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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

^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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

Meant to say danger.

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

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.