£7,000 free to council tenants in Sheffield

[lazy gator 10]

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?

 

Considering the amount of info you have "heard" about this person it seems they may have a stalker

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Even though the house belongs to the landlord it is the tenants home. A home is what you make it

 

I agree. I grew up in a private rented flat, my mother lived in it for over 50 years, and it was very much our home. She and my father paid rent all their lives and ended up with nothing to show for it. At least those of us who have managed to buy a property own an asset.

 

With regard to the disturbance allowance, if I recall correctly, any rent arrears owed by the tenant will be deducted from the compensation before it is paid.

[gpsy 10]

ITS NOT £7500 ITS actually £4700

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.

 

and i also live in these houses i work and have never ever signed on so for all of you that think people who live in social housing are on the dole reality check we are not

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 ----------

 

Wow £7000 well they could probably retire on that amount:rolleyes:

It's compensation for being moved its no different to the plans for HS2 train which is also public money used to compensate home owners

 

I get the feeling some people are jealous and it's rather petty

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 ----------

 

Considering the amount of info you have "heard" about this person it seems they may have a stalker

 

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.

[mop head 10]

gpsy i know for a fact the money is one payment of £4700.Dont know who you have been talking to but your information is wrong,can i also say this area is arbourthorne not gleedless

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 15:25 ----------

 

also in your thread you are making out people in these houses are on the dole and getting their rent paid

[chem1st 10]

New housing should be built before these units of housing are demolished.

 

If put up for let, many people would jump at the chance to rent them.

 

Our leaders are just going to make our housing crisis worse.

 

They are traitors to the people of Sheffield.

 

This housing might not be ideal, but it is a darn sight better than nowt, and the rents collected on such property cold be used to fund much needed house construction for Sheffielders. 90000 of whom are on a waiting list for housing, when there is only 40000 units of housing (and the number of housing units continues to decline).

[gaze1981 10]

So much I could say, but would turn into the longest post ever.

 

I'll condense it down to...... I think people SHOULD get some kind of compensation if they are having to move because their home is being demolished. There's always that air of, "Well, they should count themselves lucky to have a 'free' home".

 

A few years ago, I got a compensation payment from a housing association because I had to move home due to demolition. At the time, I got around about 5k. But I was also able to claim further money for things such as carpet fitting in the new home. Any costs incurred changing utility companies / TV / Broadband services etc.

 

And why should I not have got that? That was my home. I paid rent for it. No one was giving it to me for free. I didn't want to move, but had no choice.

 

People seem to think that if you aren't paying a mortgage, it shouldn't be your 'home'. It should be seen as an act of goodwill by the taxpayer. But that isn't the case.

[jenz245 10]

I live in a phase 3 property which is private rented. We will be recieving a payment when we are moved and at the minute we do receive benefits however im mot lazy i care for my partner whilst studying part time and looking after our young daughter. This house was in a mess when we moved in but because i was pregnant and lived in a property with no central heating we decided to make the bests of a bad job. Up until this point id had the same job since 18 and it was only after my maternity leave had finished and my partner was ill that we had to rely on benefits. We have spent a good few grand on the property. Re-carpeting every room, decorating every room, making it our home. Your friend may not have paid much out and has luckily got another property to move too, we havent and the costs will be covering some of the costs to making another house a home. To be honest im happy here my daughter will be settled in school by the time ours come down and a move may not happen at the right time so the compensation is a drop in the oceon to the upset it may cause.

[gpsy 10]

gpsy i know for a fact the money is one payment of £4700.Dont know who you have been talking to but your information is wrong,can i also say this area is arbourthorne not gleedless

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.

 

also in your thread you are making out people in these houses are on the dole and getting their rent paid

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.

[Doom 10]

So much I could say, but would turn into the longest post ever.

 

I'll condense it down to...... I think people SHOULD get some kind of compensation if they are having to move because their home is being demolished. There's always that air of, "Well, they should count themselves lucky to have a 'free' home".

 

A few years ago, I got a compensation payment from a housing association because I had to move home due to demolition. At the time, I got around about 5k. But I was also able to claim further money for things such as carpet fitting in the new home. Any costs incurred changing utility companies / TV / Broadband services etc.

 

And why should I not have got that? That was my home. I paid rent for it. No one was giving it to me for free. I didn't want to move, but had no choice.

 

People seem to think that if you aren't paying a mortgage, it shouldn't be your 'home'. It should be seen as an act of goodwill by the taxpayer. But that isn't the case.

 

I don't really have an issue with your situation.

 

What irks me is when somebody who is already being funded by the taxpayer can gain from this situation.

 

If £7,500 is the genuine cost of his moving then I don't have an issue, but if the cost is only £1,000 and this individual is pocketing £6,500 for what many would consider luxuries then that is not what the welfare state is in place to do. That money could be put to much more deserving causes.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[Ms Macbeth 75]

The council can't discriminate against people getting a disturbance allowance just because they are unemployed.

 

I'd suggest that the Right to Buy discriminated against people who weren't fortunate enough to have a nice council house on a decent estate. Lots of people gave up trying to get social housing and bought privately, at full market value. Lots of privately owned houses are smaller and of a poorer standard than many council houses. A large number of those who bought at a discount have made far more than £7k when they sold up and moved. You only have to look at the price of some ex council houses in areas like Worrall; Dore; Totley, etc to get the picture.

[shankle 10]

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 go to work every day to pay rent, if i dropped out of work now id get a house paid for and money to sit around watching tv and sleeping, so as a fellow taxpayer you should be used to the people who are too idol to work getting spoon fed money, but im sure the shame of sponging off the government outweighs the pride of earning what you have, so dont feel bitter feel proud of what you do

[Narden Dee 10]

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.

 

The fact you pay taxes is irrelevant to this subject as Is everybody who is saying that their council tax is paying for this, or the misguided assumption that these people are getting a windfall as I've mentioned it's compensation and the fact that the person works or is not working is irrelevant as all the people will get the same amount what may be different is the costs of moving.

The reason that these argument are irrelevant is that these payments are funded out of the Housing Revenue Account and not out of the capital budget.