Former asylum-seekers given housing benefit for £8,000-a-month Kensington home

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7883694 ... -home.html

Oops someone will not be happy about this.

Yeah, ME!
Scrounging bastards.

Given the incoming cap, I doubt they'll be there very long.

How on earth are the Council doing this?

Years ago when I had a short time unemployed and on housing benefit you basically had to cut off your right arm to get it and they had a limit on how much they would contribute towards any rental.

They would decide how much rental should be paid, if it was more than that then that was just tough t|tties.

I always thought there was a limit anyways. Was there and it was scrapped or was there never one?

Wish I'd known.

Given that their previous home was fine but in a [LIFTED] area and FIVE bus stops from the school I am surprised that they were moved. I do not know how far five stops is but a mile is not that far. Even walking is close enough. He certainly will not be looking for a job. He certainly can't afford the rent as a bus conductor.

I bet they moved just before he lost his job so the council had to keep paying the rent.
Scrounging cnuts.

I expect that it will be cut. Or the council forced to fund the difference from their own accounts.

who needs suicide bombers when you can bring down the system from within and bury it under its own weight ...

This is why there needs to be a limit on any type of benefits. £8k/mth is more than I will ever earn in my life (probably).

I agree about the need for limits to stop abuses, but some limits are simply cruel. There is no basis for capping the basis of severely disabled housing benefits to the bottom 30% of rents. It might be valid for those that are able to work, it means that they will not be stopped from pricing themselves out of employment. Though the same cap really should apply for mortgages. So if your mortgage was above the bottom 30% you get no more.

+1

I agree that disability etc... should (in some cases) allow for greater benefits but in the case of people not being arsed to work they should get as little as possible.

If that means they can't afford to live in a +£2million house in the middle of Kensington then GTFO of the area and live in a cheaper house.

If they don't work at all (IMHO) they shouldn't be eligible for any benefits. People should have to prove that they have a minimum required income before they get hand outs. If they're not trying then they get nothing in return.

Yes but what about the disabled? While many blind can work, they make excellent telephone switchboard operators, there may simply not be enough suitable jobs for them to work. So do you deprive them of benefits then? What about the paralysed, who because of their care needs actually create work for others should they be denied benefits as well? So if they can't work they get nothing?

if you make benefits very tough you actually creates a perverse incentive to get on disability benefits, defeating the objective.

As the family in question are from Somalia they have no ties to the area, so send them to a region of the country where there are affordable homes that come within the benefits cap.

Please read the first half of the first sentence of my post