Living next to asylum seeker HMO, ask me anything

Are you telling me that if DH and I pitched up in the UK tomorrow with three young children, claimed asylum and plonked ourselves down in front of a housing officer the ONLY thing we'd get is £50 per week per adult and that's if we were not put in a hotel?

So if we were put in a hotel or temp accommodation of some sort, (which we would have to be by law if we had children with us) we'd only get £10 per adult because presumably food and all other basic needs are catered for? Laundry done for us, three meals a day etc? What about clothes? Seasonally appropriate footwear and winter coats? Phones? Nappies and formula for babies? Pens and pencils and school bags and uniform for the children at school. Is that expected to come out of the £10 per week? It's not, is it?

And if we were not put in a hotel but some other form of independent private accommodation, then how would that rent be paid for? And the utilities? The council tax? I mean clearly you can't pay all that for a family on £10 a week per adult. What allowances are there for children? I simply don't believe there would not be any. What if you don't have a washing machine? You could spend that £20 every week in the launderette alone. You can't live like that with three children.

In the case of the family you mentioned, I'm going to hazard a guess that the restaurant owner was his not only his cash-in-hand employer but also his dodgy landlord and some vague family acquaintance / distant cousin from the home country all rolled into one and that the family arrived on a visitor visa with the full intention of working for him, living in his property as a 'cousin' or 'friend' while claiming asylum. It makes little sense otherwise. Perfect sense if it was part of a game plan all along, however.

No way could anyone be expected to house, keep and feed a family on 10 quid a week per adult unless they take up illegal cash in hand work. The government obviously knows this. So basically you are telling me that the government is/was complicit in allowing people to work illegally and live illegally while their claim is processed?

Or are you telling me that the government is complicit in allowing children to starve and sleep on the streets and not go to school while their claim is processed? Because in theory at least, it's just not possible given the amount of Asylum Seeker Support Allowance to keep a family fed and housed. So which is it?

Because something simply doesn't add up here. I'm thinking this £10 or £50 per adult is nothing more than pocket money and all other essential expenses are taken care of. But that is never mentioned. Lots of people don't much or any disposable income at the end of their week or month, after essentials are taken care of do they? And they are not asylum seekers.

As far as schooling and the NHS is concerned, what you are saying is not true. Even if it is the official position in certain circumstances, it's certainly not the day to day reality. Children living in the UK (whether they were born here or not) will not be refused a place in school simply because of their parents' irregular immigration status. When a parent applies for a school place for a child they may well be asked for proof of address but they are NOT asked for proof of immigration status. And even if they were known to be 'irregular' their child would STILL not be discriminated against in education.

Neither is anyone refused treatment on the NHS or made to prove that they have the right to use it, or the means to pay the cost of treatment back if they do not.

I know it's supposed to work like that, in theory, but in practice it simply doesn't.

In my GP surgery there is are several folders dotted around the waiting area with pages in them translated into several languages that basically say 'rest assured you can safely seek medical treatment and or ask for health advice here irrespective of your immigration status, no fees/charges, no questions asked and no ID necessary.'

Your first statement is not correct. The Home Office does not publish the immigration status of employees, but over 75% identify as white.

All HO employees must already have the right to work in the UK; the HO does not issue skilled employment visas or anything. Employees must also have an established connection with the UK.

No I don't, and I'm glad I dont like next to someone as judgemental as you either!

You can say they are not on benefits but their housing, bills, food and spending money is funded by the state - and they cost about 40k per person per year so you are gas lighting us saying “they are not entitled to benefits”. They’re supported by the public purse as you know.

I meant if you were going to campaign to stop HMO’s, how would you make sure that this didn’t affect every person whose only option is a HMO?

I agree about the money being made from the tax payer and posted up thread about Mears and their £46 million profit last year. If only LA’s could have afforded to build their own homes and facilities - £46 million reinvested in more public services would be a good start.

"Why do you think you are so correct and not spouting arrant nonsense yourself."
I am told by Google that "there was no significant British Army presence in Sudan in 1985, though political unrest and a coup overthrew President Gaafar Nimeiry."
So can you explain what the British Army was doing there?

You do realize that a lot of employers, particularly within hospitality have relied on workers that are not registered? A local (thriving) restaurant in my city put up a facebook post saying that they are facing closure because of the tighter employment rules. He cannot recruit reliable staff who are working legally as people would rather claim UC than do antisocial shift work for NMW and he will face hefty fines for paying people who are willing to work as they are below the table. Plenty of landlords too who are only too happy to be getting their rent cash in hand, with no tax man involved.

So they are living in the woods off thin air ?

Yes, as my earlier posts show, I work in the system. Loads of experience of the legalities as well as working with families.

No, in this case the claim was false. Refused asylum seekers do not go on to teceive any benefits, unless they eventually make a successful claim.

Yes exactly, only as a temporary patient, you can't stay for 10 years like that.

You can register with a GP. Anyone living in the UK can - a tourist, an illegal immigrant, anyone. But you can only access primary and emergency care.

Yes same here, most classes for asylum seekers are run by churches, community groups and other orgs such as U3A. There is actually very little provision for ASs now, contrary to what the Daily Mail says.

They will get their asylum seeker support allowance (approx £50 per week per adult if not in a hotel, in which case it's under £10 per week) until they are refused. Then they will get nothing. About 30 years ago there was a school mum in this situation, her husband worked about 80 hours a week cash in hand as a glass washer in a restaurant, paid cash to a landlord and lived extremely frugally. The dc were born here so there was some sort of rule that they couldn't kick the dc out and by default the parents either. I think after 6 years they got ILTR on that merit. It was a very difficult period of time, they were a lovely family too.
ETA: if you have been refused and stay on then you don't have a status so in theory no recourse to NHS or schools for children. They will treat you in an emergency situation but you will be billed for it. I don't think you can even register with a GP in this situation either.

Not at all. If a houseful of single men had moved in, you can be sure I'd be up there checking.

The point is there's a difference - none of my current and past neighbours were going to be pottering in my attic or wandering down the stairs (there isn't a hatch).

I didn't say that type of letter wouldn't exist, I said it seemed rather unlikely that the OP would conveniently find such a letter in her garden, to add to the significant amount of information that she has also been privy to in relation to her neighbours current and historic personal circumstances.

If their claim is not granted they exist in a kind of half acknowledged existence. They rely on the kindness of charities, except when they have an active appeal ( and are classified as asylum seekers)

Refused asylum seekers have No Recourse to Public Funds, no right to employment, no access to housing ( except through the kindness of others) no access to the banking system, etc. They can access only primary NHS care (ie register with a GP, receive vaccinations, etc).

There is some access to education, which is a human right. Families with young children may receive further assistance.

Where on earth did you get the idea that ‘most’ refused asylum seekers are eligible for UC?

Something of a disingenous response. You wouldn't have liked her peering through the loft hatch into your bedroom or bathroom! The reason it's an issue is because anyone who gets into one house can access all those where the loft space isn't adequately separated. And they cannot be seen from outside. It doesn't matter how harmless you perceive the neighbours to be. Plus a fire could rip through the whole terrace roof space much more easily if it's all open.

When I bought my first house nearly thirty years ago the wall in the loft between the house I buying and next door on one side had to built up before the mortgage company would lend me the money to buy it.

Well quite. People love to tangle others up in semantics and procedural timelines as a way of obfuscating and distracting from the argument, when they understand very well what overall point it is that those other people are making.

None of these things work the way you describe. Your evidence is 'because I say so'.

It feels you are deliberately conflating 'asylum seekers' with refugees whose claim has been accepted, allowing them access to UC.

Or it's straight up misinformation, hoping your posts get screenshot and posted on X to back up the bullshit from others.