This annoys me

[#1]

This family is being given £800 a month to Live in this house worth over a million pounds.
By all means give them accommodation but not something that is costing this much.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025895/Housing-benefits-Somali-asylum-seeker-Saeed-Khaliifs...
And before anyone classes me as racist the same should also apply to anyone else living in this country irrespective of status or colour !

[#2]

Correction I should have said £8,000 a month !!

[#3]

From the third paragraph...
"demanded"
How come?

[#4]

It's really quite sickening that anyone living at the taxpayer's expense can demand to be moved into such accomodation, as long as they were not overcrowded in their previous 6 bedroom home how can they possibly expect to be moved upmarket at our expense?

[#5]

I hope the new maximum limit of £400 a week will apply to this family when it comes in.  This is a disgrace

[#6]

Quote

Housing benefit was recently capped at £400 per week, but the Khaliifs are able to claim more because they moved before the change came into force.

[#7]

Quote

‘As claims come up for renewal, people on housing benefit will have to make the same choices as people in work about where they can afford to live,’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025895/Housing-benefits-Somali-asylum-seeker-Saeed-Khaliifs-family-2m-house.html#ixzz1V7ygTT2c

A small saving grace, I suppose,
I believe that Housing Benefit has to go through approval with the local council (happy to stand corrected if incorrect), whoever approved this should be brought to account.

[#8]

Quote

The Department of Work and Pensions said the new rules now in force would make the system fairer. ‘As claims come up for renewal, people on housing benefit will have to make the same choices as people in work about where they can afford to live,’ a spokesman said.

I do hope this will be challenged and his claim thrown out

[#9]

Quote

‘The family say they wanted to be near friends and relatives in the capital.

And, at  the risk of sounding controversial, I wonder how many of those are also living at the expense of the taxpayer.
[Edit], wrong paste, sorry.

[#10]

£8000 a month just for rent.  You can bet we're also paying all their other bills.  Someone in work would have to earn upwards of £200,000 taking tax into account.
From his previous landlord, to whom he still owes a month's rent.

Quote

The fact is they were on every kind of benefit available. ‘If the rent on their new property is £8,000 I’m sure they are getting a lot more.’

[#11]

Pity they don't sack the dimwit that made this decision.
Seems councils are quite quick to cut essential services yet squander money in this way.

[#12]

The two adults have never worked in this country and according to one report today they get incapacity benefit, income support and child benefit which could add thousands of pounds to their monthly haul from the taxpayer.

[#13]

Quote

Seems councils are quite quick to cut essential services yet squander money in this way.

Our County council spent thousands on a consultancy company to review costs, the result was to cut the wages of certain staff (provifing services for disabled children) by 20p per hour down to minimum wage, they then set up a new 'umbrella company' to administer the new arangements this requiring part-time staff on the lowest possible hourly rate to have to re-apply for CRB in under the new 'company' at the expense of the staff (if they wanted to keep their jobs.  My wife, working a few hours a week, ended up paying about 4 weeks wages to keep her job at a lower rate.

[#14]

As I have paid twice in the last 5 years for a basic search to work for BT through an agency I thought the 2 higher searches could only be requested by the company and not by the employee. The higher searches are required if working with children.

[#15]

Quote

I thought the 2 higher searches could only be requested by the company and not by the employee. The higher searches are required if working with children.

I think you are right, the Enhanced CRB is required if working with vulnerable people (children, elderly etc.), I think the application has to go through the employer (or prospective employer) but what makes a difference is whether the employer charges the employee for the cost of the search or (in some cases) pays on behalf of the employee.  The regulations allow for an employer to use an existing CRB obtained through another employer but they can demand a new application.  In our case it was effectively the same employer but they insisted on a new CRB which we had to pay for.