Mother gets £170,000 a year in benefits to live in £1.2m house
I am shocked by the above headline. To be fair, I am not aware of all the details. For example, there is no mention of a man about the house such as a Mr Saindi, is Mrs Saindi a single mother? Apparently, she "came to the UK from Afghanistan seven years ago". But, there is no explanation why this is the case. Even allowing for circumstances, it does appear that there has been some abuse of the system. For example, the council paying the landlord double the amount for the property when other similar properties in the same area are going for half as much.
I live in a 3 bedroom house and the rent is £60 per week. In front of my house is a 5 bedroom property, which has been empty for about 2 years, and the landlord is seeking between £90-100 per week for it. In my view, this family could easily be accommodated in this property. That would save the taxpayers over a £1,000 per month just in rent allowance.
Two of the children are described as being 22 and 20 years of age. They are over the age of legal responsibility. They don't have to stay at home tied to their mother's apron strings. Had they been birds their mother would have kicked them out of the nest long before they became adults. Her son Jawad Saindi, 20, said "It's not that we wanted this big house - my mum is not happy because she has to clean all of it". I am surprised she does not at least pay for a part-time cleaner from the amount of state benefit she is receiving. And what about the 20 year old son, has he not thought about helping her keep the house clean, and the same goes for the 22 year old? Where is Alf Garnett when you need him?
So, landlord Ajit Panesar finds out the maximum the council is prepared to pay and fixes his price accordingly. I had to fight the Rent Services and council to get the full £60 per week, initially they would only pay £55. I suppose it is no surprise that one of the council housing officers is called Salma Khan. What with Mrs Saindi, the landlord Ajit Panesar, and housing officer Salma Khan, it's beginning to sound a bit like the Muslim Mafia in a remake of The Sting.
I will have to think about whether Council workers sacked over giving mother £170,000 a year in benefits is justified or whether it is a case of unfair dismissal. Whilst their decision is questionable, to say the least, it does appear as though the system has allowed abuse to take place and it might just be that they are scapegoats.
6 comments:
'To be fair, I am not aware of all the details.....'
Don't jump at it, John.
You have been on the receiving end of the same type of mis-information.
Or, do you want to say 'what's sauce.....etc'.
Obviously, not.
The house was chosen by the council, which agreed the rent with the landlord -- the occupants and most particularly, their origin, race and religion, have absolutely nothing to do with the original news story.
Alf Garnett was consigned to the bin marked "pathetic, racist, xenophobic Tories" many years ago. This post should be dumped there too.
John, you should be ashamed for this twaddle.
I don't think you should be ashamed one bit. You just said what we were thinking but too "politically correct" to say.
The world has gone completely mad, so much so that people with real need are ignored, and others can just dip into the country's purse regardless of never paying into the system.
Anyone else on benefits for seven years would find it pretty tough to keep on claiming without having to justify looking for work.
The credit crunch? I can't think why....
merkin: I don't think this is a case of the same type of mis-information. I just did not wish to judge too harshly without knowing all the facts. I am puzzled why a mother of 7 kids sought asylum here in the first place. Nobody should be subjected to persecution in their own country, but a balance needs to be struck in relation to state aid. I don't think the balance was struck here. My Latvian friend Liana was informed she could not claim benefits until she had worked here non-stop for a year. This forced her into the hands of gangmasters and she was working on the grey economy and receiving less than the NMW.
heavylight: The house was not chosen by the council, they were simply presented with the bill and agreed to pay it.
Of course origin, race and religion have something to do with the original story. This is England and not Afghanistan, and the story was pointing out that foreigners are receiving better treatment than the natives, which is a valid point. I tracked the story back to Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Malice. He linked it to the credit crunch, which is going a bit too far.
Alf Garnett was a racist bigot. But the programme was funny. I think the problem with PC is that it stifles humour and free speech.
anonymous: I am not ashamed. This case goes to show that the system is getting abused. There is no law saying that each child must have their own bedroom. I know of some English families with two or three kids having to share bedrooms.
There was a weakness in the system and it was exploited. Like I say, the family could have been dispersed to Hull and still been accommodated at a fraction of the cost.
And just to draw attention away from John here, who people seem to be jumping on because he printed a story about a group of refugees and a crooked Asian landlord who is milking the british system (what's new THERE then?) I shall say just this -
Kick out the thieving, conniving pakki bastard businessmen and treat them as their government would treat us in their own country.
Pakki. Pakki. Pakki.
There, now you numbnuts have a REAL target to take out your far-leftist pakki-assauging thoughts on.
its good to hear this so i can apply for abig house too,
Post a Comment