To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

[jdoe8]

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

Sorry "were paying"

It seems that family got full housing benefit/LHA, tax credits etc. But I imagine they are a highly atypical example of an immigrant family in several respects.

'social housing' (inverted commas)

I don't see what you're hoping to achieve by muddling the whole issue up. If you mean they get their private rent paid, why not just say that?

The point is that this particular family are a financial drain and I'm fairly sure that this isn't that unusual. Also I doubt if it would be reciprocated if one of us turned up in their country. The money should be spent on people who have contributed to the treasury.

The family should have been returned to Romania and Hounslow council could have paid their coach fare, job done.

Well in fact the original discussion was whether immigrants are treated differently for social housing rules, then this chap's case was produced as evidence. A case that doesn't involve social housing at all, so the distinction was relevant.

Why he was helped to set the family up here instead of offered coach tickets is a very interesting question.

Presumably all councils need policies for unusual cases and chancers.

Statistics, Manumission.

When we ask how many rely on 'social housing,' of course families like this should be included.

Well that'll help the clarity of the debate

There are already perfectly good terms for the things you want to quantify.

Sorry, I just re-read that:

When we ask how many rely on social housing, of course families like this should be included. The statistics are misleading.

You can keep saying that, but social housing a specific sector with its own hotly-debated rules, its own waiting lists, its own controversies.

If you want to know how many non-citizens claim housing benefit or LHA, then look for that figure.

Are we really getting picky over the definition of social housing or housing being paid by the tax payer

The issue is the same the family are not contributing and haven't contributed anything to the economy

many many families are in temporary accommodation (work in Dv) and will get stuck there or stuck staying with families in cramped conditions because the rules have tightened they have a roof over their head there isn't enough properties to house them that is why they are where they are

Of course that family shouldn't have been left to stay on the street no one is suggesting that but becuase they have a right to be here we can't send them home so we are obliged to house them in some way and they won't have families to stay with

And there are many landlords that will not take HB but many who work with councils and get paid directly from the council - really how does that differ they sign contracts with councils to rent out their properties for long periods of time the council manange the properties

Is that so different from social housing only difference is the landlord is making the profit

This family engineered it though, they deliberately came here to do this and I know it's not pc but have taken some one else's right to a house etc

The movement of large numbers of retirees to the Med is not a good thing, any more than a large number of older UK residents moving to Cornwall. It skews the social requirements.

However there should be a major fall in this number now the pound has fallen as their pound will not buy more in the EU than it did in the UK. I also wonder will they stay there in their dotage - or return to be near rellies. I would suspect many might. Alzheimer's in a foreign country with no relatives near by sounds not too good.

The fall in the pound will also mean fewer EU residents coming here to save to take money back eg fruit pickers. It won't affect those that come with no money and job, in fact the proportion of them might increase as the working ones decrease. Unless there is a crackdown.

The reason I posted about the Romanian family who rocked up to Hounslow Housing and were given a private let house in Birmingham, is to show what a drain on the public purse this type of case is. It does not matter what the hell it is filed as - that's semantics - the point is whichever body's account this comes from it all comes from the pubic purse.

This family had NO MONEY at all. They were totally supported by the tax payer, all heating and other utilities and CTax paid for them, they received food vouchers for 4 persons, etc. That is charity.

Birmingham Council paid the landlord direct. Why was the home not given to a Brummie on the waiting list? If the family remains in the UK (as I believe they will not be evicted), and if their kids do well in their studies they are set for free uni education with no loan to ever be paid back.

ooops bloody jumping screen. Obviously not pubic, but public purse.

I can well see the problem if large numbers started to do what the Romanian man did Southall. As I said, he was a complete chancer. Very cynical.

Since last year, I have visited/passed through Victoria Coach Station six times. Every time, there was a big groups (100 or so) of Romanians with lots of trunks, etc. outside the station. I asked one of the drivers why, and he said it was so they could get accommodation. He claimed that they would stay there until the council houses them, as they were obliged to do.

This is just an anecdote, and I don't know if the driver was telling the truth, but I did feel very intimidated walking passed such a big group and wouldn't have done it alone if it had been dark.

See also all the parks in London. Big groups of Romanians living there. They know that's the place for generous handouts for begging!

Sorry, Central London. Not so sure Finsbury Park would be quite as lucrative, for example!

One of the issues here is that it is very difficult to get a true picture of what's happening - because all the players have an agenda.

A new Reading Urban Area (it's actually a bit more) each year seems excessive on the face of it, when some areas are very short of housing already.

Just one other small point - some previous posters had suggested this was a "rush to get in before Brexit" - these figures aren't that different from the year before, and they were taken before the referendum, so they don't include any effects of the result (either way) yet.

Apologies for a daily twat link, but the figures are from Whitehall:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464959/One-five-homeless-London-Romanians-figures-doubling-past-year.html

All the more reason to put stricter rules in place.

Try doing this in the USA, the passport control is very strict and where you will be staying etc.

The point is that this particular family are a financial drain and I'm fairly sure that this isn't that unusual. Also I doubt if it would be reciprocated if one of us turned up in their country. The money should be spent on people who have contributed to the treasury.

Why are you fairly certain this is typical?

I think we need to separate problems that are chiefly the result of FOM and problems that are chiefly the result of our own bad policies but are exacerbated by FOM, and housing is the chief example. Sure, FOM puts pressure on demand on housing (I am not convinced about benefits other than housing benefit though), but the essential problem seems to be that we have a non-contributory benefits system, and that a huge number of people aren't even expected to pay their own way. The first is a problem that can probably be dealt with, but is politically toxic. The second is just topsy turvy economics. Too many people receive housing and other benefits. That's not to say those people are bad, as many of them, but not all, are in work. The problem is that many people require benefits to stay afloat despite working full time. We simply can't afford this. We certainly can't afford it with FOM, but we can't afford it without it FOM either. We need to fix the underlying problem that people who work full time should normally be expected to pay their own way.