State house cheats
August 24th, 2012 at 1:49 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
More than 300 state housing tenants were evicted in the past year for lying about their circumstances, including one couple that ran an internet business from their property which turned over almost $400,000.
New figures show the number of tenancies ended for dishonesty has been steadily rising over the past few years. In the past year 312 tenants were terminated, up from 241 last year and 114 in 2010.
This is one of the problems if having state house rentals so much more generous that the accommodation supplement for private rentals. It creates an obvious incentive for people to try and get the maximum benefit – including lying about their circumstances.
Of course the previous policy of market rentals for state houses, and delivering all support through the accommodation supplement also had drawbacks. It’s one of those areas where all policy options have significant problems.
Good to see that Housing NZ is being vigilant at detecting fraud.
Related posts:
- State House on $113K
- State House Tenants can now buy their homes
- $75/week for $1m state house
- state housing fraud
August 24th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Fucking thieving,bludging scum…
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Longknives, please don’t thread jack. This isn’t about politicians.
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I always thought the accommodation supplement / market rent solution was fair. What were the problems with it? Reverting to income related rent was IIRC a political move.
The below is from a couple of years ago (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4268993/Big-shake-up-for-state-housing). Surely a perfect scenario for Mr Market?
Housing New Zealand was maintaining thousands of old houses that were the wrong size, in the wrong areas and occupied by tenants who could afford to live privately. “At the moment we’ve got about 8000 too many three-bedroom houses and we need one and two-bedroom and five-bedroom houses. We need over the next five or 10 years to divest those houses and purchase the smaller and larger ones.”
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
More 5 bedroom properties needed? WTF? Who are these breeders? Obviously not rich Catholics. Anyone know?
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Sequester the total occupants income.. Returning 75% ..
Ensure that all occupiers of more than two days/nights are included..
Hard to do !!.. Just the threat of being caught lodging else where from their stated home, will keep many horny dole bludgers away.. Automatic lose of benefits..
Harden up NZ..
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
If only “Crusher” Collins were in charge of Housing NZ.
Here’s an idea – bring in a time-limit on how long you can stay in a Housing NZ house. Let’s say ten years, for the sake of argument.
Now – when someone wants to live in a state house, they are **forced** to put aside “x” dollars per week into a “saving for a house deposit” account.
The idea is, of course, that when the “time limit” is up, they have enough in that account to put a deposit on a house, and they move OUT of the state house, into their own home.
(As has been said many times, if you are in a state house, it is NOT “your” home, any more than a rented flat is “your” home.)
Simple and fair. Oh, and if you are so feckless and useless that you can’t put aside “x” dollars per week for the deposit – “tough titties”. Give up the smokes, booze and gambling and **don’t have so many bloody children.**
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
hope those stats of state house abusers include the Rt Hon Bill “double-Dipton” English and lest we forget his Labour role model come protege, another Rt Hon -Marian Hobbs.
Vote:August 24th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
I’m not sure what the draw backs to charging market rents for State houses were? Now those lucky enough to be given a state house get huge subsidies and most of the rest of low income tenants get the accommodation supplement. The taxpayer gets a lower return on the investment in state houses plus has to pay for their upkeep – and in the nature of a giant bureaucracy, spend tens of thousands of dollars every few years for a paint job, etc!
Vote:August 25th, 2012 at 7:02 am
Ever noticed how a State house in your neighbourhood is generally the most poorly looked-after – uncut lawns, rubbish in the yard, etc.
But next door the tenant paying rent to a private landlord looks after their property. The latter does this because they risk being evicted for breaching their tenancy.
Why doesn’t HNZ enforce its own State House tenancy agreements and make their tenants look after the property.
Vote:August 25th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Yes MH but when politicians do it it’s so different isn’t it?
Vote:August 25th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Only 300 – not doing well enough.
Vote:Tenants should be on a fixed term only – 5 year review, then 10 year out – no exceptions, even for Maori