Stitching-up claimants is all part of the job, says Jobcentre insider

First topic message reminder :

Last week Iain Duncan Smith met a whistle-blower who has worked for his Department for Work and Pensions for more than 20 years.

Giving the Secretary of State a dossier of evidence, the former Jobcentre Plus adviser told him of a “brutal and bullying” culture of “setting claimants up to fail”.

“The pressure to sanction customers was constant,” he said. “It led to people being stitched-up on a daily basis.”

The man wishes to be anonymous but gave his details to IDS, DWP minister Esther McVey and Neil Couling, Head of Jobcentre Plus, who also attended the meeting.

“We were constantly told ‘agitate the customer’ and that ‘any engagement with the customer is an opportunity to ­sanction’,” he told them.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, the member of the DWP Select Committee who set up the meeting, has renewed her call for an inquiry into inappropriate sanctioning.

“I am deeply concerned that sanctions are being used to create the illusion the Government is bringing down unemployment,” she said.

Sanctions pre-date the Coalition as a way of ensuring benefit claimants, who include the jobless and sick and disabled people on Employment Support Allowance, attend appointments and apply for jobs. But under the Tory-led Government, they have soared – to 897,690 a year from the most recent data.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stitching-up-claimants-part-job-says-3537051


from May last year...but no better if not worse Now....


and you wonder why I consider those who work for this shameful organisation to be entirely without honour...

In fact come the revolution i would put them against the brick wall first...

IDS and his troupe of performing monkeys are merely self seeking low lifes

these people are traitors to their own.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i have the feeling your a bit dense and do i strike you as insecure ? really ?
and never encounter that kind of attitude that i do find hard to believe  especially if you have kids they are the worst for it
it certainly happened in my school and is one of the reasons for school uniforms so that kids where not picked on because they did not have the latest shoes ,trainers ,tops ect ...where do you live nirvana ? or are you just blind to the things happening around you ?

I'll speak to you later about your rude post, and your absurd attitude.

Bye for now!

i look forward to it trousers at the ankles

but read this first
Children bullied by their schoolmates for wearing 'wrong brand'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043473/School-children-called-geeks-wearing-cheap-clothing.html

Fashion Bullies Attack -- In Middle School
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119326834963770540

bullied for wearing certain clothes

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AYfsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=bullied+for+wearing+certain+clothes&source=bl&ots=JD0996Hf-9&sig=voNDa3yppDvvp0OfsMQMLIONx4A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBGoVChMIv9qK85PkxgIVMBfbCh3hWQzV#v=onepage&q=bullied%20for%20wearing%20certain%20clothes&f=false

http://twentytwowords.com/mom-sends-daughter-to-school-in-ugly-clothes-as-consequence-for-bullying/

She took a trip to the thrift store and bought a few cheap clothes that she knew her daughter would hate. When the girl woke up the next morning a terrible outfit and old sneakers were laid out for her to wear



i am not saying its right but it happens and i am very very surprised you claim to never have heard of this kind of thing ...you have kids right ?

and you keep saying my attitude that`s not my attitude far from it personally i couldn`t care less what people wear
but i am one enlightened caring person
that`s not the point i am making is it

And not only kids but women are among the worse for it more so than men

What has struck me is that often the female serial bully is fat, and chooses a slim female target on to whom to project her self-loathing. Envy is a strong motivator for bullies. Even if you start a weight loss program, the bully will simply change the excuse. Now you're "too thin", "too tall", "wear the wrong clothes", etc. Each reason is specious.
http://www.bullyonline.org/related/overweig.htm


simple fact  the clothes that an impoverished person wears can indicate their poverty. This sign of poverty or poorer economic status can be a cause of discrimination and of vilification and severely affect them in many ways

Those who need charity shops most are being priced out'



The recession, and the UK public's ever-vigilant eye for a bargain, has helped swell the number of charity shops on our high streets.

According to the Charity Retail Association (CRA), there were more than 10,200 charity shops in the UK and Ireland at the end of 2013. In the last six months of last year the number rose by 10 per cent.

As the number increased, so apparently has the price of the clothes they sell, particularly in areas where affluent people live.

Concern over the number of charity shops dominating the high street led retail guru Mary Portas to suggest capping the 80 per cent business-rate relief they receive. Her proposals were left out of the Government report published in 2011, but are being considered by the Welsh Assembly.

Once the preserve of financially challenged students, OAPs looking for bargains or fancy-dress hunters, some charity shops have all but re-branded themselves as purveyors of vintage, designer and up-market clothing, with increased prices to match

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/those-who-need-charity-shops-most-are-being-priced-out-9145439.html

Well I can't say I know how it works now, or how it differs between different areas as I've had no dealings with them, but I know my dad never got want he was entitled to - and it was the first time he'd ever claimed and he had all relevant documents etc

They rang after he'd died and my mum had to tell them he'd died.
I still think she was entitled to the money but she never got it and we didn't pursue it. Luckily enough, they were good savers and she was left well provided for, but many aren't in that situation.

Delays and disarray shatter lives of new disability claimants
Disabled and ill people unable to get to hospital and forced out of their homes as personal independence payments (PIP) come under scrutiny by MPs

Mark Harper, the minister for disabled people, will appear in front of the work and pensions select committee on Wednesday today to defend the government’s troubled record on implementation of the new disability benefit, the personal independence payment (PIP).

He will be hoping that the session goes more smoothly than last June’s hearing on the same subject by the public accounts committee when its chair, Margaret Hodge, said the launch of the new assessment system had been “nothing short of a fiasco” and accused the government of letting down “some of the most vulnerable in society”.

Over the past year, charities have highlighted the enormous distress experienced by people who have faced serious delays in being assessed, with some facing waits of up to 14 months for the benefit to be paid.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/27/delays-disability-benefit-pip-claimants-mps-scrutiny

That was back in January, it's no better. You cannot claim ESA anymore, you have to claim for PIP.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
thats because you have missed my point completely in your rush to feel mocked and abused
some thing you have a habit if doing  

No, you have misunderstood. I don't feel mocked and abused - it's you who thinks I should feel that way simply because I get clothes from charity shops.

wind that neck in
you said you where mocked and that was the point i was making people get mocked for buying stuff from a charity shop not all ways and not by everybody you made my case for me with your own experience

i don`t mock people for it

i was pointing out that it happens
obviously where you have lived some sort of place over the rainbow full of kind people skipping from day to day full of the milk of human kindness and tolerance it never happens ...where is that exactly ?

secondly  as usual you want to make it ALL about you

quote raggs
"it's you who thinks it's demeaning for me to buy things from charity shops"

I never said that or even mentioned you personally or even hinted at it or claimed it was or it should be demeaning for you  

yet once again you want to make it a personal attack against you and you call me insecure ?

why do you you allways look to be the victim and see every comment as a personal attack directed your way it`s pretty tedious quite frankly  

look in the mirror that person looking back ...................is the obviously insecure one and it shows

As i have said from the start i don`t give a toss where people shop that`s there choice.

But as i said some people have no choice and from what i have been reading charity shops are not always that cheap any more sure you can find a bargain but it looks like that`s not always the case

i don`t know about you but i grew up in a time when they was a stigma attached to charity shops perhaps that`s why i have never been in one in my life even when now they have become "trendy" as i pointed out above

i dont personally judge people for it but i rarely see people common poor people  advertising the fact ether although its does seem to be the in thing of the more affluent to brag about   

perhaps its like oysters once the food of the poor now a expensive delicacy like so many other things

perhaps Mary Portas, who you may remember from the BBC2 series ‘Mary Queen of Shops who wants to remove the stigma from charity shops and get everyone shopping in them

so if you think there is no stigma attached to charity shops you obviously again are completely wrong

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:People like me KD...!?


I support the use of second hand stuff, not only for the principle of recycling and putting good stuff to use but also because people like to buy it And it generates work for people and money for charity.



You appear to presume that people like me have some sort of snobbish attitude towards others for using charity shops or grabbing second hand stuff but in reality it is people like me who commend it while you seem to be running it down and running down those who use this stuff and outlets.



Your idea of 'me' and 'people like me' is based on what exactly!?

Other than a poor stereotype generated by your wild imagination!!!



Only a leftie can hear someone voice support for charity shops and second hand pass ons and twist it as a way of enabling others to look down their noses at the poorer people in society!


Unbelievable!!!

Korban and Bru certainly appear to think that it's demeaning to buy things from charity shops. I find their attitude astonishing - in fact, I think they must be jesting.

Their twisting is beyond belief!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
did you allways have the lastest and newest stuff when you where growing up i guess your kids where never bullied for wearing second hand clothes

i suspect you never had to rely on charity for the basics in life have you so i guess you have no concept how that can affect you or your self worth
it one thing buying the odd item but when you have to rely on it for your entire closet its a different thing all together

When I was a kid, I loved jumble sales. I had clothes which had been passed on. Did I feel sorry for myself? Of course not. I simply can't understand your attitude. Do you seriously think that way?

Lefties are more materialistic than others by the looks of things... and they obviously judge people by what they have more than others too...

Rags, when I was little, and my kids were little, we loved jumble sales as well. But the big difference is, we had a choice.

Well I certainly had little choice as we could not afford new clothes all the time and being as there was ready available clothes of my brothers, it made perfect sense to use them. Its all about how you matain the clothes you wear so they do not get worn out. There is no argument to claim against second hand clothes they are as stated based on materialism of wanting something new. Its a virus that effects many people which also gets them into debt. Theylive beyond their means. To argue off others bullying is a problem to deal with in regards to bullying, not the wearing of second hand clothes. Thus you tackle bullying so that kids do not suffer such abuse. No child should be bullied for what they wear thus the problem is too tackle teasing and bulling.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


When I was a kid, I loved jumble sales. I had clothes which had been passed on. Did I feel sorry for myself? Of course not. I simply can't understand your attitude. Do you seriously think that way?

Lefties are more materialistic than others by the looks of things... and they obviously judge people by what they have more than others too...

thanks for that Tommy your carefully and well though out opinions are a great benefit to us all but If I wanted to listen to an asshole, I’d fart.

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Lefties are more materialistic than others by the looks of things... and they obviously judge people by what they have more than others too...

thanks for that Tommy your carefully and well though out opinions are a great benefit to us all but If I wanted to listen to an asshole, I’d fart.

No KD, you would just talk to yourself...

Cuchulain wrote:Well I certainly had little choice as we could not afford new clothes all the time and being as there was ready available clothes of my brothers, it made perfect sense to use them. Its all about how you matain the clothes you wear so they do not get worn out. There is no argument to claim against second hand clothes they are as stated based on materialism of wanting something new. Its a virus that effects many people which also gets them into debt. Theylive beyond their means. To argue off others bullying is a problem to deal with in regards to bullying, not the wearing of second hand clothes. Thus you tackle bullying so that kids do not suffer such abuse. No child should be bullied for what they wear thus the problem is too tackle teasing and bulling.

i agree but there's the difference between what should be and what is
And i am trying to point out that there still is a stigma when it comes to charity shops justified or not As i keep saying i don`t care ether way but i find it deeply troubling that 30 years ago charity shops and food banks where mainly for the destitute and foreign aid are now more common place and accepted as the norm

Tommy Monk wrote:No KD, you would just talk to yourself...

careful Tommy you going to leave a skid mark

Charity shops are more common place because we generally have more stuff And buy more stuff.


And people know that their old stuff is too good to just throw away in the bin and are thoughtful enough to donate it to a charity shop to allow someone else to get a bit of use out of it And generate a bit of cash for a good cause.

I think there is a very big difference between buying things from a charity shop because we like the item, (I bought a rather wonderful purple handbag from Claire house shop yesterday brand new ) and buying everything second hand because you cant afford to do otherwise.

Also anyone who thinks children wont get ripped to bits for being the one in the second hand clothes or wrong trainers clearly doesn't have kids.

Nems wrote:I think there is a very big difference between buying things from a charity shop because we like the item, (I bought a rather wonderful purple handbag from Claire house shop yesterday brand new ) and buying everything second hand because you cant afford to do otherwise.

Also anyone who thinks children wont get ripped to bits for being the one in the second hand clothes or wrong trainers clearly doesn't have kids.

Thank you nems that`s exactly what i am trying to point out

Tommy Monk wrote:Charity shops are more common place because we generally have more stuff And buy more stuff.


And people know that their old stuff is too good to just throw away in the bin and are thoughtful enough to donate it to a charity shop to allow someone else to get a bit of use out of it And generate a bit of cash for a good cause.

Thats very simplistic as always with you

Recession fuels charity shop boom
Charity shops are experiencing a record boom in business as the squeezed middle classes alter their shopping habits in a bid to cut costs.
Annual income for UK charity shops has reached an all-time high of almost £1 billion, an increase of 34 per cent on last year, according to a new report.

Almost a million more middle class customers have turned to them during the economic downturn while research suggests that half of the population has purchased something from a charity shop since June last year.

Mothers with young children have become particularly dependent on them for cheap second hand clothes and toys, the Charity Retail Association (CRA) found.

One in four of those surveyed who will be affected by the government’s child benefit cuts said they were shopping in charity shops more frequently than they were two years ago while a third of mothers with children under 10 said they were likely to increase the amount they use them within the next year.

However, the association said that the recession meant that one in five was now choosing to sell their clothes rather than donate them to charity, leading to a supply and demand crisis.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9262907/Recession-fuels-charity-shop-boom.html

So benefits should be generous enough to pay for children to have loads of all the latest brand new designer clothes...!?

also
'Greedy' charity shops under fire for prices beyond means of poor

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/29/charity-shops-pricing-items-bargains

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Charity shops are more common place because we generally have more stuff And buy more stuff.


And people know that their old stuff is too good to just throw away in the bin and are thoughtful enough to donate it to a charity shop to allow someone else to get a bit of use out of it And generate a bit of cash for a good cause.

Thats a very simplistic as always with you

Recession fuels charity shop boom
Charity shops are experiencing a record boom in business as the squeezed middle classes alter their shopping habits in a bid to cut costs.
Annual income for UK charity shops has reached an all-time high of almost £1 billion, an increase of 34 per cent on last year, according to a new report.

Almost a million more middle class customers have turned to them during the economic downturn while research suggests that half of the population has purchased something from a charity shop since June last year.

Mothers with young children have become particularly dependent on them for cheap second hand clothes and toys, the Charity Retail Association (CRA) found.

One in four of those surveyed who will be affected by the government’s child benefit cuts said they were shopping in charity shops more frequently than they were two years ago while a third of mothers with children under 10 said they were likely to increase the amount they use them within the next year.

However, the association said that the recession meant that one in five was now choosing to sell their clothes rather than donate them to charity, leading to a supply and demand crisis.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9262907/Recession-fuels-charity-shop-boom.html

So it's the squeezed middle classes who work hard and pay taxes who are being forced into using charity shops...!?

While you think that those on benefits shouldn't have to!?

When it is the workers who are paying the taxes to support the ones on benefits!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
So benefits should be generous enough to pay for children to have loads of all the latest brand new designer clothes...!?

No tommy, wages should!
How many more times?! The worst of in this country are the low paid!
Trying to live on benefits is bad enough but try living on minimum wage
that puts you just over the threshold so you get no help what so ever
is impossible. That's why the working poor are the ones using the food banks
Imagine working full time and having to use a food bank. Can you?

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
So benefits should be generous enough to pay for children to have loads of all the latest brand new designer clothes...!?

No tommy, wages should!
How many more times?! The worst of in this country are the low paid!
Trying to live on benefits is bad enough but try living on minimum wage
that puts you just over the threshold so you get no help what so ever
is impossible. That's why the working poor are the ones using the food banks
Imagine working full time and having to use a food bank. Can you?

Exactly. 2 days ago:

The proportion of poor children whose parents work has risen, a report on living standards has concluded.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) report found that the rate of child poverty in working families had risen between 2009 and 2014, largely because of a drop in wages

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33546819

And UK is still one of the richest countries. Not for them it's not. Diabolical.

Tommy Monk wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Thats a very simplistic as always with you

Recession fuels charity shop boom
Charity shops are experiencing a record boom in business as the squeezed middle classes alter their shopping habits in a bid to cut costs.
Annual income for UK charity shops has reached an all-time high of almost £1 billion, an increase of 34 per cent on last year, according to a new report.

Almost a million more middle class customers have turned to them during the economic downturn while research suggests that half of the population has purchased something from a charity shop since June last year.

Mothers with young children have become particularly dependent on them for cheap second hand clothes and toys, the Charity Retail Association (CRA) found.

One in four of those surveyed who will be affected by the government’s child benefit cuts said they were shopping in charity shops more frequently than they were two years ago while a third of mothers with children under 10 said they were likely to increase the amount they use them within the next year.

However, the association said that the recession meant that one in five was now choosing to sell their clothes rather than donate them to charity, leading to a supply and demand crisis.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9262907/Recession-fuels-charity-shop-boom.html

So it's the squeezed middle classes who work hard and pay taxes who are being forced into using charity shops...!?

While you think that those on benefits shouldn't have to!?

When it is the workers who are paying the taxes to support the ones on benefits!!!

eh i dont think anybody should have to be in a position they have to rely on "charity" such as it is regardless whether they working or not
especially when company's avoid paying billions in tax that could be used to actually create jobs and put people to work

Labours mass immigration has caused the huge rise in costs of living and held down wages.

Its a national disgrace.

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
So benefits should be generous enough to pay for children to have loads of all the latest brand new designer clothes...!?

No tommy, wages should!
How many more times?! The worst of in this country are the low paid!
Trying to live on benefits is bad enough but try living on minimum wage
that puts you just over the threshold so you get no help what so ever
is impossible. That's why the working poor are the ones using the food banks
Imagine working full time and having to use a food bank. Can you?

good luck with that nems getting any thing trough to him is like trying to hammer butter in to granite

Tommy Monk wrote:Labours mass immigration has caused the huge rise in costs of living and held down wages.

And as all ways back to the old bleating immigration labour, hang about and i am sure blacks and gays will make an appearance from Tommy

Nems wrote:Its a national disgrace.

dam straight it is

korban dallas wrote:

Nems wrote:

No tommy, wages should!
How many more times?! The worst of in this country are the low paid!
Trying to live on benefits is bad enough but try living on minimum wage
that puts you just over the threshold so you get no help what so ever
is impossible. That's why the working poor are the ones using the food banks
Imagine working full time and having to use a food bank. Can you?

good luck with that nems getting any thing trough to him is like trying to hammer butter in to granite

All this disdain and contempt for the poor, sick and disadvantaged, imagine if all that energy were put to positive use?
We could have a revolution and get some social justice back in this bloody country.

Tommy Monk wrote:Labours mass immigration has caused the huge rise in costs of living and held down wages.

funny that a Leading economist Jonathan Portes, head of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, said: "EU migrants don't appear to have a negative impact on the employment prospects of natives - several different studies have failed to show any link.

A 2009 study by labour market expert Professor Danny Blanchflower, a former Bank of England rate-setter, and Bank of England analyst Chris Shadforth found that any negative impact on wages is "statistically insignificant".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/29/migrants-wages-uk-immigration_n_5409319.html

as always tommy all you do is spout bullshit

45 hours on min wage = just under £300 a week before tax... but then you will only pay tax on about £100 of that so take home pay is about £270.


I could live on that.

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
So benefits should be generous enough to pay for children to have loads of all the latest brand new designer clothes...!?

No tommy, wages should!
How many more times?! The worst of in this country are the low paid!
Trying to live on benefits is bad enough but try living on minimum wage
that puts you just over the threshold so you get no help what so ever
is impossible. That's why the working poor are the ones using the food banks
Imagine working full time and having to use a food bank. Can you?

No the problem in this country is people living beyond their means
But people do live on minimum wage and do so comfortably because they do not waste their money and wise with it. If we vastly increase the minimum wage we then we see a rise in unemployment as businesses will look to cheaper production sources. What you have then is even more people placed onto benefits. Not the brightest idea really. What you need is a wage balance throughout the EU to combat the problem The only reason many are using food banks is there are more readily available than there was before. I do not buy for one minute the amount that claim to need them. ore like again many people being very poor with their finances. You only have to look at the sales in this country on goods and clothes etc to see many people living beyond their means

Tommy Monk wrote:45 hours on min wage = just under £300 a week before tax... but then you will only pay tax on about £100 of that so take home pay is about £270.


I could live on that.

You are truly out of your tree:

The average UK rent is now £836 per calendar month, an increase of 2% year on year as demand, especially for quality homes outstrips supply.

The data from the latest analysis report from lettings agency Countrywide also shows that one and two bedroom properties saw the greatest increase in rent up 8.5% and 3.6% to £751 and £810 respectively.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-rents-demand-prices-2015021310156.html

That is rent, there is Council Tax on top of that, and Water Rates, before you start on anything else.

Tommy Monk wrote:45 hours on min wage = just under £300 a week before tax... but then you will only pay tax on about £100 of that so take home pay is about £270.


I could live on that.

what do you pay in rent tommy you live in London area right ? average rents about 1500 ?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/15/london-rents-homelet-survey-housing-crisis

Yes that is the average price for a 2 bedroom property.
A couple on minimum wage can afford a one bedroom property and live comfortably if they are not stupid with their money.
The problem is 8 million people in this country are in debt and many of their own making.

C1 Bloomsbury £450 pw (22) £636 pw (20) £1,157 pw (6) £1,650 pw (1)
WC2 Covent Garden £493 pw (13) £972 pw (5) £1,317 pw (6) £1,300 pw (1)
EC1 City of London £480 pw (24) £625 pw (36) £813 pw (3) £995 pw (1)
W1 Central London £561 pw (50) £850 pw (65) £1,429 pw (14) £2,278 pw (10)
W2 Paddington £456 pw (65) £640 pw (59) £1,183 pw (27) £1,332 pw (9)
W3 Acton £334 pw ( £396 pw (18) £505 pw (4) £709 pw (7)
W4 Chiswick £341 pw (25) £489 pw (35) £622 pw (15) £940 pw (14)
W5 Ealing £318 pw (5) £392 pw (22) £489 pw (12) £805 pw (15)
W6 Hammersmith £356 pw (14) £480 pw (28) £597 pw (5) £1,234 pw (4)
W8 Kensington £458 pw (15) £1,346 pw (41) £1,478 pw (17) £2,059 pw (5)
W9 Maida Vale £361 pw (12) £581 pw (42) £745 pw (26) £1,305 pw (2)
W10 North Kensington £403 pw (14) £490 pw (11)
W11 Notting Hill £525 pw (31) £866 pw (19) £1,150 pw (3) £2,250 pw (1)
W12 Shepherd's Bush £359 pw (9) £452 pw (15) £683 pw (7) £800 pw (3)
W13 West Ealing £270 pw (6) £367 pw ( £479 pw (4) £606 pw (2)
W14 West Kensington £390 pw (23) £512 pw (40) £762 pw (11) £880 pw (3)
NW1 Camden £408 pw (29) £598 pw (47) £1,051 pw (16) £1,735 pw (11)
NW2 Cricklewood £299 pw (10) £412 pw (24) £594 pw (10) £1,125 pw (2)
NW3 Hampstead £399 pw (25) £588 pw (69) £829 pw (32) £1,371 pw (
NW4 Hendon £251 pw (7) £343 pw ( £393 pw (4) £695 pw (1)
NW6 Kilburn £352 pw (31) £487 pw (43) £649 pw (23) £1,239 pw (7)
NW7 Mill Hill £258 pw (6) £348 pw (29) £437 pw (10) £1,163 pw (6)
NW8 St Johns Wood £437 pw (49) £598 pw (61) £1,206 pw (41) £2,191 pw (15)
NW10 Willesden £294 pw (3) £417 pw (5) £517 pw (6) £967 pw (9)
NW11 Golders Green £308 pw (2) £406 pw (14) £699 pw (6) £1,135 pw (7)
SW1 Westminster £503 pw (55) £827 pw (58) £2,028 pw (23) £2,198 pw (10)
SW2 Brixton £318 pw (5) £361 pw (16) £454 pw (9) £734 pw (4)
SW3 Chelsea £534 pw (41) £816 pw (42) £1,721 pw (9) £3,325 pw (6)
SW4 Clapham £351 pw (11) £437 pw (18) £709 pw (5) £869 pw (3)
SW5 Earls Court £469 pw (25) £689 pw (42) £928 pw (11) £1,600 pw (1)
SW6 Fulham £373 pw (34) £474 pw (66) £624 pw (22) £1,160 pw (21)
SW7 South Kensington £548 pw (26) £836 pw (56) £1,880 pw (27) £2,677 pw (11)
SW8 South Lambeth £352 pw (21) £499 pw (24) £788 pw (4) £673 pw (2)
SW9         Stockwell £325 pw (12) £399 pw (11) £582 pw (7) £636 pw (5)
SW10 West Brompton £408 pw (26) £649 pw (31) £1,078 pw (11) £1,768 pw (5)
SW11 Battersea £404 pw (30) £511 pw (49) £604 pw (15) £942 pw (
SW12 Balham £348 pw (7) £378 pw (14) £512 pw (6) £845 pw (6)
SW15 Putney £357 pw (56) £408 pw (80) £557 pw (25) £721 pw (21)
SW16 Streatham £284 pw (14) £339 pw (29) £427 pw (9) £626 pw (11)
SW17 Tooting £310 pw (19) £387 pw (41) £499 pw (17) £680 pw (13)

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:45 hours on min wage = just under £300 a week before tax... but then you will only pay tax on about £100 of that so take home pay is about £270.


I could live on that.

You are truly out of your tree:

The average UK rent is now £836 per calendar month, an increase of 2% year on year as demand, especially for quality homes outstrips supply.

The data from the latest analysis report from lettings agency Countrywide also shows that one and two bedroom properties saw the greatest increase in rent up 8.5% and 3.6% to £751 and £810 respectively.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-rents-demand-prices-2015021310156.html

Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:

You are truly out of your tree:

The average UK rent is now £836 per calendar month, an increase of 2% year on year as demand, especially for quality homes outstrips supply.

The data from the latest analysis report from lettings agency Countrywide also shows that one and two bedroom properties saw the greatest increase in rent up 8.5% and 3.6% to £751 and £810 respectively.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-rents-demand-prices-2015021310156.html

Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

And fuck your children then, they can live in the loo?

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:

You are truly out of your tree:

The average UK rent is now £836 per calendar month, an increase of 2% year on year as demand, especially for quality homes outstrips supply.

The data from the latest analysis report from lettings agency Countrywide also shows that one and two bedroom properties saw the greatest increase in rent up 8.5% and 3.6% to £751 and £810 respectively.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-rents-demand-prices-2015021310156.html

Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

Yeah you could probably manage if you lived in a tent too
but what about those people not in shared accommodation?
What about those with children?

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:

You are truly out of your tree:

The average UK rent is now £836 per calendar month, an increase of 2% year on year as demand, especially for quality homes outstrips supply.

The data from the latest analysis report from lettings agency Countrywide also shows that one and two bedroom properties saw the greatest increase in rent up 8.5% and 3.6% to £751 and £810 respectively.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-rents-demand-prices-2015021310156.html

Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

your dreaming dude and apparently sponging of the people you share with i take it you will be using water ,electricity and gas ect and they would be liable for council tax for you as a none dependent

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

Yeah you could probably manage if you lived in a tent too
but what about those people not in shared accommodation?
What about those with children?

No you can easily manage if you are not stupid with your money.
If you decide to have children they are your responsibility to raise are they not?
If you cannot afford to have children then you do not start a family until you save up and can.
Most start a family not thinking of the costs this will incur.

Rents are sky high because we have mass immigration.


“Migrationwatch found 45% of social housing in Ealing, west London, is occupied
by unemployed foreigners”.

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

your dreaming dude and apparently sponging of the people you share with i take it you will be using water ,electricity and gas ect and they would be liable for council tax for you as a none dependent

Good point

Tommy Monk wrote:Rents are sky high because we have mass immigration.


“Migrationwatch found 45% of social housing in Ealing, west London, is occupied
by unemployed foreigners”.

Does the reason matter? the immigrants aren't going anywhere and the problem remains.
At least you acknowledge there is a problem now.

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

And fuck your children then, they can live in the loo?

I don't have children but if I did I would no doubt be IN social housing with a nice 3-4 bedroom place and Only paying about £125 a week (which is about the going rate where I live for a council place), and I would be getting child benefits and tax credits too!!!


Plus my children would be getting a school place each at £6000 a year per place.


So still a nice life style and plenty of money!!!

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Average for average sassy...


Don't compare average rent to minimum wage.


If I was on the wage above then I would live in a cheap rent place.


Probably a room in a shared house for about £80 a week with no bills or council tax.

your dreaming dude and apparently sponging of the people you share with i take it you will be using water ,electricity and gas ect and they would be liable for council tax for you as a none dependent

Not dreaming at all!!!


A room in shared house where I live is about £80-90 a week and that includes gas and electric etc.


You have to live within your means!!!

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Rents are sky high because we have mass immigration.


“Migrationwatch found 45% of social housing in Ealing, west London, is occupied
by unemployed foreigners”.

Does the reason matter? the immigrants aren't going anywhere and the problem remains.
At least you acknowledge there is a problem now.

How many times have I said mass immigration has pushed up costs of living and held down wages!!!???


Only for lefties to deny it And call me racist!?


And yes the reason does matter!!!

Especially as the taps on mass immigration are still wide open and Only going to make problems worse!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nems wrote:

Does the reason matter? the immigrants aren't going anywhere and the problem remains.
At least you acknowledge there is a problem now.

How many times have I said mass immigration has pushed up costs of living and held down wages!!!???


Only for lefties to deny it And call me racist!?


And yes the reason does matter!!!

Especially as the taps on mass immigration are still wide open and Only going to make problems worse!!!

Actually the wages are kept low through competitiveness with the rest of the EU. Hence why the recovery has been due to more businesses setting up here. Has little todo with immigration.

So how can rising living costs be kept up with in wage rises if we are to remain competitive...?


We can do something about rising living costs by stopping THE main cause of rising living costs which is stopping mass immigration!!!


And we should be removing more foreigners who come here supposedly to work but then sit there on the dole and taking up valuable council housing!!!