Thursday, Jun 24, 2010
Fast-forward to 7:45. Prepare to be shocked.
Channel 4 News (video): Wed 23 Jun - Pt 4: Budget - Housing
Patricia Radcliffe is a single mother of five who is struggling to make ends meet. The rent on her North London house is £690 a week. She's behind with her rent, even though most of it is paid by the state. The cap on housing benefit in yesterday's budget would, she says, have catastrophic consequences for her family. "They want to see me and my family on the street!". Confronted with such a prospect, the widescreen TV is a questionable extravagance, as is the wisdom of renting from a private landlord in Islington, one of London's most exclusive boroughs. "I would love to find somewhere cheaper, but not far too far because of my kids, like, going to school, and they have their friends around here."
Posted by drewster @ 12:35 AM (2332 views) Add Comment
40 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. gone-to-colombia said...
Crazy, she should move.
The country can no longer afford, and should never have afforded her.
I suspect the 25% the government wants to save might be a little unambitious.
2. titaniccaptain said...
HA HA HA HAHAH AH AH AHHA AH AHHA HA HA...........................
Sorry that has tickled me pink!!!!
So that's where our taxes go?
No wonder there are still BTLers in London.......Why the f**k should tax payers from all over the British Isles pay tax to subsidise the extortionate housing benefits in London.
The government should cap it at £150 per week.
3. Delboy said...
Who has 5 kids when they are all paid for on state benefits. Surley logic says no kids if you cannot afford them?
Completely agree with posts 1 and 2!
4. Yogi said...
Indeed. She came over from Jamaica had 5 kids lost the father and now lives in Islington courtesy of the taxpayer's largesse costing UK taxpayers over £35k year. And to think that if you or I get a little ill and see the doctor say once in 5 years and we get a prescription we have to then pay the bloody prescription charge of £7 or whatever it is, when she's getting the equivalent of probably 5000 prescriptions free per year plus all the other myriad benefits that probably double that. If you want free accommodation courtesy of the taxpayer you should get the most basic utilitarian accommodation that it is possible for mankind to contrive. That will stop people having ridiculously large families in the expecation that the dumb state will pay for them.
5. Hungrybutnothomeless said...
wow, lovely house that family live in.
its a lot better than the tip i live in.
and i wish i had a cheese sandwich as nice as hers too, im hungry and still a week to payday
6. The Capitalist said...
5 'kids' paid for by you and me!
7. hpwatcher said...
The rent on her North London house is £690 a week
It's disgusting that she is getting all that. She should move to essex and find a job there. Lazy.......
single mother of five
Absolutely says it all - having kids to her is like being promoted...one gets more money.
8. down wave said...
I and many of my friends get truly exacerbated when I see unmarried mothers, their children and their boyfriends outside the pubs in town, outside smoking, drinking, causing an improprietous mess and noise during the day time, when they should be at work, with no job and on housing and job seekers benefits. This goes on all year round here.
This setting a bad educative example for their babies and children.
Only New Labour thinks that working people should support them and their BTL landlords.
Presumably, their landlords are down on the Costa del Sol doing the same thing.
9. righttoleech said...
My favourite areas of London include Primrose Hill and Hampstead but a working life has left me with enough resorces for no more than a studio flat in those locations.........lucky benefit claimants have the right to live where they want.
10. pelethar said...
@ down wave:
exasperated, not exacerbated.
11. doomwatch said...
Despite what the BTL media glitteratti would have you believe, the majority
of Islington is a crime ridden dump.
Upper Street used to be a great place in the mid to late 90s, but now it's just full
of chain bars, and more estate agents, especially those robbers Poxtons.
12. ontheotherhand said...
I am very very angry. That is 30,000 per year she is getting whilst I am paying in. Her effective marginal rate of tax for working harder and earning more is probably 90% because £1 more earned would probably be 90p withdrawn in subsidy. So how do we arrange an incentive system to encourage her to work and get out of there? Either we say she pays no income tax on earnings up to 100,000 to give here the equivalent benenfit of a free 30,000, or we make living on benefits less luxurious than working to look after yourself by reducing the grandeur available on the state.
13. timmy t said...
So we work and pay tax to the government which pays out huge sums in benefits to idiots like this so they can live in massive houses, which are then bought by BTL'ers because of the guaranteed rent from the state, which pushes up BTL demand, which pushes up prices, so we who work and pay tax can't afford to buy... We seriously need a f***ing riot in this country
14. rumble said...
We need some sort of hippie commune for this sort. (NIMBY ;) Some basic shelter and land to produce their own food. They can look after themselves in their own little economy.
15. Landedgentry said...
recaptcha: masses out
16. Landedgentry said...
recaptcha: vacate him
I'm not making this up.
17. Landedgentry said...
[sarc on] No No No. We aren't doing enough for this woman! we should also pay to send her kids to a top London private school so that they don't fall into a gang. [sarc off].
18. matt_the_hat said...
Guys its not her fault, who in her position wouldn't do the same. Its every law abiding taxpayer in the land who votes for a party when they don't know what they are voting for. Constitutional change that's what is needed. We don't need leaders we need managers - we the peoeple should be the leaders and let politicians enact what we decide.
19. The Bull Trap said...
I wasn't going to comment until I saw...
ReCaptcha - "The Booed"
20. techieman said...
9. Timmy you have just described HB. Which is why it needs to be modified (at the very least). If its reduced then all this crap about LLs still demanding the rate is rubbish - they will have to reduce their charges both for HB recipients and for private renters.
Lets watch this one with interest.
21. mr g said...
@MTH " we the peoeple should be the leaders and let politicians enact what we decide."
Simple soul that I am (no abuse please), I thought that has been the guiding principal of British democracy for the centuries?
22. holding out said...
How could we have got into such a situation where it takes 16 average tax payers just to subsidise a single family. I seem to recall it cost a small fortune to maintain Abu Hamza in the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed. A lot of benefits are designed to pay directly to the supplier to prevent the claimants from spending it on fags. Welfare needs to be a safety net and no more - and more controversially no benefits for having kids.
23. letthemfall said...
While you're all effing and frothing away at this woman, wishing her ill, cursing her slothfulness/sluttishness/slobbishness/whatever you like ... consider why these people are in this situation. It seems most of the above think there is a type of person who is worthless and sponges off the rest, a feature of society that admits of no solution (except perhaps a Final one??), other than toss them from their homes and let them live in a tent (the US has already thought of that one). Brazil sticks them all in shanty towns and shoots the kids on the street.
On the other hand, might not this be an entrenched problem that stems from rising inequality, such that a section of society remains uneducated, dispirited, unhealthy, alcoholic, surviving only by taking the benefits on offer? How to address these fundamental problems? It takes money - an awful lot of it. But this money is not forthcoming: no one wants to provide it, least of all those with a lot of money.
HB puts up rents, no question (I've seen it happen), but for these people to suddenly have to up sticks and move to some dump must be a terrible experience. I saw that happen to someone once - shocking to see.
The real spongers are the superwealthy, who collect in rent from society an amount for greater than the value they create, and far greater than the benefits that these poor wretches get.
24. powerofnow said...
timmy t @ 13
techieman @ 20
this is the main structural change I see too. It's time we stopped paying for BTL landlords property portfolios.
[ramrods where]
25. little professor said...
26. monty032 said...
Letthemfall, I don't think anyone here is suggesting she be sent back home or even out of London. But she does need to be told that state spending is out of control, and the taxpayer can no longer afford £30,000 a year to keep her and her five children in a millionaire's house in Islington.
27. techieman said...
LTF - "The real spongers are the superwealthy, who collect in rent from society an amount for greater than the value they create, and far greater than the benefits that these poor wretches get." if you mean rent in the narrow sense then absolutely.
The question surely is what are the LLs to do? Will they evict the tennant - have no tennant or will they adjust their prices or will they come out. That depends on the demands AT THIS PRICE for these properties. If this was one tennant then that would be doable - but it sounds to me that there are loads of these folks. If that is right then who IS going to rent these places? Nope the LLs have had it good for too long. About to swing the other way!
28. M4nclad said...
This is ridiculous. No Wonder this country is in a mess. I'm renting (Yes, paying with my own money!), I'm on a nice estate, close to countryside, in the north-west and it's a 3 bed semi. It costs me £550 a month. The very best houses in our neighbourhood (4 or 5 bed exec homes with double garages in the best estates), rent out between £900-£1200 per month. (Half what we're paying for this woman to live in an exclusive part of London)
The point for me is if you can't find a house for less than £1800 per month then you're not looking in the right place or not looking hard enough.
This country can't afford to bankroll people like this lady just because she wants to stay in the same area so her kids can stay close to their friends. These are tough times. If she really wants to carry on living in that area, then get a flippin job and pay for it yourself.
Unbelievable!
29. letthemfall said...
techieman
I meant rent in the wider economic sense, but it applies to letting rents too of course. Removal of HB will (inevitably? - hardly dare say that these days) cause rents to fall, but in the meantime I think a lot of people will suffer displacement. I hope you're right about landlords.
30. rumble said...
monty032 said...Letthemfall, I don't think anyone here is suggesting she be sent back home or even out of London. But she does need to be told that state spending is out of control, and the taxpayer can no longer afford £30,000 a year to keep her and her five children in a millionaire's house in Islington.
I am suggesting that. Out of London. Find a cheap field in the middle of nowhere. Some walls, a roof, water, electricity, a vegetable patch and a wake up slap. Essentials, no luxuries. You want want luxuries, you work for them. Bleeding heart BS. Being poor doesn't have to mean "uneducated, dispirited, unhealthy, alcoholic, surviving only by taking the benefits on offer". Send her to an Amish community.
"of shocker"
31. peter said...
This kind of story sums up everything that is wrong with this pathetic state.
This woman thinks she's got a right to live in an expensive area and that taxpayers should be forced to pay her bills. And she thinks she's hard done by if the handouts are cut to £400 a week...Yes, A WEEK!! I wish I had that kind of money to spray around.
If we carry on like this, paying people to do nothing, we will end up as a third world country. What's the point in working if you can get money like this for nothing?
32. techieman said...
LTF "I hope you're right about landlords." I am always right - you should know that by now! [joking].
33. rumble said...
Not living in London does not mean one is suffering. A more rural lifestyle would probably be quite a bit better than Islington. Along the lines of "the future is already here it's just unevenly distributed", money buys whizz-bang, removing the money removes the whizz-bang, essentials can remain. She must live in the past, as she can afford to, given only the essentials. She doesn't have to be used for experimentation, her children don't have to be chimney sweeps, but to expect disproportionate extras without effort is simply not logical, clearly ridiculous. Welfare is culture sensitive, Danes prefer not to accept it, Greeks love to accept it, we see what happens to a welfare state with a welfare loving culture. Do you give your dog a treat when it pees in the lounge? A sweet for your toddlers when they hit each other? This women is being rewarded, relative to her (lack of) input, ie receiving more than deserved, reasonable, or necessary, beyond the essentials. She might be entitled to make zero effort, but then she must expect zero extras. Moral hazard. Tragedy of the commons. The Amish do it, the hippies do it, what makes her special? People confusing values with value and the fact that she gets away with it. Personal liability, Fred the shred should be her neighbour in the opt-out/bailed-out economic zone.
"markdown there"
34. letthemfall said...
Ere ramble, d'ya watch the footer the ovver nite. Bleedin useles them engerland wallahs. Wot they shud do is stop poncin abaht lik them forin poofs wiv there fancy stuf and boot the ball in the box an ead it in innit.
techieman
You'll have to give some investment tips then!
35. techieman said...
LTF... i thought i have occasionally!?!? You have just glossed over em!
36. rumble said...
LTF, didn't watch it, don't support England. Great argument as usual.
37. letthemfall said...
wot bumble, don't watch football? Must be some kind of weirdo. (Col Blimp probably watched cricket though)
38. inbreda said...
football is boring. Tennis is boring. The fact that all the channels are showing football and tennis is really annoying me.
recaptcha: Roast Peace??
39. James said...
She's is already working as a care-assistant and already does overtime to earn more money. It's disgusting that the rents are so high and that she's paid the minimum wage that she needs benefits at such a high level. I expect the local schools are good as well so her children going to the local school will help them better in later years. We absolutely should be paying her housing benefit for the house she's currently living it, but we should also have rent control so that the benefits don't need to be as high and the landlords aren't leaching money off the state and hard workers.
40. titaniccaptain said...
@ Inbreda
"football is boring. Tennis is boring."...........I totally agree....as I have said before....the only competitive sport I partake in is breathing.