Council's paying thousands per month in rent for substandard accommodation in London - is this fair to the tax payer and the fmaily?

[mids2019]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly21w7qewvo

Noticed this story in the news but what struck me as well as the ghastly toilet was the fact the council was paying 2,500 Linda in rent for the property. I love outside of London and a 1K mortgage seems on the high end of things in my local town. It seems bizarre that councils are paying such money to private landlords given their already squeezed finances but I guess there is no other option in London.

Could it be that is a fairer solution to offer accommodation outside the capital of rents are so high or should local councils try and minimise local emergency housing costs but be at the mercy of slum landlords?

Yes but it bought the working class vote.

I’m old enough to remember Right to Buy being launched.
I said to my then husband, there’ll be a hellish housing shortage, where will all future Council tenants live. We know who we have to thank for rtb.

Im sure if I kept my dog in the conditions that poor woman and her family live in I’d have the RSPCA on my step threatening prosecution. The LL is a disgrace. Never rent out a property you wouldn’t live in yourself. Doesn’t need to be posh, it does need to be clean, safe and 100% functioning.

I’m confused re
when they moved in and what condition it was in then
And how long the problem had been going on

Also why the kids hadn’t changed schools as I’m guessing the rents are too high where they used to live near the school as she’s been trying to get a rental since 2012

Also why she doesn’t work if her kids are in school. Her wages would help pay the rent

The tax payers rent bill is going to be huge when generation rent retire.

all going into the hands of large landlord companies, many overseas.

The article states that the disgusting emergency accommodation is in West London. Whether it is central London or not is not mentioned.

Enfield council is paying for the accommodation as the family were living there, and that’s where the children go to school.

Yeah, so they didn't live in Central London, they lived (and worked and went to school) in Enfield. It's hardly their fault or choice that the council stuck them in horrific emergency accomodation miles away, I think it's safe to say they'd rather have stayed in Enfield.

And if people don't like the fact that there are doughnut delivery drivers living in expensive parts of London, perhaps direct the ire at the lazy fuckers who order so many doughnuts for delivery that there are people whose entire job is delivering doughnuts. If the job is available why shouldn't someone take it, and why shouldn't they then be able to live nearby enough that they're not commuting 2 hours each way just to deliver fucking doughnuts for minimum wage.

Given the time he starts (3am), I think doughnut delivery driver is stocking Krispy Kreme or Crosstown outlets in London rather than delivering doughnuts to “lazy fuckers” in the wee small hours.

In any event, lots of jobs are with Ubereats or deliveroo etc, are the customers of those also “lazy fuckers”?

ETA: I have no skin in this game, I don’t live in London and I always collect my takeaways cos it’s quicker.

They have been in temp accommodation for 8 months which is a two hour drive from previous home and schools in enfield. They lost their previous rented home in Enfield because the landlord sold up.

Wife cannot work at present because she is driving the kids to Enfield and sometimes waiting for them there all day. I suppose she might be able to find the odd lunchtime shift in Enfield but don’t know. She may have worked before and had to give it up when they were moved 2h away.

They cannot move schools because they are in temp accommodation and if Enfield finds them somewhere in borough, they will be moved back there.

The BBC could have warned the landlord or letting agency that they were going to broadcast this nationally. I think the letting GameCube landlord would have reacted to make this obvious repair quickly.

I think family size is a real headache for councils as if you want to avoid siblings sleeping in the same room then you are talking about the council looking for 4/5 bedroom properties and surely this is restrictive?

I think social housing should improve but I do have sympathy for those that I know who I have eschewed good careers in London because of housing costs. There are plenty of teachers and nurses who face living in places remote from central London who would love the tax payer to aid in paying rent/mortgage for a reduced commute.

I think one contributory factor to the Grenfield disaster was the lack of high quality new build social housing but we have to ask how Kensington and Chelsea borough council can justify expensive new build that can be rented out by those on no or low incomes in a borough where similar housing in the private sector would be rented out for an astronomical amount?

I hate for people to live in substandard accommodation but we need to have a conversation about how we subsidise living in London and whether it is fair generally.it is a simple fact that in our town of you are a delivery driver you simply can't afford to live in a 500K 3 bedroom house.

That's all well and good relocating lower earners but who will empty the bins in the capital, provide care, work in shops, and restaurants or hospitals, teach our kids?

Lower earners won't be able to afford to travel in to provide these services.

I agree with the fact that if you move out of London, the accommodation is cheaper but overall living isn't if you need to communicate into London. It can easily cost over a grand per person per month to travel in by train from not very far away.

We need much more stringent sanctions for landlords who don’t maintain their properties, fail to fix damp, mould, dodgy electrics, etc. Much bigger fines are needed, and IMO in the case of persistent offenders, actual confiscation of the property.

I say this as a LL myself.

If you have a large family (or even a small one) can it be seen as a right to have the state subsidise your rent to a massive degree? Surely it's employers who are referring by paying a low wage but the tax payer finds their employees living costs?

I think cheaper travel into London may help.

The BBC could have warned the landlord or letting agency that they were going to broadcast this nationally. I think the letting GameCube landlord would have reacted to make this obvious repair quickly.

people shouldn’t have to have the bbc intervene to get a major repair made, though.

Right but the people who can afford £500k houses are pretty much reliant on the low paid cleaners/delivery drivers etc to maintain the lifestyle they want....

No they aren't. A 500k house in London is often a very modest small house. People living in them normally wouldn't be able to afford outside help.

I'm talking about deliveroo drivers, takeaway drivers, hairdressers, the people who clean the streets and the tube station, the people who empty the bins, the people who staff the corner shop... Yes, everyone in every area, even the most expensive areas (perhaps even especially the most expensive areas), relies on those people doing those jobs. Otherwise the most expensive areas would rapidly become sink areas where nobody wanted to live! Imagine if you couldn't get a takeaway delivered or a haircut in London, there were no corner shops, rubbish piled up everywhere...

Relying on low paid workers to maintain the lifestyle you want doesn't mean you need to be paying a cleaner to come into your home. But you rely on the services those workers provide to maintain the very basics, like not having rubbish piled up in the streets and being able to nip out and buy a pint of milk.

Anyway as someone else once pointed out on MN, when people live in cheap areas but struggle to find work (because there's less work available in many cheaper areas) they're told to move to where jobs are plentiful. But when they have the absolute cheek to do just that, they're told they should live somewhere cheaper so they're not reliant on state support to pay exorbitant rent. Which is it?

I live somewhere that people were moved to out of London, it’s now unaffordable for locals and our council are doing the same to another area. It’s just kicking the can down the road.

They do.

Then the landlord serves notice to quit and the council has to find a new property for the tenant.

There is a massive shortage of properties. The council has nowhere to put people.

We have council properties in desperate need of significant renovation but the works can't be done with the tenant in situ and there is nowhere to move the tenant to.

My bet would be that this "doughnut" business is controlled by a certain local group hence reluctance to move out of London. 2 adults can bring in 3500 a month just working normal hours win a minimum wage job pretty much anywhere and pay 1000 -1500 for a nice clean house. If they are so eager to stay in bio hazard flat for the sake of doughnut business I guess they get much more from it.

If the DH is a delivery driver for some
kind of criminal enterprise, as I think you may be implying, do you really think he would be going to the press about his housing?

Within London, Krispy Kreme, Crosstown and Doughtnut Time all have fixed outlets that will need to be stocked before opening at, say, 7am. Who do you think does this? Would it be… some delivery drivers?

Worse than the cost to Councils, which is literally bankrupting them BTW, is the suffering of individuals and the fact that some of this money is going to very rich people who you are certainly subsidising through you taxes to be currently enjoying their yacht and they won't even be sending you a Christmas card to thank you for your personal subsidy to fund their lifestyle.

With the exception of rent payments, as landlords are providing something for that money
How are we personally subsidising that lifestyle.

Completely the norm here in London. It's horrific. Obviously, rent caps are essential, as are proper crackdowns on rogue landlords making tenants ill and killing toddlers.

Teachers and nurses are just as eligible for housing benefit as anyone else. We used to have social housing for key workers such as they, in central London, in fact, so they didn't need housing benefit then.

Central London boroughs have historically been affordable housing, a mix of social housing and council housing, for over 150 years. It's new people moving in and the affordable housing being sold off that put prices up. Forcing people who have lived in a community for generations out, just because rich people like the area made attractive by those communities in the first place, is unacceptable.