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

[SubLetFun]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Report them. Simples.

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'

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.