Ah, but if you check the small print, you’ll have to pay £100 back for the time involved in checking each false accusation… [N.B. For any wannabe shoppers, this is probably not true]

If this £500 a pop bounty on unlawful subletters takes off I suppose the moral of the story is to try to dishonestly acquire your tenancy from a corrupt housing officer rather than from a corrupt council tenant – see Birmingham City Council v Qasim & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1080. On the matter of what is to be done with all the illegal subletters who are dragged out of their cosy little boltholes into the cruel, cruel daylight, well I think it is pretty safe to imagine that the councils won’t want to rehouse them and will find them intentionally homeless {I think there is a case near enough on point). What would, of course, be a rather nifty move would be for council’s to de-prioritise waiting list applications from unlawful subletters. I’m pretty sure this could be done lawfully – although I realise that others may hold different views or would at least want to try their luck at judicially reviewing an allocations policy that purported to do this.

Getting back to the double standards, there are cases where a hefty profit is being made on a flat which was originally “right to buy”, but the unexpired portion of the lease has been sold on and the profiteer turns out to be now an obscure company with an address in a tax haven.

Meantime, private tenants are the Cinderella residents on our estates, with no security beyond an AST, no stake in the place like their neighbours, and ignored by officialdom unless they are a nuisance (which most are not, of course). If they are a nuisance, the council is going to pursue or enforce against the dodgy company leaseholder in the tax haven is it? Theoretically, maybe, but in real life the most likely venue for proceedings is Santa’s grotto.

How are you to know if the neighbour you are aiming to grass up profitably is the sub-tenant of a long tenant (or “leaseholder” as they’re confusingly called -but all tenants are leaseholders), so NOT subletting unlawfully or if they’re the sub-tenant of a periodic tenant, in which case it IS unlawful? I am an active council tenant, but I don’t necessarily know which of my neighbours is what kind of tenant.

The precept in 1066 And All that applies; “these distinctions should be kept clearly in mind”. But they seem to have eluded government. Council tenants will have to be aware of them, however, to collect their £500.

Best not order that large extra delivery of festive comestibles just yet.

I am not condoning tenancy fraud or unlawful sub-letting of social housing BUT excuse me – some MPs have been blatantly unlawfully claiming expenses on their second homes – we await possible CPS prosecution for criminal fraud.

No-one is highlighting owner-occupiers who might be sub-letting in breach of loan covenant/mortgage deed – perhaps similar condemnation from Housing Minister in order to be ‘fair’ and ‘consistent’ is called for.

And there maybe a £500.00 ‘bounty’ for ‘grassing up’ one’s social housing neighbour – do they really not expect many allegations, some of which might just turn out not to be true!!

I am not condoning tenancy fraud or unlawful sub-letting BUT maybe, just maybe there is some differential application of moralistic standards here!!

Joking. obviously!

I’d be interested to know in a years time how many properties had been repossessed. My guess is about 10.