Anyone else read The Sunday Times article about mum of 4 paid £90,000 per year housing benefit....

[findtheriver]

Yes, that's right, 90k of tax payers money in rent on a 5 bed house in Kensington. I was reading Sunday Times online - maybe someone else is clever enough to do the link?

Have to say it seems a fecking joke to me... can some explain how it's good use of taxpayers money to fund this?? A house which would be waaaaaaaaay beyond the reach of those very same taxpayers who have no choice but to fund it?

And apparently the tenant is whinging about possible harrassment from the media ... well tough shit, thank god it's out in the open and we can see what a scam the system is!

The problem is that councils have to house tenents in the borough, and Kensington is pretty pricey, so I can well see how it might cost that much. I don't see how hassling the tenent achieves much, they don't choose the property they are housed in, it's not like they're flicking through CountryLife magazine picking out mansions are they?

yes its not the tenants fault , its clearly fuckwits in the housing policy department - that is where you should direct your eggs and rotten fruit

I agree that in one sense the tenant is caught in the crossfire, HeadFairy. But I still think it's inevitable that if you are housed in a 5 bed luxury townhouse costing the taxpayer 90k per year, while the country is in the throes of recession and many of those very same taxpayers are as we write actually losing their jobs and possibly their homes.... quite frankly I don't think you'd get a lot of sympathy.

It's an appalling waste of other peoples earnings.

I guess on a house costing 2 million, that's the going rate for rent.

Our council has a limit on Housing Benefit that takes into account size you need plus rents reasonable for the area.
So if you're living in a house that costs £1000 a month to rent and you apply for HB, they only allow £750 for a 4 bed family house so they make you find the difference.
What landlord gets to charge 90K and couldn't they find somewhere cheaper?

you have no idea what it's like on the inside. I had this argument with dh this morning when he saw the article. It's a 5 bed house in Kensington, to be honest it could have mould growing all over the walls and a big hole in the roof and it would still be worth well over a million. Just because it's got 5 beds does not make it a luxury pad.

Speaking as someone renting a family house which costs well over 1000k a month to rent, and having to find the entire amount out of our earnings (after tax or course!) ... I was speechless when I read the article!!

I hear what you are saying, it's a fucking lot of money but what is the solution? I mean ideally they'd build enough social housing, but that's not going to happen, is it?

So are you feeling that we a) do not allow people who need hb to live in certain areas? Give them a maximum hb limit and tell them they have to find a property for that amount or less?

b) force landlords to accept less rent for their properties?

this is the cheapest 5 bed house I could find in Kensington and it's currently configured as flats, so you'd have to factor in conversion costs.

Deffo build more social housing. Which is on the agenda, but I agree, too little too late.
Possibly there needs to be restrictions on specific areas that are going to cost a huge amount to live in... I mean, no one is entitled to live in a specific borough, many of us have moved all over the country anyway in search of work. I'm not suggesting the solutions are simple - just that there must be a better way than this!

The bottom line is - there are thousands of hardworking taxpayers, many of whom have four children themselves and for whom a 5 bed house would be a luxury beyond their dreams, and I can't see how it's right that many of these people are currently struggling like mad to keep a roof over their head, while at the same time funding other people to live in far superior houses.

Madness

I think it is ridiculous for them to be housed in this property. They should squeeze into a three bed house. The children can share a room as others have to.

I do agree, but I don't think that's a reason to make others suffer. I think as well as tackling the shortage of social housing, if this government really wants to do something to improve conditions for "hard working families" (a phrase they're so fond of) then they should tackle the low wage culture and the huge gap between rich and poor. The fact that some people can work a 50 hour week risking their lives (emergency services come to mind) day in day out for less than £25k a year should be something that brings shame to anyone in government. I'd start there and work upwards.

There may not be any three-bedroomed houses available to them. Many landlords will not accept tenants who are on HB anyway.
There may also be good reasons for the family needing to live in the borough (such as a particular school for a DC with SN, a family member in some longterm care institution nearby etc).

I agree there Headfairy. It disgusts me that people working in essential jobs, often putting their own lives at risk, can earn so little, yet others in pointless jobs can make huge bucks with arguably fewer skills and less talent.

However - I don;t think this is about other people suffering. As happywomble says - why can't the family squeeze into a 3 bed house like many other families with 4 kids would do? What's the problem? And why is it a god-given right to be housed in a particular borough? I could never have afforded to own or rent a house in the area I was raised (not far from Kensington ironically!) so I moved 200 miles when I started work. Oh and even then I couldnt afford to live near to my place of work - so I rented in a cheaper area and did a long commute.

I don't think anyone is denying that various actions are needed - and supplying more social housing is definitely one of them. But it simply cannot be right to take this sort of money from the taxpayer to house a family.

the article is here

I can't help wondering how many families could be housed elsewhere for that amount of money!

That article looks like mean-spirited shitstirring to me. There is next to no information given about the family and their needs and circumstances - though at least there isn't the usual muttering about 'asylum seekers' in it. We don't know why this particular family is housed in this particular building, but there would have to have been some valid reasons for the council not to have told them to sod off and find somewhere cheaper.

But again it boils down to the ruling that councils have to house people in the borough. It's quite possible there weren't any 3 bed houses available, and perhaps they were an emergency and had to be housed, there are four children to think about. Kensington doesn't really have a large population who are likely to need social housing seeing as most people there are loaded, so I can see how the council may not have the largest range of properties available, hence they had to rent something and pay huge rents to unscrupulous landlords.

There are hundreds of empty properties all over london that just need renovating and they would be perfectly reasonable - all those empty houses owned by British Rail (as was)for example. There are many more owned by private landlords that are just standing empty. Surely doing something about those would be a start.

And don't suggest even for a minute that local councils don't have the money.

Barnet, for example, had literally millions of pounds in Icelandic bank accounts - council tax payers' money. It's not doing us much good now is it?

Ooh I used to live on Ladbroke Grove Headfairy that bought back memories

I agree the anger should be directed at the goverment or local authority not this woman. I certainly would not want to see her hounded for this

They may have had billions in Icelandic bank accounts but they don't any more do they? Also, I think those deposits were for salaries and pensions so can't be used for housing.

You have no idea if this family needed to be housed urgently and therefore didn't have the time to wait for a house to be bought and brought up to a habitable condition for them. Plus, the council can't just buy properties owned by private individuals to turn them in to social housing.

If you want someone to blame, blame 18 years of Tory policy which saw vast quantities of social housing sold off and not replaced.

As far as I know the money in Icelandic banks is for wages and pensions. I only know this as there were rumours that various public sector workers were not going to be paid as there money was in those accounts

x post twinset

This is a table of LHA rates for Kensington and Chelsea

Clear that the rent on the property must be pretty average for a 5 bed house in the area, as LHA rates are based on average rental values.

TBH the real problem here is lack of social housing and the crazy property market, surely? Someone owns that house and is actually getting the £90k a year in their pocket. The family renting it are getting a roof over their head, not cold hard cash. Hardly seems fair to blame them for the price of property in central London