's own phrasing) "living together as though married". Because they're not living together.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 19:07:56

Agree digerd! What about the fraudsters's feelings in all this?!

That is interesting suburbophobe. Is is a Nordic country?

I have reported it. I will be speaking to the MP. Posters are asking me questions and I am answering!

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 19:08:06

Yes, she could have done it in the time she has wasted on mumsnet and now the council offices will be closed.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 19:09:15

Painting has never come up

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 19:10:27

I think suburbophobe has given a rather large hint about where she actually lives.

CecilyP Tue 26-Mar-13 19:12:22

Painting has never come up

So these people are part of your diverse friendship group and they have never mentioned decorating - none of them. Yet you seem to know all about your friends' sex lives.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 20:52:29

I don't know about their sex lives! I know that the fathers are actively involved, there are ongoing relationships with the pretence that they are single. I presume that there is some sex involved, pregnancy results! Not interested in the frequency/type of sex. Point is that they feel the need to lie on forms and say that they would like a flat, then sublet it and move the children about between two parental houses.

No, I am not friends with this group. I am told all this, every time I take a friend to see them for a couple of decades. Over that time, I have heard all about it and been introduced. Sorry to say it CecilyP, but they do love to brag about it all, getting one over on the taxpayer is half the fun for them. It's like verbal diarrhoea, they want to tell you all about it. Believe it or not, I have not thought about who is financing the upkeep of the council housing. I had thought it was them, but I had been told that they are helped with it, wanted to verification. Why do I want to get into a conversation about painting and decorating with them? I know that some people go into council flats and do it as voluntary work.

I have a couple of friends who lived on council estates when young, then got out. They are not the group I am talking about.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 21:13:22

StormBird, your quotes are in bold.

If these couples have illegally sublet their house, they are not living in it themselves.

That's obvious by the word 'sublet'. They are receiving cash-in-hand for sublets intended for them.

They are committing fraud if they claim housing benefit for it

Yes they are.

They are committing fraud for not truthfully informing the relevant authorities about their housing situation when claiming other benefits.

Yes.

But by your own admission they are each living with their own parents, separately; that is to say, not together.

No, they spend time there and visit each other when not in the evenings, then go to the other council house (owned by other set of parents) when the other siblings are not using it in the same way.

They are committing fraud by being counted as distinct households rather than part of their parents'

Yes.

but they are not committing fraud when they say they're not (to use the DWP's own phrasing) "living together as though married". Because they're not living together.

The fathers are in their children's lives. They are there on a constant basis or if not visiting and then they shift to the other parents' homes. They are having meals together. They are watching programmes together.

How does the council define 'living together'?

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 21:19:33

Meant to say, StormyBrid, not StormBird! grin

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 21:22:42

It does not matter if the dads are in the children's lives its perfectly acceptable to be.

It is also ok to have sex and visit whom ever you wish no matter what benefits you claim.

It is also ok to stay at friends or family's houses for up to 3 months all in one go as long as you have an intention to return to your own home.

It is ok to spend your money on what ever you wish.

However it is not ok to sublet without consent

So report them for this but stick to that without going into all the ramblings and nonsense you have on here because if you don't nobody will pay any attention to your report as it will sound like your a busy body benefit bashing weirdo.

Also do your self a favour stop being friendly with people like this as you are doing you and them a disservice

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 21:34:30

Sockreturningpixise

It does not matter if the dads are in the children's lives its perfectly acceptable to be.

Why lie and claim that the father has left, then? As others have said, it seems there are added benefits to be gained from this.

It is also ok to have sex and visit whom ever you wish no matter what benefits you claim. Why lie then? They are living in their parents' council home and illegally subletting to other people for cash in hand. There is a long waiting list of people who could be using that home. They are allowing people to jump the waiting list. Is it good for children to carted about between homes with no fixed base?

It is also ok to stay at friends or family's houses for up to 3 months all in one go as long as you have an intention to return to your own home.

Oh, they have every intention of keeping hold of their 'home' as they are subletting it for cash in hand! This is way longer than 3 months.

It is ok to spend your money on what ever you wish.

What money are you talking about? I don't know what that is referring to exactly?

However it is not ok to sublet without consent

Yep. That is what they are doing

So report them for this but stick to that without going into all the ramblings and nonsense you have on here because if you don't nobody will pay any attention to your report as it will sound like your a busy body benefit bashing weirdo. Is that how you see it. Hmm. Others have said that you are defending the well organised fraudsters who have a good system going on with this.

Also do your self a favour stop being friendly with people like this as you are doing you and them a disservice It's interesting to hear. I didn't say that I am friendly with them, I told you it was their verbal diarrhoea! They're wasting valuable resources that hard working people willingly allow their taxes to contribute to in good faith.

hwjm1945 Tue 26-Mar-13 21:44:22

People 're remarkably free with information about fraud they are committing.report for the bald fact of I
Subletting. Social housing is for those
most in needs. Not as a cash cow
For those who sublet.forget the rest of it

BreconBeBuggered Tue 26-Mar-13 21:52:14

Pixie does have a point, OP. If you have names, addresses and reasonable evidence, report that. Don't waste your breath pontificating about benefit claimants, their sex lives or their holidays. It makes you sound more like someone with a personal axe to grind than a concerned citizen.

SubLetFun Tue 26-Mar-13 21:53:48

They are proud of the subletting business, brazen. Unbelievable. The worst thing is that there is pressure not to get a job, to be in with the others in the group. Enough of them are doing it, to make it seem a good way to make cash, x is doing it, y is doing it, so z thinks it is fine. There is no respect for people who work. They are mocking of those who work. If they talk about a menial job. I would think, well everyone has to start somewhere, they will take the piss out of them unmercifully. We are quite removed from the situation, no threat and not in the area, therefore the openess but they don't care, the councils have little bite.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 22:19:48

They are under no obligation to disclose to anybody the amount of contact a child has with the dad nor who the adults sleep with.

They are not lying they are clearly not living together as a couple. Benefit law cannot and should not be able to force two people to live together when they have no desire to do so, it can also not force someone to have a traditional relationship nor formalise a relationship where the people in that do not wish to do so.

The subletting is a completely different issue to this, the whole point of things being different issues is when I say this bit is not fraud but this bit is you don't then jump in with oh but they are committing this type of fraud especially when I have agreed with you that yes it is. Its pointless and silly and undermines your entire argument.

The 3 month thing keeping hold of it purely for subletting reasons as opposed to intending to return to reside is relevant

The money comment was with regard to your almost constant posting about nails and Disney and activities ect again its irrelevant as they are allowed to spend money on what ever they want with the exception of funds obtained where you are required to prove the associated expenditure

Who has said that I am defending anybody? I'm not and so far I've not seen anybody else say I have unless what you mean is you think I am. If that's the case your very wrong. If you come across as a busybody ranting benefit claimant basher you will dilute the impact of anything you say quite probably leading to you being ignored because they get thousands of calls a year just like that and they mostly get ignored.

As to the friendly bit you seriously expect anybody to believe you are unfriendly towards these people yet they still provide you with all these details that you don't associate with them having personal chats but they just randomly hand you enough info to get themselves into deep shit?

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 22:26:15

Their lack of ambition towards work is nothing to do with the council its a matter for their dwp advisor to tackle if they are on a benefit that requires then to look for work.

Do you know exactly what benefit is being claimed?

The council quite rightly don't give a flying fuck who wants to work and who doesn't as working status has no baring on housing other than income.

SubLetFun Wed 27-Mar-13 00:06:12

Nails and Disney, ha, ha, I defended differences in taste! Read it properly! It was pages back. I said their taste was their business. A few posters supposed that the children wanted spray tans. How presumptious! Their ability to spend in the absence of work is funded by subletting of council accomodation, they compound the situation by stating that the father left them and they are now alone. Untrue!

You say The council quite rightly don't give a flying fuck who wants to work and who doesn't as working status has no baring on housing other than income.

Other than income! Do tell me about the income derived from non-working status for the fit, healthy person of non-retirement age who is not nursing or studying or actively seeking work nor inheriting money or a pools/lottery winner.

The waiting lists are overflowing. Something has to give. Why would someone capable of work not want to while using a scarce resource paid for others working hard and paying taxes?

Have to go now, must be up early to work and pay my honest taxes to help those who are in genuine need!

AmberLeaf Wed 27-Mar-13 00:08:06

They are proud of the subletting business, brazen. Unbelievable. There is no respect for people who work. They are mocking of those who work

Im picturing this woman grin

Watch out for the cherries.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 27-Mar-13 00:38:21

So you just added the nails and Disney stuff in purely to defend it did you?

Don't talk rubbish it is not relevant at all to subletting so not relevant at all to the situation you blatantly obviously put that info out there to further compound your "ohhhh how scummy and feckless and frivolous are they" view point.

That is very clear.
Oh and they didnt ever give a declaration stating the father had left them as no benefit declaration requires them to,all they have done is stated they are no longer living togather as if they are husband and wife. Its quite clear from the info you have given that they are quite correct in claiming this so purely on that bit they have done nothing wrong therefore how can doing something that is not wrong make doing something else that is wrong worse?

Do you really not understand the difference between a desire to work and a income declaration?

To make it very simple

Desire to work means wanting to work a lack of desire to work means not wanting to work.

An income declaration is when you tell people who need to know what income you have.

Working or not working has no impact on housing waiting lists the two things are not connected unless we are talking about people who can afford to rent or buy not doing so just so they can be on the homeless list because keeping yourself homeless when you are able to fix it is pure stupidity.but again that's nothing to do with subletting.

Subletting without consent is a crime so report it that way you will have done your bit to reducing the waiting list, well it probably won't because all they really have to do is boot out the subletee and move back in. But its still a crime and reporting will force them to use the house unless they have a legit reason for being absent,if that's the case it will force them to leave it empty until they return.

Next time you wish to benefit bash by stealth don't try and kid yourself that you are not doing so because it just makes you look abit daft.

MrsKeithRichards Wed 27-Mar-13 06:54:42

And therein lies the rub. News flash. Social housing I'd not just for the non workers out there.

And neither should it be. Round my way people paying full rent are spending more on that a month than I am on my mortgage but they choose not to buy for a number of reasons. There is no pride in being saddled with a mortgage for the rest of your days. I got one, I was 21 and it took half an hour on the phone and the price of sending off some documents. Nothing there to be overly proud off is there? I pay my money every month in the same way my neighbours do, just mine goes to the bank and there's goes to the council. One neighbour I can think off both work full time. They'll pay full rent and have done all their live. I've been next door to them for 7 years now, not once have I seen the council out at them for repairs etc. So, they're both paying tax, council tax and rent yet requiring nothing in return.

When they die their house will go to someone else that needs it. Mine will go back onto an impossible and over inflated market ready to trap someone else for the rest of their lives! There is an obsession with owning your own home. I don't get it.

MrsKeithRichards Wed 27-Mar-13 06:56:58

Ad thankfully there is no such thing as honest or dishonest taxes. Taxes are a sum of money taken from what you earn, spend, save or leaves behind. They don't have human personality traits.

And, agAin thankfully, who is and is not in need is not your decision to make!

Xenia Wed 27-Mar-13 09:30:33

The subletting must be stopped. I wonder what incentives are available for those who report and stop these things? If you got double benefit for a week if your report directly led to someone being stopped cheating if that would help or if you could move into the sublet property you report.

lainiekazan Wed 27-Mar-13 09:59:12

I'm not sure much happens if you report people. I know someone who was shopped for housing benefit fraud (of which they were guilty). All that happened was that they were called in for an interview and then no further action was taken. Person was claiming to be a single mother. Her partner's mother owned the house. And he owned his mother's house! I think the council was too confused to do anything about it.

theodorakisses Wed 27-Mar-13 10:12:29

I know someone who has a flat in East London but took her kids out of school and moved abroad 4 years ago. She lets her flat for £1200 a month and still draws some benefits and thinks it is hilarious that nobody has yet noticed her children don't go to school but they still pay. (relation so no choice but to know her)

Snowme Wed 27-Mar-13 10:41:24

I haven't read the whole thread, too much mickey taking going on, but I once lived in a commuter village with a tiny council estate, and half a dozen of the houses were sublet by gypsies, because I rented from them and they were open about it. They continued to live on their traveller site at the other end of the village and sublet their council houses. So it does happen.

CecilyP Wed 27-Mar-13 11:00:25

The subletting must be stopped. I wonder what incentives are available for those who report and stop these things?

Just the sheer satisfaction of knowing you have done your civic duty, Xenia.

If you got double benefit for a week if your report directly led to someone being stopped cheating if that would help or if you could move into the sublet property you report

Strange suggestion and hardly relevant to OP as she is working and it would be way beneath her dignity to live in council accommodation.

CecilyP Wed 27-Mar-13 11:03:19

I know someone who has a flat in East London but took her kids out of school and moved abroad 4 years ago. She lets her flat for £1200 a month and still draws some benefits and thinks it is hilarious that nobody has yet noticed her children don't go to school but they still pay. (relation so no choice but to know her)

There is no rule that you can't report your relations though. This is an extreme case and I certainly would report this person if I knew them.

CecilyP Wed 27-Mar-13 11:08:05

I haven't read the whole thread, too much mickey taking going on, but I once lived in a commuter village with a tiny council estate, and half a dozen of the houses were sublet by gypsies, because I rented from them and they were open about it. They continued to live on their traveller site at the other end of the village and sublet their council houses. So it does happen.

Are you sure these houses were still owned by the council? Houses on tiny council estates in rural areas tended to be the first to be snapped up under the right to buy legislation, such there would be no council owned houses left.

Snowme Wed 27-Mar-13 11:26:50

Yes Cecily, they'd never been sold, the landlord was happy enough to state they were all sublet.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now