• The post you are reporting:
   
  Bob, your example does raise the question of why the landlord was allowed to charge five times the local rate and why the council payed it without questioning it. The woman in the article is an example of a minority and is just the sort of rare point the press drag out to make a weak point on otherwise more complex issues. It is a bit like dragging out Fred West as an example of fostering.
  
  Ross, while I do agree in the need for reform there is the danger that blanket legislation will harm the most vulnerable and yet still provide loopholes for those determined to beat the system. Half the battle of getting people back to work (apart from the obvious shrinking job market) is the perception that they will be better off. An unemployed couple with a child in a local school suddenly facing a rent hike of 150%, knowing that benefits are being capped and the nightmare of the paperwork involved in getting support benefit, are not going to see an advantage in changing their status. Simple checks on continued eligibility for social housing would also need to take in availability of local accommodation, costs of same, effects on employment/ schooling/health care of moving and other factors. The list of adverse effects possible with councils automatically reclaiming property on the death of the named 'householder' would go on forever.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason