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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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? Oh, hang on - don't tell me - that is not goading - oh no, that is just is merely raising important issues that need discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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..

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??

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.

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.

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.

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).