I was watching the show “Birds of a Feather,” it’s a UK Britcom and one of the sister’s Sharon lived in a council flat.
It’s depicted as quite a slum but she clearly says she pays rent. And later when she moves in with her sister, she keeps her flat by subletting it, which seems to be illegal.
Then in one episode, she has squatters, (this is latter so I guess she stopped subletting), but says she can’t go to the police, because then the welfare people will know she’s not living there and claiming the dole illegally.
Then in yet another episode the neighbor Dorian says how the area the council flats are in is becoming gentrified and Sharon should sell out now and make money.
So my question is how do these council flats in England work? It is clear in all the episodes Sharon, is paying rent, (she talks about withholding rent till it’s fixed up), but how can she sell then?
Second I am assuming these flats are tied to being on the dole in England? Sharon seems to sign on and off the dole as the plot dictates, so I don’t know how realistic that is.
The only other Britcom I know of that speaks of council flats is “Keeping Up Appearances” where Daisy, Rose, Onslow and Daddy, live in one. No one (other than occasionally Rose) seems to work either.
FYI: The show takes place near London in the early 90s to 1998
Council properties are owned by local authorities and rented to tenants. If the tenants are “on the dole”/in receipt of benefits then their rent would be paid for through benefits. I’m not familiar with the particular Birds of a Feather plot but by subletting her flat and moving in with her sister, whilst continuing to claim from that address, Sharon would have been breaking the law or the rules in several ways.
Subletting without the council’s knowledge nor permission, breaking rules if not the law.
In living with her sister and subletting the flat she is defrauding the benefits system. Firstly she is not reporting the income from the tenants. Secondly although she may still be eligible for some benefits her claim would almost certainly have been reduced because of living with her sister. They would have been considered to be a shared household and thus her sister would be subsidising her needs for food and shelter. This could only have been avoided if she were able to show that she was living as her sister’s tenant, contributing to bills and eating separately. Thirdly her claim for housing benefit for the council property is fraudulent. This benefit would have included money toward the rates. There may have been further complications too, basically if found out she was stuffed
It was and is possible to buy council properties at a favourable rate depending on how long one has lived there. This is something that has been encouraged by government since the 1980s. Some people have profited from purchase and subsequent sale others have found that they own an unsellable burden. That Sharon suddenly owned the property looks like a plot hole to me!!
The squatters may have simply been tenants who stopped paying rent. As they were there illegally it would indeed have been hard for Sharon to get rid of them.
