gpsy

It's quite different. I accept that we all pay in to a pot that is used to help others who either can't or won't work, that's not a major issue. The problem I have is that I feel this is an excessive payment to this person and that I feel it's made worse during a time of so many other services and other areas having their funding cut which affects people from every walk of life. You are entitled to your opinion of course, however I can assure you that it's certainly not a case of jealousy. I keep trying to explain my point but you appear to assume it's a case of jealousy which it's not. In terms of the landlord who's losing a property they've purchased the amount may seem more reasonable, but in terms of the person in question I still feel it's excessive. This is of course my own personal view, but that's what I understand the forums are here for. ---------- Post added 21-05-2013 at 01:17 ---------- It's not a case of general funding of services or benefits. It's a case of feeling this particular payment to a person who refuses to work and openly admits this is in my view excessive as I've already said. It seems that this persons benefits will continue despite them being given this money. That hardly seems fair when you consider that as you point out, benefits can be affected by the amount of money you currently have. In terms of moving to the new house and costs involved, they stated they had been told that the costs of their personal possessions being moved will be covered and that the place they are arranging for them must be up to full standards and fully finished. A nice upgrade compared to where they are now and that's great, but again all this hardly seems to add up to a situation where this amount of money is justified. Again just my opinion, but there it is.

Are you stating that absolutely no public money at all goes in to the housing revenue account? I appreciate you have focused on council tax here but I was referring to all public monies. As someone who works I contribute to the public purse. The person I was talking about has never worked, they openly state they do not have any intentions to work, and they're now taking a large amount of cash out of this system which they appear to intend to use to purchase luxuries that many of us who work can't afford because of our responsibilities. My issue is with their refusal to work and that they clearly don't need to, we'll just keep funding them and now they get a large cash amount too. And in relation to the costs of moving, I was informed today that in addition to the payout this person is receiving they're also going to be having their moving costs covered too. They still seem to be very much under the impression that this cash is going to be for them to enjoy however they see fit with the benefits system picking up the bill for their moving home, the new place and all subsequent costs etc. ---------- Post added 20-05-2013 at 01:54 ---------- I appreciate that since 2012 there have been changes to the housing revenue account which means councils keep their revenue instead of getting central funding, but I'd still suggest we all pay in to this. There are many who get housing benefit in properties that contribute to the housing revenue account and as such we all pay in to the account in one way or another regardless of paying rent to the council or not.

The person I have been speaking with is unemployed and states they are getting 2 lots of money during their move. I suspect if you are working that you may be getting less than them, who knows, but they were pretty sure of the sums being paid to them. Of course they could be mistaken, but it's also likely that their unemployed status changes their payment. I have referred to a single person living in one of these houses as being unemployed. They are the subject of my comments and I have not made any deliberate attempts to make out that people in these houses are on the dole. If you can see any evidence in this thread to back up your claim here please point it out and I will re-read the post myself.

The person I know of is said to be getting £7,000 - £7,500. They claim they are actually getting 2 payments that make this amount up, one large amount and one slightly smaller - around £5k and £2k give or take a few hundred quid. I don't know what the second payment is for but they seem pretty certain they're getting it. I don't think there's general suggestion that people who live in social housing are all on the dole on this thread. ---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 03:47 ---------- It's certainly not a case of jealousy at all. As for dismissing someone else's opinion on a subject as petty, that's hardly constructive and a little childish to be honest. I am a person who works full time, as a result I pay taxes. I'm also someone who votes in every election. The money being given to the person in question that I was posting in relation to is funded by public money. The decision to make such payments and changes to housing etc. is made by local and national governments etc. So as I contribute to this 'pot' and as I have a say in who makes the decisions I also have a right to discuss a related subject should it cause me concern. If you wish to call that petty that's up to you, but I feel this subject is important and I wanted to talk about it. Jealousy is the last thing involved here, I'm just concerned about how public money is being used in this case when I feel there are other areas of spending where it could be put to better use. ---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 03:51 ---------- What a strange conclusion to jump to. I am trying my hardest not to identify this person on a public forum while speaking about the subject. I have to chose my wording carefully, however the person in question is more than aware that I know all about this. A lot of the information has come straight from the horses mouth. If you feel this is stalking it may be worth a quick look up on what stalking is.

Yep, £45 seems to be more like it. A lot of estate agents will offer 'extras' like this, but it's often best sticking to the basic package and pricing up the extras yourself as you've done.

In one post you've quickly insulted 1fish2fish56 and labelled their and my own opinions as being a 'whinge'. That's hardly very respectful, just because you may not share the same opinion is it? It would be far better to discuss the subject rather than childishly insult us for our opinions, or if you don't feel capable of doing that you could of course just not post in the thread? If my neighbours won the lottery I'd be happy for them. It wouldn't affect me in the slightest. There's quite a difference here and I'm not complaining about luck, I'm taking issue with the fact that I think public money is being used inappropriately. The amount being paid to this person seems grossly inflated compared to their actual needs and the inconvenience they actually face. So much to the point that they seem amused by it all and still have no interest in ever seeking a job because they can enjoy such perks as this. If they had been lucky and won the lottery, all well and good, but in this case it appears they're being given a large handout simply because they're being moved from one provided house to another. ---------- Post added 17-05-2013 at 10:03 ---------- Exactly All the things many of us working, paying tax etc. may struggle to afford this person is now getting freely. And it's made worse by the fact they refuse to go out and work, not that they can't. They were recently offered a course to attend and improve their chance of employment, they opted to sleep in and then watch Jeremy Kyle before generally enjoying a free lifestyle of late nights, late mornings, easy afternoons and weekends of partying. All the payment will do is fund that lifestyle further, get them a few luxury items, maybe a holiday and further reinforce that the mugs in this situation are the ones who are out working to support their chosen lifestyle. ---------- Post added 17-05-2013 at 10:05 ---------- I don't mind them paying something, as this is a move they've not chosen to make, but surely a more reasonable amount would be better? There's no way the expenses involved here mount to £7,500. Especially not when they're already drawing up a wish list of non-house related items. Would it not make more sense to give what's needed rather than being overly generous with public money when as you correctly point out other services are suffering which mean the public are losing out. ---------- Post added 17-05-2013 at 10:07 ---------- That's fair enough, but this persons place has had nothing spent on it. The garden is like a dump zone with furniture and other bits of rubbish just left there and there's very little in modernisation or decorating taking place. But instead of looking at the situation a blanket £7,500 is being paid.

It used to be the case that the police would take the item from you and give you a receipt. The item was then safely stored and if nobody claimed it you got to keep it in most cases. If they no longer do this and they expect the finder to keep it then what happens if the finder loses the item and the owner turns up? The finder could be responsible for replacing the item. It's a lot of burden to put on someone really. Let's say the ring was an expensive one, worth £5,000. Imagine losing that and then suddenly the owner turns up wanting their ring back. It's going to get messy.

This person has a self furnished property already and they're taking all their stuff with them. Apart from moving their stuff and maybe decorating they don't have a lot of overheads. Lucky them it seems, I guess I wasn't aware that you can fall so lucky in terms of cash hand outs like this.

I can understand the need for compensating someone, but to me the £7,500 figure seemed excessive. Especially when you consider that on top of this they'll have to pay the landlord whatever amount too and this is just one house of many. This person is happy though, they have a nice new place to look forward to plus a spending spree. The one thing that got me is that they'll have £7,500 in the bank - although probably not for long. With that in mind, how do they still qualify for housing benefit etc. if they then officially have this amount of money? Is it not means tested? I don't have an issue with compensating the person in question, but the amount in question seems excessive.

It would be easy to check. If anyone knows when this decision was made a quick check with the land registry would soon reveal anyone taking advantage of the situation.

That sounds expensive.

They're often cheaper if you order them online. The site will then arrange for a local person to call round at some point, but if you shop around you can often save cash with an online provider. Be weary of them being provided by estate agents as 'extras' as they tend to be over inflated in price this way.

Is it blocked?

Seriously? The police don't accept found property any longer? Things continue to go from bad to worse.

Unfortunately my knowledge of the benefits system is very limited due to being lucky enough not to have had to rely on it so far thankfully. The person I know living in the house in question is receiving housing benefit. While I appreciate they are living in a private house I tend to see them as being in social housing as it's totally paid for by the state. Coincidently the house is owned by a council employee, although I appreciate that doesn't make them a tenant of the council. It wasn't an intentional attempt to deceive, it was perhaps a misunderstanding on my part. Lovely ---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 23:53 ---------- Having been inside one of these properties I think I'd have knocked them down a while back. Very cold and requiring a good bit of work. That's fair enough, however the person in question already has a place secured to move in to. I wouldn't class them as being made homeless. They have their housing currently provided for them by the state and because the council want to demolish the poor state house they're currently in they're being moved straight to another property funded by the state. And in the process they're getting quite a bit of a windfall to enjoy as they see fit. The case I'm speaking about is a private landlord renting to a person who has their rent paid for by benefits. The landlord is clearly getting money for their property - no issues there, but the tenant as pointed out above is getting quite a large amount of cash and it's this decision I cannot understand and find hard to swallow especially in the current climate. The person in question is apparently receiving between £7,000 - £7,500. They do not own the home, they rent it from a private landlord and their rent is paid for by the benefit system. I can accept that if they move to the new place they may want to spruce it up, but again £7,500 free seems overly generous. It's made worse by the fact the tenant in question recently turned down a course while unemployed and has openly decided not to work. With such generosity from the council, who can blame them. Perhaps I am the mug for working a full time job and bothering to pay a mortgage? ---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 23:55 ---------- I don't know about that, however I do know that the house in question in this thread is actually owned by someone who is believed to be a Sheffield city council employee. I wonder if they have to declare anything like that while qualifying for this payment? Funnily enough they've known about the fact that they'd have to move out when the place was demolished since around the day they actually moved in. The landlord knew all about the impending demolition coming one day it seemed.

I accept the landlord will get money from a CPO, it just seemed odd that the tenant would receive such a payout. The person in question in this situation is rather excited at the prospect of having a large amount of money to spend. They are young, single and unemployed. Suddenly dropping £7k on them means they're looking at holidays, TVs and the like rather then investing or moving costs. I suppose it just felt a little bitter than I'm working hard and can't afford such luxuries and on the other hand this person who recently chose not to work or attend courses is now being presented with the equivalent of a small lottery win funded by myself and other tax payers. Certainly very little encouragement for them to look for work.

I've yet to verify this, so if anyone can do please do so, but I heard recently that the council are knocking down some social housing in the Gleadless area and paying the people living there to move house. The person I heard about lives on East Bank Road in Sheffield. They don't work and their housing is paid for along with their benefits. The property they live in is owned by a private landlord, but paid for by the benefits. The houses are due to be knocked down very shortly and this person will be moved to another rented property paid for by the council. No problem so far, there are many in Sheffield in social housing situations, fair enough. My concern is that they are apparently due to receive between £7,000 - £7,500 simply because the house they rent is being knocked down and they are being forced to move. This doesn't appear to be a loan or any form of payment that they'll ever have to pay back, it's simply £7,500 they will receive and can spend as they wish! I've been fortunate enough to never have needed social housing so I don't know if this is the norm, but that seems a bit excessive to me and a tad on the unfair side. As someone who's worked pretty much all their life since leaving school and someone who's always paid tax I feel a little cheated here if this turns out to be true. Times are hard for us all and I'm seeing less in each month despite going to work full time and yet someone who doesn't work is about to be given a big payment for having to move to another house they won't have to pay for? It's not a massive upheaval, they have all their own furnishings to take with them and it's not like this move will affect their job or anything as they don't work. I accept there are moving costs and maybe they'd like to change the wallpaper when they get to the new home, but all that can be done for hundreds, not thousands. Surely £7,000 is over kill? Especially when it comes from public money at a time when many of us can't afford such a luxury bumper payout ourselves? If I was to sell my house and move tomorrow I'd have to find the fees to move, to decorate and whatever else I wanted to do. I don't think I'd be getting that sort of money. If this person owned this house or they were being caused problems with a job or some other situation I could accept some sort of payment. In fact I'd even accept a few hundred to cover moving costs or to keep costs down the council moving their stuff for them. I just don't feel too happy that this is one house of many on this road that's being knocked down and it appears there's a good chance that quite a few of them may be getting this payment. Does anyone know anything about such a situation or anyone going through this right now?

I didn't say you'd give extras, I'm pretty sure the moderators would be against any such propositions on this site. It was a humerous (it made me laugh) comment made when you mentioned some people using their tongues. Never mind.

I've heard stories or rumours about people like this, but never met anyone that actually does that. To me it seems more like urban myth or maybe the odd one in every thousand. Is that an extra:confused:

Which is suggesting that they somehow get special treatment and suggests questions of integrity. That to me looks like you are attacking his line of work. Is there an echo in here? lalaland posted about making a complaint if you are aware of things being done wrongly, have you done so? I think we've had this one already. People who abide by rules or don't object people just because of their job in uplholding those rules aren't yes men/women in my eyes, that's probably more a view of someone that has a problem with those in authority. My comments in my last post were made because that's how you come across to me.

I don't think that's the case at all. There was a discussion on unmarked police vehicles. Then someone enjoyed the chance to have a knock at the police as is often the case. Lalaland seemed to challenge the unfounded comments and nobody could back them up with facts, so it turned ugly. Well this threads turned boring quite quickly.......

Yeah mate, the mods break the rules, the police break the rules, everyone's out to get you etc. Perhaps it is you that falls short in the maturity area. You have constantly attacked his line of work yet when he's offered you a way to put right what you suggest is wrong you've fallen back or just attacked him. I'd probably feel annoyed too if someone accused my line of work in the way you seem to do about his. The police in my view do a good job and unforuntely some people love to have a dig at them regardless of being in possesion of the facts or not. Your post above about how the mods moderate this forum and your comments about the police suggest to me that maybe you have a problem with people in authority?

Personally I prefer Dell. Normally more for your money and better spec too.

It was deliberately caused by the workers using a work to rule form of protest. They knew full well that they, like the postal workers, could affect the lives of others through their protest and did so. Another good example of a group of workers using whatever means they can to hurt the public and the country's ecomony just to get their message across when other means would work and not cause the problems. I don't think it was very popular, there were people without electricity in homes and hospitals etc. imagine how dangerous that was getting. While we won't die without post, I don't see a great difference between the selfish strike by the postal workers and that done by the electricity people all those years back. Both the strike and the electricity workers work to rule plan were created to cause as much damage to the public and the country as possible in order to get their message across. More information on the power problems here http://century.guardian.co.uk/1970-1979/Story/0,,106893,00.html

I don't think you can excuse people's most recent actions by looking at their past. You can consider a person's past, but if they are being lazy now then that's what they are being now. Ah right, so because you think others have broken laws in the past then you feel it's ok for postal workers to break them now? That's a great defence, if I'm ever in the dock I'll fall back on that one. That may be true if I were the one with the grievence but chose to take it out on the rest of the country, however I'm not. I've not taken any action to hurt anyone else, I am not attacking the country's commerce, I am not inconviniencing others. I am someone posting on a public forum about my feelings because a group of employees who don't like the way their job is changing in this ever changing world have decided to hurt the rest of the country to show they are upset. They've realised they have the power to cause the rest of us problems and are using that power for their own causes. So no, I don't only care about myself. I am concerned that a group of people in this country are so intent on hurting others and causing damage to the way the country is run. That is not a selfish act, the only selfish act there is by the people causing this damage and that is the postal workers group. You can try and twist it if you wish, but surely this is the exact way the postal workers see it? Obviously the postal workers are very important because they obviously see it as 'tough' if the rest of the country has to suffer.