Family of 12 Asylum Seekers Land in UK–and Are Handed a £6,000-A-Month Home Paid For by You

Sam Greenhill, Daily Mail (London), April 22, 2011

A family of 12 asylum-seekers is being put up in a vast house costing taxpayers nearly £1,500 a week, it has emerged.

The Ethiopian couple and their ten children are receiving a staggering £1,460 a week in housing benefit alone.

The jobless couple will also be eligible for other handouts such as unemployment and child benefits, which could potentially add up to an additional £1,300 a week.

Council officials, who refused to give further details of the case, found the family a mini mansion after they arrived in London from Africa in the past few weeks. It was not revealed whether the family is suspected of entering the UK illegally before claiming asylum.

The couple receive a weekly sum of £1,462.90, according to the council’s housing benefits claims department, meaning that the family will cost taxpayers £76,000 in housing benefit alone if allowed to stay in the property for 12 months.

The couple would realistically have to be among the nation’s top earners on wages of £230,000 before tax to afford to spend the same amount of money on rent or a mortgage.

First, the husband presented himself at a housing office in Tower Hamlets, East London, stating he was a refugee and homeless.

Then, days after he was helped, he turned up again with the 11 other members of his family and demanded they all be housed together. It is yet another example of benefits claimants being put up in huge homes at the expense of taxpayers who could never afford such a property themselves.

The bill for housing benefit has risen from £14billion ten years ago to £21billion–more than the country spends on policing and universities combined.

Last night Tower Hamlets’ opposition leader, Conservative councillor Peter Golds, said of the latest case: ‘It is utterly, utterly ridiculous. Why do they need to be housed in one of the most expensive areas of Britain, at great cost to ordinary families who cannot afford the same for themselves?

‘Paying a yearly rate of £76,000 for one family shows the ludicrous amount of public money being paid to put people into expensive housing.’

Benefits payouts in Tower Hamlets alone have cost the taxpayer a mammoth £223million in just one year.

Figures show the council–the poorest in the nation–is spending a third of a million pounds a year on housing just ten families, including the Ethiopian couple and their children.

The other nine receive between £590 and £613 a week in housing benefit. Crucially for the Ethiopian family, they began claiming benefits shortly before the April 1 cut-off for large claims introduced by the Government to tackle fears the system was being abused.

Chancellor George Osborne announced the shake-up after an Afghan woman, Toorpakai Saiedi, and her family were revealed to have been put up in a £1.2million house in Acton, West London, in 2008.

But although benefits capping began on April 1 for all new claimants, those already getting more than £20,000 a year in housing benefit are being given up to nine months to adjust.

The Department for Work and Pensions says housing benefit has been out of control.

A spokesman said: ‘We can’t justify having welfare families in wealthy properties in expensive areas which hard-working families can’t afford. We have to be fair. People on benefits have to make the same choices as the rest of the population.’

Ray Boulger, a mortgage consultant at City firm John Charcol, said: ‘A family of 12 bringing in £1,460-a-week housing benefit demonstrates why the Government is changing the benefit rules.

‘Here is a family with ten children who normally wouldn’t be able to pay that amount–but the state is encouraging people like them to have many more children than they can afford.’

A spokesman for Tower Hamlets council refused to comment on the Ethiopian family, saying: ‘We ensure all claims are processed in line with current guidance.’

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Kenelm Digby

    If you don’t know much about England, I’ll let you into some little secrets.

    In England it is the ‘responsibility’ of local authorities to accomodate such people as these Ethiopians (who, incidentally haven’t contributed a penny to the national economy or tax base).

    This ‘responsibility’ is enshrined in statutory law and probably the ‘Human Rights Act’ and other EU legislation.

    Now, by and large, local authorities are funded by something called the ‘council tax’ or ‘rates’ (as it was more honestly known in olden days), which is a very heavy annual cash payment demanded by the local authority (on threat of imprisonment), which is supposedly based on the marketable value of the householder’s home.

    Now it so happens that the elderly and retired are the group most hardly hit by the rates, generally they have paid off mortgages but are left with low incomes on meagre state pensions.

    These people are utterly financially devasted by exhorbitant rates demands (which doubled under Labour), and are forced to make hard choices to pay this tax.If the deign to apply for some sort of relief from this very heavy tax they are put under the most intrusive, stringent financial probing you could possibly imagine.

    So a generation that worked hard, saved hard and were taxed hard for Britain are being skinned alive to subsidise the excess population of unconnected third world peoples who never practised contraception.

    Vote BNP.

  • mikeH

    Mr Digby,

    Does the person/s who own the houses that rent subsidies

    are eventually paid to usually live in the same council area

    that the properties are located? Or are these absentee landlords who benefit from the council taxes but don’t pay any taxes

    for that area.

    With the NWO these landlords don’t even have to live in the countries in which they own the properties. At least this is true in the USA.

    As a taxpayer you should have the right to know who benefits

    from this arrangement (besides the people who reside in these

    houses).

    These may be the people who are actively destroying your

    country for their own selfish interest.

    Mike H

  • Coment from Australia

    This whole thing is insane, totally. Of course the word will get back to Addis Ababa the the UK is the promised land, just fly there and claim asylum, the UK taxpayer will support you like royalty.

    This won’t happen but perhaps there should be a new UN charter on refugees, it would go something like this: If you are a Muslim and being persecuted it is up to an Islamic country to take you in. If you are a black African it will be up to another African nation to take you in. Displaced and threatened white South Africans should also have the right to go to UK, USA Australia and Canada under this system just like Jews have the right to go to Israel. Indians in Fiji should have a right to return to India. (They won’t because Australia has a too generous welfare system so we get them)

    As for blacks in the USA who don’t like white society, perhaps there should be an incentive scheme for voluntary repatriation to Liberia. (That was the reason for the establishment of Liberia in the first place) As for the Mexican invasion of the USA some good old fashioned law enforcement and a clamp down on welfare payments just might solve the problem but I don’t think Mr BHO would be with me on this one.

    As for welfare payments, I assume that both the USA and UK governments are printing money to pay for all of this. In this regard I note that the Australian Dollar is now over 30% higher against both the Greenback and UK Pound over the past few months. Not bad for a currency that was once described as the South Pacific Peso!

  • Kenelm Digby

    Mike H,

    You’re talking about a very vexed subject that probably involves a myriad of overseas trusts, shell companies and creative accountants.

    Suffice to say that subcon Indians are very big players in this game (letting rental properties to local authority for big cash).

  • Anonymous

    The US has such a program, it’s called Section 8 money. A freebie for all third worlders to join in. Supposedly for citizens, Section 8 money is handed out like candy by liberal government workers. Even the pretend president of the USA has an illegal relative collecting Section 8 money. In addition, illegals in America are given all sorts of free assistance. Food, transportation, clothing, utilities, schooling and health care are just a few. In order for this to happen, the 1965 Immigration Act was put in place to flood the USA with third worlders just in case the white tax payer balked. We now happily join the rest of the Western world gone mad.

  • Anonymous

    >>

    First, the husband presented himself at a housing office in Tower Hamlets, East London, stating he was a refugee and homeless.

    Then, days after he was helped, he turned up again with the 11 other members of his family and demanded they all be housed together. It is yet another example of benefits claimants being put up in huge homes at the expense of taxpayers who could never afford such a property themselves.

    >>

    Certainly! First class tickets back to Ethiopia for all of them. Keep them at the airport Mariot in adjoining rooms until the immigration people can assign a Sky Marshal to make sure they reach their destination. And stay there.

    Death warrants if they return.

    THINK people. If even six of these 11 family members are his children and they each have an average of 4 kids apiece themselves, in 3 generations you will be needing 96 husbands/brides for these people _alone_.

    The only words that come to mind here are: “No taxation without equal representation.”

    Time for England to have new government that looks solely after it’s white, indigene, peoples. And since you have nowhere to run to to create a demographic barrier, you had better get yourselves ready for some violence.