Jump to content


£7,000 free to council tenants in Sheffield

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Good point. For those that don't know, that means that these payments won't cost those of us who don't pay rent to the council a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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 ----------

 

Good point. For those that don't know, that means that these payments won't cost those of us who don't pay rent to the council a penny.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:thumbsup:
Good point. For those that don't know, that means that these payments won't cost those of us who don't pay rent to the council a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

by your logic then as i dont have any children i should be jumping up and down about the woman 2 doors down who receives child benefit and the fact my tax pays for schools to teach these people who are leeching off the system, also as im not old why should my taxes also go to ensuring OAP's reciev a winter fuel allowance.

 

i will say it again you are being petty and it smacks of jealousy, i take it you would turn down the offer if it was made to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
by your logic then as i dont have any children i should be jumping up and down about the woman 2 doors down who receives child benefit and the fact my tax pays for schools to teach these people who are leeching off the system, also as im not old why should my taxes also go to ensuring OAP's reciev a winter fuel allowance.

 

i will say it again you are being petty and it smacks of jealousy, i take it you would turn down the offer if it was made to you?

 

Good point,

we could all point to things that are publicly funded that we dont use ive never used the fire service and carnt remember the last time i went to see a doctor, i dont begrudge other people these services whether they are working or not. The houses in question have had very little in the way of improvement since they were built many have damp problems, there seems to be a sugestion that only people who work deserve to be compensated. I may be wrong but dont benefits take into account how much savings you have, im sure that the £4700 being paid into peoples bank accounts would take them over the limit to claim benefits.Then again moving costs aside most people will have to buy new carpets curtains etc also as i have found when moving in the past older wardrobes dont always stand the test of being loaded and unloaded into the back of a van.Also bear in mind the people in these houses were never given a choice as to whether they wanted to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
by your logic then as i dont have any children i should be jumping up and down about the woman 2 doors down who receives child benefit and the fact my tax pays for schools to teach these people who are leeching off the system, also as im not old why should my taxes also go to ensuring OAP's reciev a winter fuel allowance.
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.

 

i will say it again you are being petty and it smacks of jealousy, i take it you would turn down the offer if it was made to you?
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 ----------

 

Good point,

we could all point to things that are publicly funded that we dont use ive never used the fire service and carnt remember the last time i went to see a doctor, i dont begrudge other people these services whether they are working or not.

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.

 

The houses in question have had very little in the way of improvement since they were built many have damp problems, there seems to be a sugestion that only people who work deserve to be compensated. I may be wrong but dont benefits take into account how much savings you have, im sure that the £4700 being paid into peoples bank accounts would take them over the limit to claim benefits.Then again moving costs aside most people will have to buy new carpets curtains etc also as i have found when moving in the past older wardrobes dont always stand the test of being loaded and unloaded into the back of a van.Also bear in mind the people in these houses were never given a choice as to whether they wanted to move.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The council can't discriminate against people getting a disturbance allowance just because they are unemployed.

 

If you're suggesting that's discrimination then I'd also suggest it's discrimination against those who work to pay full price for certain things that the unemployed get cheap/free.....You can't have it both ways.

 

You're asking someone who is getting something for nothing to put themselves out a little bit, I'm suggesting in their case they shouldn't get compensation, only their genuine costs of moving.....If that adds up to £7,500, then fair enough.

 

In the case suggested by the OP the genuine cost of moving won't be as much as £7,500, because the person in question is lining up TV's and holidays with the money.

 

Regards

 

Doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITS NOT £7500 I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT SO PLEASE STOP POSTING THAT AMOUNT,the £4700 is to cover cost for carpets through out the house example 3 bedrooms ,kitchen,living room,stairs hall way,bathroom,toilet thats 9 rooms then curtains for all windows then wall paper and paint add it up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my cousin moved from Park Hill, they had to provide receipts for everything they had bought. That's not to say you couldn't use receipts from someone else you know that had bought something recently. They only got around 3500. That was enough to cover carpets and removal costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the person in question does not want to carpet his floor put curtains at his window etc thats up to him,if he wants to spend the money on "luxuarys" thats his problem but myself i cant see any one not doing this just to pay for a couple of weeks in the sun

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2013 at 08:16 ----------

 

When my cousin moved from Park Hill, they had to provide receipts for everything they had bought. That's not to say you couldn't use receipts from someone else you know that had bought something recently. They only got around 3500. That was enough to cover carpets and removal costs.

 

the removel cost is extra but your right you have to give receipts for things like van hire telephones put back in etc but we are getting a one of payment for carpets etc £4700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're suggesting that's discrimination then I'd also suggest it's discrimination against those who work to pay full price for certain things that the unemployed get cheap/free.....You can't have it both ways.

 

You're asking someone who is getting something for nothing to put themselves out a little bit, I'm suggesting in their case they shouldn't get compensation, only their genuine costs of moving.....If that adds up to £7,500, then fair enough.

 

In the case suggested by the OP the genuine cost of moving won't be as much as £7,500, because the person in question is lining up TV's and holidays with the money.

 

Regards

Doom

 

The figure of £7500 is spurious. It appears that there is a basic disturbance allowance (which has been quoted as £4k) for everyone whose home is being demolished. Any other payments will only be made when there is proof of money being spent on things essential to moving. This is from SCC lettings policy: ' The Housing Service will pay for the tenant’s furniture and belongings to be moved and for the disconnection and reconnection of the gas, electricity, telephone and appliances such as cooker and washing machine.' That seems reasonable to me, and I'd be surprised if those costs come to more than a few hundred ££ at most.

 

Lots of the people affected will have worked all their lives, some may still work, some will be pensioners, some may be on disability benefits, and there will be a lucky few who appear not to have contributed much in their lives who get a windfall. :o Are we suggesting that those who are unemployed are not given the same terms as everyone else? And if so, who is going to judge who are deserving and who are not?

 

Lettings policy: http://www.sheffieldpropertyshop.org.uk/resources/Lettings%20Policy%20document.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we suggesting that those who are unemployed are not given the same terms as everyone else? And if so, who is going to judge who are deserving and who are not?

 

I don't know about 'we', but that would certainly be my policy.

 

It wouldn't be any different to employed people not being given the same terms when it comes to paying for sporting facilities etc.

 

If someone who isn't working and claiming unemployment benefit is asked to put themselves out a bit, I don't see why they should get 'compensation'.

 

They certainly shouldn't be out of pocket, but neither should they be allowed to gain from this, that doesn't rest easy with me.

 

Having said that, I'd be in favour of the unemployed being made to do a minimal amount of work for their benefits in order to improve their community....10 hours a week clearing litter, removing graffiti etc. If I was out of work I'd certainly be more than happy to do my bit to earn my benefit.

 

Regards

 

Doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.