Fraudulent Claim

[Kopek]

No Quilp, we have to accept that there will always be some who ' take the piss ' but we should not presume that all who partake of the social security system, including as I say above, those amongst us , who have occasional use of the system, should be denied the basic premise of that system to support us when we need it.

[Kopek]

4 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

It shows a wanton lack of knowledge by the Corpy as to what is going on or not going on such as occupation of their properties.  

...but as I point out above, the DCorp were being paid their rent by Soc Sec !  Were they under any pressure to investigate further?

[yootalkin2me]

32 minutes ago, Kopek said:

...but as I point out above, the DCorp were being paid their rent by Soc Sec !  Were they under any pressure to investigate further?

As responsible Landlords yes they should especially of the money paid by the Corpus to maintain housing stock is public money.

[Kopek]

...but as their rent was being paid, were they unless, there were Rats running through the house and neighbours, the roof was falling down, under any pressure to investigat further?

They can claim that it was one of a few that slipped under their radar, that Soc Sec did not pick up on the ongoing situation. It has ended were it did, will that ensure that it never happens again? NO!

[yootalkin2me]

34 minutes ago, Kopek said:

...but as their rent was being paid, were they unless, there were Rats running through the house and neighbours, the roof was falling down, under any pressure to investigat further?

They can claim that it was one of a few that slipped under their radar, that Soc Sec did not pick up on the ongoing situation. It has ended were it did, will that ensure that it never happens again? NO!

Bit as JW has stated, it would be prudent of them to periodically check them which would solve the problem

. They should be periodically electrically tested and inspected every 5 years so one can assume that something similar applies for the gas boiler etc and in which case surely the testing and inspection people would report something amiss....no?

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

...but as I point out above, the DCorp were being paid their rent by Soc Sec !  Were they under any pressure to investigate further?

Regardless of who was paying the rent it doesn't negate the Corpy's responsibilty for the oversight of their property.

In fact, in light of it being Social paying, it should increase their awareness of the situation, given the general record of such tenants Island-wide .

"Under the radar" eh? How much does the operation of that Town Hall radar cost the ratepayers again?

[P.K.]

Health and Safety pervades so much of public life, not all good  I grant you, but how is it the Corpy are exempt as regards their provision of housing...?

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Regardless of who was paying the rent it doesn't negate the Corpy's responsibilty for the oversight of their property.

In fact, in light of it being Social paying, it should increase their awareness of the situation, given the general record of such tenants Island-wide .

"Under the radar" eh? How much does the operation of that Town Hall radar cost the ratepayers again?

we all know how good radars are over here.

[Andy Onchan]

On 1/31/2019 at 8:15 PM, John Wright said:

Who is living there, if anyone is living there.

There are lots of social housing units occupied by people other than the tenants, in breach of tenancy terms, the real legal tenant living elsewhere, often in other social housing units. The “sub letting” is often to family members, grown up children, who don’t qualify, aren’t on the housing list, stopping someone with real need from getting housing that is tax payer subsidised.

FWIW, I think this lady knew exactly what she was doing.

Clearly she didn't sub-let the property because the energy consumption during those years was non-existent. And if my memory serves me correctly weren't the properties in Hibbin Way part of a DC refurbishment where they paid £26k(??) per kitchen. Why would you want to live in a property (in Lord St, presumably the home of her partner) that hasn't had the same amount refurbishment money spent on it? Unless of course it's that new build that went up a couple of years back, which actually makes the situation even more inequitable.