Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

50,000 Council Houses Illegally Sublet

Recommended Posts

Cheats

Up to 50,000 council houses were fraudulently sublet in one of a number of scams against local authorities which are costing the taxpayer millions, it was revealed today.

Councils were fleeced of £135 million through nearly 120,000 frauds last year, spending watchdogs said.

Scams involving the 25 per cent single person council tax discount cost authorities £90 million alone after a 'sharp increase' in claims, the soon-to-be abolished Audit Commission said.

Illegal: Fraudulent subletting of council houses costs the taxpayer millions because homeless families are housed in expensive temporary accommodation (file picutre)

There were also more than 4,000 fraudulent uses of disabled 'Blue Badge' parking permits, according to the survey of English councils.

The commission defended its work and warned that significant council staff cuts could weaken local authority controls.

Next year's 'valuable' fraud survey would be the last, it added.

Other scams identified saw people claiming student council tax discounts using fake colleges and addresses, some of which turned out to be high street shops and restaurants.

Some 50,000 properties worth £2 billion had also been illegally sublet or occupied, while Birmingham City Council uncovered £5.8 million of benefit overpayments.

The report - called Protecting the Public Purse - revealed that false benefit claims were the most common fraud against local authorities.

'Clamp down': Bob Neill, the Conservative Local Government Minister called for local authorities to tackle fraud

There were 63,000 housing and council tax benefit cases, amounting to a loss of £99 million.

But tenancy fraud - where people live in council houses to which they are not entitled or illegally sub-let them - could end up doing the most damage, the report warned.

Up to £1 billion-a-year is spent by councils finding temporary accommodation for homeless families, some of which could be saved if more council houses were available.

The survey concluded: 'With the recently announced abolition of the Audit Commission, our detected fraud survey for local government and the publication of the results will cease.

'The survey provides valuable information about the performance of local government in tackling fraud.

'It also helps to identify emerging fraud risks and provides an early warning system for counter-fraud staff.'

The North West was the region with the highest proportion of fraud, with 19.6 per cent of the total. London was next in line, with 18.8 per cent.

The South West and North East contributed the lowest, with 6.5 per cent each.

Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced in August that the commission was being disbanded, saying it had 'lost its way'.

Local Government Minister Bob Neill said: 'It is more important than ever that councils are getting value for taxpayers' money and rooting out waste.

'Every year fraudsters are fleecing councils out of millions of pounds that should be being spent on protecting frontline services.

'Local authorities need to continue working to clamp down on the fraudsters stealing from the public purse, improve detection, increase protections and recover losses.

'Alongside other measures the simple act of increasing transparency by putting all spending over £500 online will bring in an extra level of checks and balances and help to identify and eliminate fraud.'

Sorry if already posted.

These 'cheats' are only doing what the Labour government did for their tenure.

But really, this kind of misuse of the social welfare system should come with criminal charges and severe reprimand.

This is just another example of the scum who has the 'right' to get into the social system and absorb my taxes.

Abolish social housing altogether, then we can start the healing process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheats

Abolish social housing altogether, then we can start the healing process.

The more you think about this abomination, the worse it gets.

Council housing is just an invitation for scamming and fraud. From what I can see in my area, this is all too true. Council housing going to non-UK nationals, others subletting part of all of their accommodation. It has become acceptable amongst the much of the population that this is a legitimate way of making money.

Of course if you rent at the market rate, there is no latitude for being able to run a scam like this. At ther market rate, there is no need for the council to provide.

With HB, there is no need for council housing at all, perhaps with the exception of those without the mental faculties to take care of themselves. It should be ended.

And the difficulties caused by HB can be done away with by introducing a citizens income for all UK nationals over 18.

Let the market take care of housing, let the private sector supply homes, it will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have an amnesty for people renting a council place that they suspect is being illegally sublet. Cut out the fraudulent middleman and the current renters pay the council directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution. If sub letting is discovered the council gives the illegal tenant the option of continuing to rent from the council at market rent. The scamming 'official tenant' is blacklisted from ever renting council property again. Neighbours who 'grass' the scammers receive 1 months market rent as a reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you think about this abomination, the worse it gets.

Council housing is just an invitation for scamming and fraud. From what I can see in my area, this is all too true. Council housing going to non-UK nationals, others subletting part of all of their accommodation. It has become acceptable amongst the much of the population that this is a legitimate way of making money.

Of course if you rent at the market rate, there is no latitude for being able to run a scam like this. At ther market rate, there is no need for the council to provide.

With HB, there is no need for council housing at all, perhaps with the exception of those without the mental faculties to take care of themselves. It should be ended.

And the difficulties caused by HB can be done away with by introducing a citizens income for all UK nationals over 18.

Let the market take care of housing, let the private sector supply homes, it will work.

I'm aware of your views on social/council housing and that you regard it as subsidised. Here's a posit for you.

Say I bought a house 50 odd years ago, it's all paid for and all that, and then I decide to rent it out and I'm quite happy to charge in rent what it costs me to maintain it and administer the management of it all, and that figure works out to be about 30% to 40% what I could get in rent if I wanted to make a profit........ am I subsidising the current tenant? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes, then isn't that just my own bloody business what I do with my own house??

Genuine question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution. If sub letting is discovered the council gives the illegal tenant the option of continuing to rent from the council at market rent. The scamming 'official tenant' is blacklisted from ever renting council property again. Neighbours who 'grass' the scammers receive 1 months market rent as a reward.

I like the sound of that very much, apart from the 'market rent' bit. (explained a bit in my post above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably if these figures are correct, the council homes that are sublet illegally are done so to private tenants (non HB)?

If not, it surely wouldn’t be hard for the councils to check property records and discover which properties were being subsidized twice (ie original tenant HB records and the subtenants HB records)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably if these figures are correct, the council homes that are sublet illegally are done so to private tenants (non HB)?

If not, it surely wouldn't be hard for the councils to check property records and discover which properties were being subsidized twice (ie original tenant HB records and the subtenants HB records)?

I'm pretty sure they're being sublet to private tenants. I like the idea of an amnesty for current sub-renters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they're being sublet to private tenants. I like the idea of an amnesty for current sub-renters.

Given the current farcical system I think it possible to claim HB twice on the same property.

Number 20 X Road becomes 20A and 20 B. the rent = Local LHA rate.

You could probably privately rent a 3 bed for and sublet each room to yourself and family members.

And place postboxes on roads numbered 13, 666 where they have been omitted, to claim for non existent houses.

If you were working in a recruitment agency, you could collect NI numbers of economic migrants and claim benefits (JSA, housing etc) in their name for yourself when they return home laugh.gif

Edited by Unemployed Youth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution. If sub letting is discovered the council gives the illegal tenant the option of continuing to rent from the council at market rent. The scamming 'official tenant' is blacklisted from ever renting council property again. Neighbours who 'grass' the scammers receive 1 months market rent as a reward.

yep, good idea, lets stifle and punish more of the entrepreneurialism that puts the Great into Great Britain

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of your views on social/council housing and that you regard it as subsidised. Here's a posit for you.

Say I bought a house 50 odd years ago, it's all paid for and all that, and then I decide to rent it out and I'm quite happy to charge in rent what it costs me to maintain it and administer the management of it all, and that figure works out to be about 30% to 40% what I could get in rent if I wanted to make a profit........ am I subsidising the current tenant? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes, then isn't that just my own bloody business what I do with my own house??

Genuine question.

No, a subsidy is where a government offers something at below the market price, with the difference being made up out of taxpayers money.

The issue here is one of choice. If you want to charge at a rate that you believe is less than you could if you were profit maximising, that is up to you, it is your choice. You are choosing to reduce the amount of money you make from the transaction, the consequence of your actions are your own. No one has a problem with that.

However, when the government does it, there is a real problem. I dont know of anyone happy to pay tax. By definition, tax is something you dont want to pay, or else it would be voluntary. To pay for something subsidised, you have to reduce the choice of taxpayers. Money gives you choice, if you take it away from someone, you reduce their choice, and their freedom.

Part of the money and choice you take away from taxpayers, you give to someone else, in the form of a property subsidy, so there is a transfer of choice from one group to another. Some of that 'value' is lost in administration.

Now you might be better off nonetheless. Take money from a rich person, who has diminishing marginal returns from their wealth, even if you lose a bit through admin, and then give that money to a poor person whose utility from the amount they receive is greater than that lost by the rich person, you are making an overall gain for society.

The trouble is, we are taking lots of money off of working poor, and giving it to scammers, who are not encouraged to work and declare what they are doing. People seeing their gains are encouraged to copy their acts, and soon everyone is doing it. We appear to be in a situation where the total effect of this transfer of wealth is encouraging people to scam and game and not to be productive, reducing our national output and the resulting utility our nation gains through choice.

The only proper response to this is to end the government subsidies that has caused this situation to run out of control.

Private individuals are free to do as they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a subsidy is where a government offers something at below the market price, with the difference being made up out of taxpayers money.

The issue here is one of choice. If you want to charge at a rate that you believe is less than you could if you were profit maximising, that is up to you, it is your choice. You are choosing to reduce the amount of money you make from the transaction, the consequence of your actions are your own. No one has a problem with that.

However, when the government does it, there is a real problem. I dont know of anyone happy to pay tax. By definition, tax is something you dont want to pay, or else it would be voluntary. To pay for something subsidised, you have to reduce the choice of taxpayers. Money gives you choice, if you take it away from someone, you reduce their choice, and their freedom.

Part of the money and choice you take away from taxpayers, you give to someone else, in the form of a property subsidy, so there is a transfer of choice from one group to another. Some of that 'value' is lost in administration.

Now you might be better off nonetheless. Take money from a rich person, who has diminishing marginal returns from their wealth, even if you lose a bit through admin, and then give that money to a poor person whose utility from the amount they receive is greater than that lost by the rich person, you are making an overall gain for society.

The trouble is, we are taking lots of money off of working poor, and giving it to scammers, who are not encouraged to work and declare what they are doing. People seeing their gains are encouraged to copy their acts, and soon everyone is doing it. We appear to be in a situation where the total effect of this transfer of wealth is encouraging people to scam and game and not to be productive, reducing our national output and the resulting utility our nation gains through choice.

The only proper response to this is to end the government subsidies that has caused this situation to run out of control.

Private individuals are free to do as they please.

A lot of what you say here makes absolute sense, and for practically all of it, I'm in agreement. However, the point I'm trying to illustrate is that we need to make a distinction between social housing/council housing/Housing Associations that currently receive no government support and those that do. Because if you multiply my example above by several houses, that's my (the one I rent from) Housing Association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheats

Sorry if already posted.

These 'cheats' are only doing what the Labour government did for their tenure.

But really, this kind of misuse of the social welfare system should come with criminal charges and severe reprimand.

This is just another example of the scum who has the 'right' to get into the social system and absorb my taxes.

Abolish social housing altogether, then we can start the healing process.

So how many of these Mail sentences start with "UP TO" & "SOME?"?

It suggests these figures are plucked from what 'guess' statistics?

The OP and leicester sq are two of the vilest, shit stirring posters on HPC @ the moment

(and i've seen others comments about you two)!

From what i've read, a load of these subletting frauds are carried out by many recent immigrants who then get their cousin/friends to sign on for them whilst they live like kings and queens back in the Africa /Asia motherland.

I have heard of recent eastern europeans doing this too!

So why don't you start picking on globalist company frauds in the UK like vodaphone (alone) getting out of 6 Billion in taxes - these are the real vampires sucking the country dry (under our bent Govts) that rarely get mentioned in the elite controlled papers/media.

It's us vs them - whilst they create pathetic headlines to stir up population hatred against each other for miniscule sums in comparison!

Recently - just one Govt section threw away 25 BILLION pounds on a scrapped IT project - why are the ministers involved not dragged across the coals, pensions withdrawn and sacked?

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many of these Mail sentences start with "UP TO"?

It suggests these figures are plucked from what 'guess' statistics?

The OP and leicester sq are two of the vilest, shit stirring posters on HPC @ the moment

(and i've seen others comments about you two)!

Why don't you start picking on globalist company frauds in the UK like vodaphone (alone) getting out of 6 Billion in taxes - these are the real vampires sucking the country dry (under our bent Govts) that rarely get mentioned in the elite controlled papers/media.

It's us vs them - whilst they create pathetic headlines to stir up population hatred against each other for miniscule sums in comparison!

Recently - just one Govt section threw away 25 BILLION pounds on a scrapped IT project - why are the ministers involved not dragged across the coals, pensions withdrawn and sacked?

:o

Who are you, and what have you done with Erranta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say I bought a house 50 odd years ago, it's all paid for and all that, and then I decide to rent it out and I'm quite happy to charge in rent what it costs me to maintain it and administer the management of it all, and that figure works out to be about 30% to 40% what I could get in rent if I wanted to make a profit........ am I subsidising the current tenant? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes, then isn't that just my own bloody business what I do with my own house??

Genuine question.

Yes you are.

Yes it is your business.

When the council does it they are giving away my money, so then it's my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are.

Yes it is your business.

When the council does it they are giving away my money, so then it's my business.

There is no actual subsidy in any substantial sense. You imagine there is a subsidy because you are conditioned to expect to a subsidy in the opposite direction and see it's removal as a payment from you. It isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what you say here makes absolute sense, and for practically all of it, I'm in agreement. However, the point I'm trying to illustrate is that we need to make a distinction between social housing/council housing/Housing Associations that currently receive no government support and those that do. Because if you multiply my example above by several houses, that's my (the one I rent from) Housing Association.

BB,

I cant say I know too much about how Housing Associations finance themselves. I do read from time to time that the people in charge seem to be making an awful lot of money, far more than the duties of the job would merit.

If Housing Associations are not sponsored by the state in anyway, then I dont have a problem with them. If some benefactor wants to provide for those he or she deems worthy, that is their business, no one elses.

I am guessing though that there has to be some subsidy somewhere for the Housing Association. If not, why would it be better renting off of them than renting in the private sector? Nothing is for free, so I suspect there must be some subsidy in their setup. I had better do some research!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many of these Mail sentences start with "UP TO" & "SOME?"?

It suggests these figures are plucked from what 'guess' statistics?

The OP and leicester sq are two of the vilest, shit stirring posters on HPC @ the moment

(and i've seen others comments about you two)!

From what i've read, a load of these subletting frauds are carried out by many recent immigrants who then get their cousin/friends to sign on for them whilst they live like kings and queens back in the Africa /Asia motherland.

I have heard of recent eastern europeans doing this too!

So why don't you start picking on globalist company frauds in the UK like vodaphone (alone) getting out of 6 Billion in taxes - these are the real vampires sucking the country dry (under our bent Govts) that rarely get mentioned in the elite controlled papers/media.

It's us vs them - whilst they create pathetic headlines to stir up population hatred against each other for miniscule sums in comparison!

Recently - just one Govt section threw away 25 BILLION pounds on a scrapped IT project - why are the ministers involved not dragged across the coals, pensions withdrawn and sacked?

"The OP and leicester sq are two of the vilest, shit stirring posters on HPC @ the moment" - Is that because you disagree with our opinions? Arent we entitled to them?

"From what i've read, a load of these subletting frauds" - Well at least we agree that there is much crime going on. My opinion on this is that it should be sorted out by changing the system so that there is no opportunity for it to happen. Others favour a hefty punishment for wrongdoers. Others seem to think this sort of thing is ok. What is your position?

"So why don't you start picking on globalist company frauds in the UK like vodaphone (alone) getting out of 6 Billion in taxes " - Well I was dead against the banking bailout, I have called for frauds to be punished where there is wrong doing by individuals on behalf of an organisation. I havent repeated this call until now, because this thread appears to be about council house subletting fraud. As for Vodafone trying to get out of 6 billion of tax, I dont know if they have done anything wrong. Their duty is to represent their shareholders as far as the law permits. The revenue's job is to try and collect as much tax as they can get within the law. Some of this battle goes on in the media, and it will go on for as long as there is capitalism.

"It's us vs them - whilst they create pathetic headlines to stir up population hatred against each other for miniscule sums in comparison!" - The sums of money are probably far larger than many can estimate, only a portion of the frauds are uncovered. There is far more made from gaming the system that is never counted. The problem with all of this is principle. Let one fraud go, you legitimise it, and sooner or later everyone starts joining in with the game, until the whole system creates massive resentment from those paying for it, against the masses of those cashing in on it. The line should be drawn clearly, no fraud should be acceptable. Indeed, your post seems to be supporting these crimes, on the basis that someone somewhere got away with something bigger, possibly, and therefore we should turn a blind eye to the smaller ones?

"Recently - just one Govt section threw away 25 BILLION pounds on a scrapped IT project - why are the ministers involved not dragged across the coals, pensions withdrawn and sacked?" - There ya go again. Cos something bad happened somewhere else, which may or may not have involved people breaking the law, then it is ok for someone else to sublet their council house illegally.

May I ask, what other crimes are we free to commit because of say, the liar loans industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have an amnesty for people renting a council place that they suspect is being illegally sublet. Cut out the fraudulent middleman and the current renters pay the council directly.

Hmm.

Your logic...is flawed.

How about they see their day in court for: fraud, breach of contract, tax evasion, and the rest.

How about they receive a criminal record, are made to pay back everything stolen from the taxpayer, and also to pay a hefty fine.

If anything, they should at least feel the wrath of HMRC for tax evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no actual subsidy in any substantial sense. You imagine there is a subsidy because you are conditioned to expect to a subsidy in the opposite direction and see it's removal as a payment from you. It isn't.

If the council gives someone £200 worth of accomodation and charges £80, what do you call the £120 of value that has been given?

I call it a subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The OP and leicester sq are two of the vilest, shit stirring posters on HPC @ the moment" - Is that because you disagree with our opinions? Arent we entitled to them?

"From what i've read, a load of these subletting frauds" - Well at least we agree that there is much crime going on. My opinion on this is that it should be sorted out by changing the system so that there is no opportunity for it to happen. Others favour a hefty punishment for wrongdoers. Others seem to think this sort of thing is ok. What is your position?

"So why don't you start picking on globalist company frauds in the UK like vodaphone (alone) getting out of 6 Billion in taxes " - Well I was dead against the banking bailout, I have called for frauds to be punished where there is wrong doing by individuals on behalf of an organisation. I havent repeated this call until now, because this thread appears to be about council house subletting fraud. As for Vodafone trying to get out of 6 billion of tax, I dont know if they have done anything wrong. Their duty is to represent their shareholders as far as the law permits. The revenue's job is to try and collect as much tax as they can get within the law. Some of this battle goes on in the media, and it will go on for as long as there is capitalism.

"It's us vs them - whilst they create pathetic headlines to stir up population hatred against each other for miniscule sums in comparison!" - The sums of money are probably far larger than many can estimate, only a portion of the frauds are uncovered. There is far more made from gaming the system that is never counted. The problem with all of this is principle. Let one fraud go, you legitimise it, and sooner or later everyone starts joining in with the game, until the whole system creates massive resentment from those paying for it, against the masses of those cashing in on it. The line should be drawn clearly, no fraud should be acceptable. Indeed, your post seems to be supporting these crimes, on the basis that someone somewhere got away with something bigger, possibly, and therefore we should turn a blind eye to the smaller ones?

"Recently - just one Govt section threw away 25 BILLION pounds on a scrapped IT project - why are the ministers involved not dragged across the coals, pensions withdrawn and sacked?" - There ya go again. Cos something bad happened somewhere else, which may or may not have involved people breaking the law, then it is ok for someone else to sublet their council house illegally.

May I ask, what other crimes are we free to commit because of say, the liar loans industry?

"There ya go again. Cos something bad happened somewhere else, which may or may not have involved people breaking the law, then it is ok for someone else to sublet their council house illegally."

:lol:

That's your warped mind telling me how I'm thinking - nowhere have I agreed with this!

I just want the puny amount of the poor frauds put in context with the Govt contract frauds, PFi frauds, Big business and elitist/globalist company tax avoidance etc.

You tell me what 'GROUP' is more likely to be committing these sub-letting frauds - it stands out a MILE! :P

http://england.shelt..._social_housing

Overall, 18 per cent of all households in England live in social housing. Among them, however, households with certain characteristics are over-represented:

  • single parents: 44 per cent of lone parents live in social housing
  • older people: 21 per cent of people over 65 live in social housing, 24 per cent of people aged 75 or over live in social housing
  • ethnic minorities: 26 per cent of ethnic minority households live in social housing
  • economically inactive: 60 per cent of social housing tenants are economically inactive (31 per cent are retired and 29 per cent are otherwise economically inactive)
  • unemployed: 6 per cent of social housing tenants are unemployed

There are also large numbers of disabled people, and people on housing benefit living in social housing. Vulnerable groups are concentrated in the social housing sector, where there are low rates of employment and low income levels:

You two are campagning to have mainly retired, disabled/mentally subnormal and lone parents thrown out of their homes ( which ONLY make up 18% of total households in UK)

You vile shit-stirring, shameful, scumbags! :D

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the council gives someone £200 worth of accomodation and charges £80, what do you call the £120 of value that has been given?

I call it a subsidy.

Try another example:

The mafia, in co-operation with the government have forcefully created a cartel in the market in corned beef, so agents can charge £100 a tin, while production costs are only about £1 a tin. The government then supply corned beef to the poor (some people) for £1 a tin (about production cost)

How much is the subsidy here and who is being subsidised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.