Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
Shiraj Hacque owns property worth £5million, a chain of restaurants and a supermarket.
But the multi-millionaire was revealed to be living in taxpayer-subsided social housing with a rent of just £135 a week.
The attractive, three-storey house in Bethnal Green is meant for low-income families, yet he has at least eight other properties, including a £2million home in South Woodford.
This chap is taking the *iss ,there are 20,000 families in his area on the housing waiting list and yet this guy has slipped through the net and is abusing the system. These are the sort that should be tipped out of their council house rather than those that are struggling to meet the rent.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#2
Couldn't agree more Marek - it's insane and obscene.
Roger
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#3
Agree with both of you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#4
In fact this kind of situation was mentioned by the Conservative Government via George Osborne and they aim to put a stop to it, I think it cropped up in the Budget if Im remembering correctly. The problem does exist, people who have now grown wealthier but remain living where they are, essentially occupying homes that are basicly earmarked as social housing.
However I think its just a small percentage of occupiers who find themselves in a wealthier situation, as generally I would guess those in social housing tend to stay there.
A real problem could arise though with evictions. How do we judge who is wealthy, where do we draw the line. I would imagine this policy will probably be more aspirational than anything else, as it could also be seen as penalising people who do well. This Governments new broom swept wildly at first, but has had to regroup considerably and u-turn in a number of cases going back from whence it came.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
You are quite correct PaulB
The government has said that it is going to end the automatic right to a Council House for life. There were howls of outrage from Labour over this. It has to be done.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#6
The Catch 22 with such a policy is fairly obvious. If you introduce a hard line of reaching a certain level of income then being kicked out of your council house it will mean those who can afford it just buying them and those struggling with other commitments becoming homeless. Result, one less council house or one more on the homeless list. The 'right to buy' was a fine enough idea had the money raised been used to build more, this was not done and has never been addressed by subsequent governments more interested in getting the cash than trying to solve a problem.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
that is right we should never have reached this shortage of social housing in the first place.
i doubt there are many cases like the individual mentioned in the original post though.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#8
I think a starting point could be those that own alternative accommodation could be evicted. After that it becomes more difficult. Maybe then they should look at ithe occupiers income and if it was above a certain ceiling then they should pay the 'market' rates for renting the property not the council subsidised rent as at present.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
It is not difficult to establish a formula based on the local housing market to calculate a point at which someone should be given the choice, exercise a right to buy or move.
If RTB opted for the Council should be free to use the receipt from a sale as they wish and in accordance to local housing needs which may include building more social housing, perhaps in partnership with charities or housing associations.
If the person is found to own other property then RTB should not be an option - they should have to move unless there are some significant reasons to justify otherwise. Unlikely I think.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
chris p
must take more pills, i find myself agreeing with you again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#12
Keith are you struggling to keep friends are find any??????????????????
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
it is clear that such people as the case highlighted he clearly doesn't need such housing.
I think some of the problem is that some people through no fault of there own, or even by choice have hsappily lived in council /social housing
the dangers of the conservative proposals is that you no longer have the right to stay in such accomodation.
Whilst everyone wants a solution to this sticky problem, as chris says we probably created some of this problem ourselves when maggie started her 'right to buy' scheme, all very good if you plough thsat back into building council houses, sadly that didnt happen, and the housing list just grew and grew
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS