I don't remember Johnny Allen (nearly wrote Nelson instead there! ) doing that. I remember him buying some new cars for the Ferreira's taxi company though.
EE always changes "the facts" on things like this. Over the years they keep on changing who is the older Michell brother. Sometimes its Grant, then its Phil then back to Grant! :rolleyes:
What was wrong with Dot having house guests too? Since when does a council tennant need permission for that unless there is the risk of over occupation which I don't think there was and are there rules on informing the council if you aren't in your place for a few months?
Wel in this case EE writers got there facts right. Maybe some people on here should do the same before coming on here and slating them.
It looks like the forum members can't remember the show's history, so who cares? I was watching at the time and even I can't remember whether or not Johnny Allen bought the house.
It was during the period that Johnny Allen was trying to be nice, but in the end he didn't buy Dot and Jim the house. He bought them a sofa instead.
I've always thought that it was a Council house. It certainly was at the start, as another poster said, Tom Clements, then Dot, then the Jacksons. Jim stayed there with Robbie and Sonia after Carol and Alan left and obviously Dot moved in when they became involved / married. Jonny didn't buy it.
It was rent arrears not Council Tax and she will be in trouble. As well as the money, she shouldn't be subletting, her deciding they are homeless and need help isn't enough for the Council.
I don't remember Johnny Allen (nearly wrote Nelson instead there! ) doing that. I remember him buying some new cars for the Ferreira's taxi company though.
EE always changes "the facts" on things like this. Over the years they keep on changing who is the older Michell brother. Sometimes its Grant, then its Phil then back to Grant! :rolleyes:
What was wrong with Dot having house guests too? Since when does a council tennant need permission for that unless there is the risk of over occupation which I don't think there was and are there rules on informing the council if you aren't in your place for a few months?
A council tenant can lose their tenancy if they don't occupy the property as their main home or if they have sub let so Dot may be in for a tough time from council lady as she has ignored all their letters.
A council tenant can lose their tenancy if they don't occupy the property as their main home or if they have sub let so Dot may be in for a tough time from council lady as she has ignored all their letters.
I said from the start that I couldn't remember him buying the house
But it's unfair to have a go at those fans who got it wrong this time, because the show does repeatedly get it's facts wrong and it makes a complete change for them to get it right for once!
A council tenant can lose their tenancy if they don't occupy the property as their main home or if they have sub let so Dot may be in for a tough time from council lady as she has ignored all their letters.
Well Dot took people in as either lodgers or to put them up because they where homeless, not to let them be a sub letter.
Its out of order if people can't be away from their homes for a few months and that people need permission to do so. Smacks to me of the authorities as good as saying to people " know your place and don't even try and look like your living the high life in any way by taking long holidays", though in Dots case she was away to help Jim?
So it appears I was mistaken. No harm done. No need to slate those who remembered it incorrectly though. It's not as if they don't change the continuity at will whenever it suits them.
Dot wasn't away to help Jim, she was staying with family to get away from bad memories. You can say it is unfair but there is an argument that there isn't enough Council housing for the people that need it. People that have nowhere else to go, no family. Why should a council owned house be standing empty for months on end whilst people that need it are in refuges or b+bs paid for by the council or even on the streets, especially as perhaps Dot could live with her family as she has been for months.
Also taking in lodgers is sub letting. She is getting income from another source so perhaps under means testing she wouldn't qualify for council housing? Also, again, if they really are homeless, they should get on the list and allow the Council to find them something. Dot is probably charging them a lower rent than a private landlord but she's only able to do because her home is subsidised by the tax payer. Therefore so is theirs but they haven't gone through the system so effectively they have queue jumped ahead of other people - perhaps people in more need. A single young mother perhaps?
I think there is a lot wrong with out Benefits system by the way and do hate the way claimants semem to increasingly be regarded as a scum class that must be controlled but just putting another view.
A council official wouldn't visit for council tax. You miss 2 installments they demand payment for the year in full within 7 days. You don't pay, they get a magistrates order and send bailiffs round.
Also the other ting is that being away from your home doesn't exempt you from responsibility for paying your rent or mortgage. She should still have been doing it and getting Cora and whomever to send her the money. If I went travelling for 6 months I'd still have to pay my mortgage and technically, if someone moved iin to cover my bills for that time I would need to inform my mortgage provider as I have a contract with them, my lodger, sub letter doesn't.
Dot wasn't away to help Jim, she was staying with family to get away from bad memories. You can say it is unfair but there is an argument that there isn't enough Council housing for the people that need it. People that have nowhere else to go, no family. Why should a council owned house be standing empty for months on end whilst people that need it are in refuges or b+bs paid for by the council or even on the streets, especially as perhaps Dot could live with her family as she has been for months.
Also taking in lodgers is sub letting. She is getting income from another source so perhaps under means testing she wouldn't qualify for council housing? Also, again, if they really are homeless, they should get on the list and allow the Council to find them something. Dot is probably charging them a lower rent than a private landlord but she's only able to do because her home is subsidised by the tax payer. Therefore so is theirs but they haven't gone through the system so effectively they have queue jumped ahead of other people - perhaps people in more need. A single young mother perhaps?
I think there is a lot wrong with out Benefits system by the way and do hate the way claimants semem to increasingly be regarded as a scum class that must be controlled but just putting another view.
A council official wouldn't visit for council tax. You miss 2 installments they demand payment for the year in full within 7 days. You don't pay, they get a magistrates order and send bailiffs round.
My understanding of sub letting is when the tennant rents out their whole house to someone else and gets themselves out of there as a result permanently.
My council allows people to take in lodgers in council homes too.
As for your other points, council homes should never have been sold off in the first place and as they where, they should have been replaced. Instead people have wanted to have their cakes and eat it buy getting to buy their own houses, cheaply too in many cases but crying foul whenever their is any attempt to build more homes, be they council or not.
Also the other ting is that being away from your home doesn't exempt you from responsibility for paying your rent or mortgage. She should still have been doing it and getting Cora and whomever to send her the money. If I went travelling for 6 months I'd still have to pay my mortgage and technically, if someone moved iin to cover my bills for that time I would need to inform my mortgage provider as I have a contract with them, my lodger, sub letter doesn't.
Well poppy and Cora just a few weeks ago where talking about how to pay the bills and they should have been paying the rent or enough to cover it while Dot was away, another mess up in my view on EE "continuity".
As for your mortgage or anyone else's, I see it as a major flaw that people have to either have a mortgage where they are the main occupent or a buy to let mortgage. As long as the mortgage is paid, it shouldn't be the mortgage providers business who lives in a house!
My understanding of sub letting is when the tennant rents out their whole house to someone else and gets themselves out of there as a result permanently.
My council allows people to take in lodgers in council homes too.
As for your other points, council homes should never have been sold off in the first place and as they where, they should have been replaced. Instead people have wanted to have their cakes and eat it buy getting to buy their own houses, cheaply too in many cases but crying foul whenever their is any attempt to build more homes, be they council or not.
I totally agree about the selling off of Council houses and not building new ones - that was disgusting and caused most of the problems.
It may vary from area to area but certainly some Councils definately used to count lodgers as sub letters - you are sub letting the room to someone not approved by the council and gaining financially from it.
Well poppy and Cora just a few weeks ago where talking about how to pay the bills and they should have been paying the rent or enough to cover it while Dot was away, another mess up in my view on EE "continuity".
As for your mortgage or anyone else's, I see it as a major flaw that people have to either have a mortgage where they are the main occupent or a buy to let mortgage. As long as the mortgage is paid, it shouldn't be the mortgage providers business who lives in a house!
I think Cora has been collecting it but not paying it.
I totally agree about the selling off of Council houses and not building new ones - that was disgusting and caused most of the problems.
It may vary from area to area but certainly some Councils definately used to count lodgers as sub letters - you are sub letting the room to someone not approved by the council and gaining financially from it.
This current Government has just bought in new rules I think where they want people to take in lodgers in their council homes or face a cut or will face a cut in housing benefit generally if they are considered to have more bedrooms than what they need. Dubbed "the bedroom tax".
I think Cora has been collecting it but not paying it.
If she did do that, that would be well out of order and thus deserved to have been kicked out of the house. I felt sorry for her before that and thought Dot was completely going against her christian beliefs in the way she chucked Cora out.
If she did do that, that would be well out of order and thus deserved to have been kicked out of the house. I felt sorry for her before that and thought Dot was completely going against her christian beliefs in the way she chucked Cora out.
I think that's how it will play out, they've never portrayed Cora as a good two shoes, but I think when she realises how much Dot is struggling shell hand over the left over rent money she has.
I think that's how it will play out, they've never portrayed Cora as a good two shoes, but I think when she realises how much Dot is struggling shell hand over the left over rent money she has.
Well lets hope so but EE seems quite keen on portraying how hard these economic times are on most of the characters and I wouldn't be surprised if they are about to put Dot through "her turn" of suffering real hardship now.
I get why EE has been doing this generally but at the same time I think they should let up a little bit now on this as all programmes need a bit of suspension from reality and for us viewers to enjoy some escapism, even if it is to Albert Square!
Comments
Wel in this case EE writers got there facts right. Maybe some people on here should do the same before coming on here and slating them.
It was during the period that Johnny Allen was trying to be nice, but in the end he didn't buy Dot and Jim the house. He bought them a sofa instead.
It was rent arrears not Council Tax and she will be in trouble. As well as the money, she shouldn't be subletting, her deciding they are homeless and need help isn't enough for the Council.
A council tenant can lose their tenancy if they don't occupy the property as their main home or if they have sub let so Dot may be in for a tough time from council lady as she has ignored all their letters.
Yah this is true.
That's how I remember it.
I thought it was Council Tax too.
But it's unfair to have a go at those fans who got it wrong this time, because the show does repeatedly get it's facts wrong and it makes a complete change for them to get it right for once!
I doubt Dot has to pay council tax.
I take that your reffering to me but you don't give any exmples! :rolleyes:
Well Dot took people in as either lodgers or to put them up because they where homeless, not to let them be a sub letter.
Its out of order if people can't be away from their homes for a few months and that people need permission to do so. Smacks to me of the authorities as good as saying to people " know your place and don't even try and look like your living the high life in any way by taking long holidays", though in Dots case she was away to help Jim?
Also taking in lodgers is sub letting. She is getting income from another source so perhaps under means testing she wouldn't qualify for council housing? Also, again, if they really are homeless, they should get on the list and allow the Council to find them something. Dot is probably charging them a lower rent than a private landlord but she's only able to do because her home is subsidised by the tax payer. Therefore so is theirs but they haven't gone through the system so effectively they have queue jumped ahead of other people - perhaps people in more need. A single young mother perhaps?
I think there is a lot wrong with out Benefits system by the way and do hate the way claimants semem to increasingly be regarded as a scum class that must be controlled but just putting another view.
A council official wouldn't visit for council tax. You miss 2 installments they demand payment for the year in full within 7 days. You don't pay, they get a magistrates order and send bailiffs round.
My understanding of sub letting is when the tennant rents out their whole house to someone else and gets themselves out of there as a result permanently.
My council allows people to take in lodgers in council homes too.
As for your other points, council homes should never have been sold off in the first place and as they where, they should have been replaced. Instead people have wanted to have their cakes and eat it buy getting to buy their own houses, cheaply too in many cases but crying foul whenever their is any attempt to build more homes, be they council or not.
Well poppy and Cora just a few weeks ago where talking about how to pay the bills and they should have been paying the rent or enough to cover it while Dot was away, another mess up in my view on EE "continuity".
As for your mortgage or anyone else's, I see it as a major flaw that people have to either have a mortgage where they are the main occupent or a buy to let mortgage. As long as the mortgage is paid, it shouldn't be the mortgage providers business who lives in a house!
I totally agree about the selling off of Council houses and not building new ones - that was disgusting and caused most of the problems.
It may vary from area to area but certainly some Councils definately used to count lodgers as sub letters - you are sub letting the room to someone not approved by the council and gaining financially from it.
I think Cora has been collecting it but not paying it.
This current Government has just bought in new rules I think where they want people to take in lodgers in their council homes or face a cut or will face a cut in housing benefit generally if they are considered to have more bedrooms than what they need. Dubbed "the bedroom tax".
If she did do that, that would be well out of order and thus deserved to have been kicked out of the house. I felt sorry for her before that and thought Dot was completely going against her christian beliefs in the way she chucked Cora out.
I think that's how it will play out, they've never portrayed Cora as a good two shoes, but I think when she realises how much Dot is struggling shell hand over the left over rent money she has.
Well lets hope so but EE seems quite keen on portraying how hard these economic times are on most of the characters and I wouldn't be surprised if they are about to put Dot through "her turn" of suffering real hardship now.
I get why EE has been doing this generally but at the same time I think they should let up a little bit now on this as all programmes need a bit of suspension from reality and for us viewers to enjoy some escapism, even if it is to Albert Square!