£[size=14pt]95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house,  'after they trashed the last one'
[/size]





A scrounging family-of-12 who rake in a staggering £95,000 year in benefits have been re-homed in a £1,000 a week five bedroom house - after trashing the last one.
Jobless Sam, 36, and Pete Smith, 40, have been given the new house in Bristol to house their brood.
The family were kicked out of their previous four-bedroom home in picturesque Bath after a £20,000 wrecking spree left it unfit for human habitation.
It was left in such a foul state that children's' mattresses and walls were stained with human and animal excrement, floors were mouldy and rat droppings littered the floor.
But instead of being reprimanded, the couple were housed in a five-bedroom house in nearby Bristol - which they have already set about trashing.

The case highlights Britain's shambolic benefits system, which allows the Smiths to trouser a staggering £44,824 a year in benefits alone.
On top of that, their £960 a week rent is also paid, which is so high because their breakfast is delivered every day.
The annual rent tops £49,920 - meaning their total annual cost to the taxpayer is an incredible £94,744.
The list of handouts include: £140 a week child benefits, £120 a week disability living allowance, £250 a month carers allowance for Peter, £527 a week in tax credits, £30 every fortnight for income support.
This does not include the £960 a week rent for their new five-bedroom house, which includes breakfast delivered daily to their door.
But mum-of-ten Sam - who hasn't worked in over a decade - has complained her current home is not big enough and her family is not given enough financial help.
She also whinged the family has to prepare their own breakfast, which is delivered to their doorstep for free.


Abdullah Khateed, landlord of the previous home in Weston, Bath where Sam Smith and her partner Peter lived with their ten children


Obese Sam said: 'It's very cramped in the new house. We have four bedrooms with bunkbeds for the kids and that's it.
'The council is trying to find somewhere for us but a four bedroom isn't big enough and they say they don't have much more.
'We need a five bedroom minimum. We've tried housing associations and they turn their noses up at us because we have so many kids, which isn't fair.
'We are sitting here waiting while they find us somewhere else for us.
'The benefits aren't much. By the time we have to pay for food and clothes and electricity we don't have much left.
'It's tough because we don't even have a TV here. We have no ariel and the kids only have one Nintendo Wii between them.'  The couple have systematically trashed up to nine houses since Pete quit the army in 2001 to care for Sam after she was registered disabled with a bad back.
Since then, neither have had jobs and have given birth to seven of their ten children, pocketing £tens of thousands of taxpayers cash.
They were moved into the new home in Kingswood, Bristol three weeks ago by Bristol City Council after their last one in Bath was no longer considered fit for human habitation.
Social services visited their Bath home in December 2009 and January and March this year after receiving reports they were living in filth and squalor.
When officers investigated, they were stunned to be confronted by filthy mattresses and human and animal excrement covering the floor and walls.
But amazingly, the landlord of the property, who admitted he had not visited the house in years, was ordered to clean up the house.
He immediately evicted the 'parasites' and has since had to fork out £25,000 on renovating the house to make it fit for human habitation.
Former landlord Abdullah Khateeb, 60, from Bath, said: 'When they moved in they had five children. By the time they left four years later it had doubled to ten - and they wanted more.
'The place was disgusting. There was there own faeces and that of their cats all over their beds, which were just grotty mattresses lying on the floor.
'It's a miracle the youngsters aren't ill, the house was so dirty. It's not fair on the children, they don't deserve to live like this.
'I've never seen anything like it. It made me want to be sick. The council later told me the family were known to them and had trashed eight or nine houses before mine.
'It seems they are like parasites moving from one place to the next, before destroying it and moving on.
'The benefits system is to blame. This family are on huge benefits and move from one place to the next trashing the houses while they have everything paid for them.'  Their current Bristol home is less than a mile from family-of-12 the Bateman's - who hit the headlines last month after complaining they needed a bigger house.
Incredibly, Pete believes his situation mirrors that of the Bateman's and even has the cheek to argue that family's like his are victims.
He said: 'Just because we have a big family we are not offered housing big enough for our children.
'It's not fair. The amount we are given isn't really that much and I'm constantly having to rob Peter to pay Paul.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309201/95-000-year-benefits-family-12-homed-1-000-week-house--trashed-one.html#ixzz0yg1gERlZ


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309201/95-000-year-benefits-family-12-homed-1-000-week-house--trashed-one.html#ixzz0yg1axwTe



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309201/95-000-year-benefits-family-12-homed-1-000-week-house--trashed-one.html#ixzz0yg1UPnrB

Dats how it is done there. . .over here,on your own

Lmao @ only one nintendo wii. These people take the P!SS

So its not just Somalis then,

^^^^^^who do you think all the immigrants learned it from? LOL!

Reports by daily mail should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is usually dramatised and sensationalised. Yeah, scrounging is bad, but then so is bad journalism.

People need to understand that, the state is supposed to provide for those who do not have. As a result, the state decided that these people meet the criteria to be offered benefits and help, so what is the big deal? Who is Dailymail to write sensationalist stories about them?

Useless people - why wont she have a bad back after having 10 kids

typical daily wail [or is it mail] garbage.

please folks start reading proper newpapers like the guardian, independent, financial times, etc.

^^
What on earth are you blabbing about !


Does that mean that they never report valid stories.

This is a true story.

frosbel:

^^
What on earth are you blabbing about !


Does that mean that they never report valid stories.

This is a true story.

the headline may be true, the validity of the story itself is another matter. I get sick and tired of the gutter press that desperately pursue sensationalism in its coverage. cant they for once focus on serious unbiased topics. Must it always be about the welfare state, immigration and labour party bashing!!!

The line between gossip and fact is indeed blur in the world of Rupert Murdoch and the down-market British tabloids.

snowdrops:

typical daily wail [or is it mail] garbage.

please folks start reading proper newpapers like the guardian, independent, financial times, etc.

the guardian a "proper" newspaper? What a joke.

davidylan:

the guardian a "proper" newspaper? What a joke.

and how is that a joke?

or is the scum [sorry the sun] the serious one?

snowdrops:

the headline may be true, the validity of the story itself is another matter. I get sick and tired of the gutter press that desperately pursue sensationalism in its coverage. cant they for once focus on serious unbiased topics. Must it always be about the welfare state, immigration and labour party bashing!!!

The line between gossip and fact is indeed blur in the world of Rupert Murdoch and the down-market British tabloids.

How is this different from what I posted? Oh I get it, reworded and with more emotions.


For the record, there is no such thing as "proper" news paper. Guardian is more or less criticised for targeting the upper class and rich people, having said that I do like how the articles are written and the use of grammar that sets them apart from the tabliod-type press.

Just because it appeals to you do not make it "proper".

ElRazur:



Just because it appeals to you do not make it "proper".

a paper with the picture of a [half] naked girl on page 3 surely is indecent, improper and disrespectful to women.

snowdrops:

a paper with the picture of a [half] unclothed girl on page 3 surely is indecent, improper and disrespectful to women.

I can see where you are coming from (and for once I am not trying to argue with you), but you do realise that such act are seen as women expressing their sexuality, considered as arts and it is acceptable in this part of the world? Do you see that?

'We need a five bedroom minimum. We've tried housing associations and they turn their noses up at us because we have so many kids, which isn't fair.
'We are sitting here waiting while they find us somewhere else for us.

lol@it's not fair, beyotch please

Since then, neither have had jobs and have given birth to seven of their ten children, pocketing £tens of thousands of taxpayers cash.

condoms must be expensive in the uk i guess

snowdrops:

typical daily wail [or is it mail] garbage.

please folks start reading proper newpapers like the guardian, independent, financial times, etc.

u couldn't have said it any better.

snowdrops:

the headline may be true, the validity of the story itself is another matter. I get sick and tired of the gutter press that desperately pursue sensationalism in its coverage. cant they for once focus on serious unbiased topics. Must it always be about the welfare state, immigration and labour party bashing!!!

The line between gossip and fact is indeed blur in the world of Rupert Murdoch and the down-market British tabloids.

its so sad our government is bn run by Rupert Murdoch and his empire by getting his media empire to endorse his muppet David Cameron, it's really sad that the government is bn controlled by the media mogul who is not even eligible to vote, the murdoch empire especially The News of The World are bullies and will do anything to set up people to sell their cr*p papers every Sunday, they tapped into politicians and celebrities mobile phones because they are desparate to sell their tacky papers, 80% of our so-called politicans are too scared to speak up so that they don't do an expose on their private life, parts of the metropolitian police are scared of the Murdoch empire reason so why they are relectant to investige the paper for tapping into people's phone, they are denying they ever tapped into anyone's phone but they willing to pay George Galloway £300.000 to buy his silence which he has refused, they paid max clifford £1M and the football agent Sky Andrew has refuesd any sort of payment, he wants the case to go to court, Thank God for the Guardian and the Inpendence, they are the only paper that can be trusted, they are the only ones that can't be bullied by the the Murdoch Mafia, when David Cameron talks about democracy, I laugh out loud because he's taking rubbish, he won with a miniority because the murdoch newspapers endorsed him in exchange for him to dismantle the BBC so that SKY NEWS can compete with the BBC, shame on Nick Clegg for helping him form a coalition which I hope and prays falls apart as soon as people start losing their jobs.

What is the difference btw these people and the tax exiles that fund political parties, what about multi-national companies that use loop holes to avoid paying tax, I have no time for people like these family neither do I have time for millionaires and billonaires that fund political paries for commerial purposes, why can't the Daily Wail oops Daily Mail name and shame tax dogders like Phillip Green the owner of Top Shop who avoided paying £215M by paying it to his wife as dividend with the help of his clever accountants, one rule for people on benefits and another rule for millionaires and billionaires that fund the likes of the conservatives and labour parties especiallly the conservative party.

The owners of the The Telegraph (the Barclays brothers) who also own The Ritz Hotel are non-dom's, they are tax exiles, they live in the tax free Jersey Island yet their papers are supporters of the government in climbing down on scoungers like these family. poor people always bear the brunt of everything.