hmfc_steve Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Fair enough, help those that need help.... but this ? .... A mother with four children has been placed by her council in a ?2m townhouse at a cost to the taxpayer of more than ?91,000 a year. The stucco-fronted three-storey property is in Kensington, west London, the country?s richest borough. It costs ?1,755 a week to rent - a bill met by housing benefit - and has a front and back garden, five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double reception room and roof terrace. The street is lined with sports cars. The family, who moved into the property in September, have remained there despite a pledge by James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, to cut back lavish housing benefit payouts. Elsewhere in the borough, five-bedroom houses are available for half the price. The case highlights the perverse nature of the housing benefit system that allows council tenants to live in subsidised properties well beyond the means of most taxpayers. Under Labour, spending on housing benefit has risen from ?11.1 billion in 1997 to ?15.4 billion in 2007....... source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5376181.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Fair enough, help those that need help.... but this ? .... A mother with four children has been placed by her council in a ?2m townhouse at a cost to the taxpayer of more than ?91,000 a year. The stucco-fronted three-storey property is in Kensington, west London, the country?s richest borough. It costs ?1,755 a week to rent - a bill met by housing benefit - and has a front and back garden, five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double reception room and roof terrace. The street is lined with sports cars. The family, who moved into the property in September, have remained there despite a pledge by James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, to cut back lavish housing benefit payouts. Elsewhere in the borough, five-bedroom houses are available for half the price. The case highlights the perverse nature of the housing benefit system that allows council tenants to live in subsidised properties well beyond the means of most taxpayers. Under Labour, spending on housing benefit has risen from ?11.1 billion in 1997 to ?15.4 billion in 2007....... source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5376181.ece Just cos some bint couldn't keep her legs shut :xmasgrin: PS I'll admit I am half joking, and my sister is a single parent so I know how hard it can be but FFS what makes her so important to get a pad like that, you'd need footballer or disgraced banker wages to pay for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart MacD Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Housing should be allocated according to how you serve the State, not how you serve your various lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 this kind of thing is obscene. just think of the good that could be done with the outrageous excess benefit which is being wasted on this woman and her family. and some people wonder why the UK is seen as such a soft touch for welfare state spongers and asylum seekers and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.