Council home sub-lets may be made criminal offence

#1
This is interesting I wonder how bigh a problem this is? I know my aunt who worked in the east end of London mentioned in the late 90's it was a massive issue espically those from a warmer climate who had more than 1 wife would have council properites in each of their names.

Would a simple solution be a photograph/ID card of the registered tennent on the rent book which could be checked in via the council/HA when workmen etc arrive do? mind you nothing stopping the "landlord" appearing during the visits etc.




Plans to make it a criminal offence for council tenants to sub-let their homes are to be unveiled by the government.

A consultation will also detail plans to force thousands of tenants earning £100,000 or more to pay market rates.
An estimated 160,000 tenants sub-let their homes, which is not currently an offence.
Ministers call it a "scandal", and the BBC's Robin Brant says they have "long talked of tougher rules". Labour had previously published similar plans.
Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: "For too long this country has turned a blind eye on the multi-billion pound problem of housing tenancy fraud and abuse.
"This year the coalition is determined to end that scandal. Why should someone on a six-figure income enjoy a fantastically subsidised council rent, whilst those in real need languish on the waiting list?
"And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

The coalition is due to launch new consultations ahead of legislation, with any savings pledged to go towards building new social housing.
BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said there was huge demand for council homes, with about 1.8 million families on waiting lists.
In England and Wales, about eight million people currently live in four million council or housing association homes.
The government wants to give local authorities powers to force wealthy tenants, who earn over £100,000, to pay rents nearer to market rates. If they refused, they would face eviction.
"The number involved is believed to be relatively small - just 6,000 - but they are symbolic of what ministers believe is a key failing in social housing," said our correspondent.
A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: "Ministers have been clear of their commitment to tackle tenancy fraud, which costs this country billions of pounds and means people who could otherwise be housed are losing out.
"That's why in addition to a national crackdown, which has been backed with £19m government cash, we will shortly publish proposals for consultation to criminalise tenancy fraud."

BBC News - Council home sub-lets may be made criminal offence
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
Good!
 
#3
Frankly it's worrying about the monthly returns during the fall of Berlin it's not going to make any real difference.
Bizarre class warfare from the torys become wealthy lose council house.
Council rents are not subsidised that's what's known as a lie.
If you can find where the money comes for council rent subsidys I'd be really interested to see the proof.
 
#4
Many Council properties in London are rented by the children of the occupants or close family of people who are working abroad but intend to come back at some time. If there's no work where you are then you have to go where the work is. Why should you lose your s and your children's home because you have had to go and find work?
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#5
Many Council properties in London are rented by the children of the occupants or close family of people who are working abroad but intend to come back at some time. If there's no work where you are then you have to go where the work is. Why should you lose your s and your children's home because you have had to go and find work?
Council properties, irrespective of what part of the country they're located, are supposed to be rented by an occupier who has a need to house themselves or their family in that area. It is normally taken for granted, or declared on the paperwork, that there is a link to the area e.g. employment, family links or family in the same area.

Clearly if the occupier buggers off to another country to work they no longer have that need and the tax payer should not be contributing towards second homes!
 
#6
Good, however I can't believe this wasn't the case already, all housing associations have a clause saying they can't be sub let, even part ownerships.
 
#7
I think you can officially sublet for up to a year life happens.
So that makes sense but after a year you should know what's going on either come back or give up your tenancy.
 
#8
The problen is if legal to sub-let for a year you can bet your arse it wont be at the rate they are paying the council/HA and as I've said there a large numbers of people scamming the councils/HA's to get cheap properity which they then sub-let at a higher rate which is a joke.
 
#9
Council properties, irrespective of what part of the country they're located, are supposed to be rented by an occupier who has a need to house themselves or their family in that area. It is normally taken for granted, or declared on the paperwork, that there is a link to the area e.g. employment, family links or family in the same area.

Clearly if the occupier buggers off to another country to work they no longer have that need and the tax payer should not be contributing towards second homes!
So if the Dad has to work somewhere the4 kids just move schools and forget about exams? Then Dad's decide for the sake of Kid's schooling that they'll have a few years on the dole and benefits? I'm not talking about second homes I'm talking about homes for the kids who are brought up in an area and fully tied to it as well as somewhere for the Dad to come back to.
 
#10
Since this is an army forum: Suppose a single TA soldier is living in a council flat and is mobilised for a year. Does he leave the flat unoccupied, sub-let it or give it up and apply for another when he returns?
 
#11
Exactly life happens that was why clause was put in.
But after a year anything else is taking the piss should also be a one time rule no coming back for a month and then resubletting.
 
#13
Bloke has a council flat. He moves in with female with council house. In theory he should relinquish council flat.
In practice he carries on flat and benefit claim at flat while sub letting it to one of the new 'wifes' kids or family.

More common than many people realise.
 
#14
Bloke has a council flat. He moves in with female with council house. In theory he should relinquish council flat.
In practice he carries on flat and benefit claim at flat while sub letting it to one of the new 'wifes' kids or family.

More common than many people realise.
But that's already illegal Brighton Council sends someone round once a year to check tenancys not sure how much the admin would cost to check no ones earning £100000 plus a year? Probably more than would e saved.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#17
So if the Dad has to work somewhere the4 kids just move schools and forget about exams? Then Dad's decide for the sake of Kid's schooling that they'll have a few years on the dole and benefits? I'm not talking about second homes I'm talking about homes for the kids who are brought up in an area and fully tied to it as well as somewhere for the Dad to come back to.
A lot of the married element of the Armed Forces currently have to put up with sub-standard accommodation and move with the job, generally disturbing their families' education, spouses work etc, etc, etc. Do you think the civilian population should be considered for special treatment then?
 
#18
A lot of the married element of the Armed Forces currently have to put up with sub-standard accommodation and move with the job, generally disturbing their families' education, spouses work etc, etc, etc. Do you think the civilian population should be considered for special treatment then?
There has always been a degree of consideration given to those serving whose children are nearing exam age. That is why Warrant Officers often leave their battalion for a garrison post. In some cases the wife and family have been allowed to remain on the patch whilst the husband goes on posting and lives in for a while.

Council Housing was never provided as temporary accommodation it was always there to allow for the poorer paid to live near their work. It is only recently that local work has become harder to find and people have had to be more mobile. However the kids may not want to move, may have jobs in the area or be at a critical time in their school curricula. It's also possible that the new work found cannot be guaranteed for life. Not many people wish to be peripatetic and many wish to remain near to their families. Keeping the council house within the family has been one of the main ways that poorer Londoners have kept themselves where they grew up.

Partial subletting whereby a flat is shared or a room rented also make it easier for single people to stay in the area they were born and brought up in. It becomes a matter of necessity to make the rent.

It would hardly be practical to be constantly upsizing or downsizing properties to meet the needs of the occupants. There would also be tragedies whereby people are being moved to a smaller flat because they have lost a child or other relative. Council housing has always been about creating cohesion not about providing suited accommodation.
 
#19
Here is my take on it. If someone is earning 100,000 they certainly don't need to be in "social" housing. They should be handing their house back to the LA/HA and dig into their savings and getting a mortgage for a place of their own. I am sure, for example in London, that there are properties in the vicinity of where they are brought up that are for sale and they wouldn't have to leave that area. This would also free up a property for someone less well off.
 
#20
Just put a surcharge of 20% extra on the income tax of anyone living in social housing and earning over £50,000 a year, including joint income. They should not be in social housing if they have that sort of income. That should change the colour of the political map, also if you ain't a citizen of this counrty you should not qualify for council housing!.
 

Latest Threads

Top