The construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk coast is a key part of the government’s growth programme. But some locals fear being forced out, accusing landlords of cashing in on a jobs boom by evicting tenants and raising rents to unaffordable levels.

The plant is due to open in 2031, and although a final investment decision has not yet been made, groundwork is already well under way.

The construction project will require a predicted workforce of 7,900, of which about two-thirds will be from outside the area.

About 2,400 workers will be based on site with 500 others living at the former Pontins holiday park at Pakefield, near Lowestoft.

The remaining contractors, however, will have to move into properties in or around the town of Leiston – population 5,508 – where some rents have doubled to more than £3,000 a month.

The government hopes to ban evictions without a reason as part of its new Renters’ Rights Bill, but this will not be in place until summer at the earliest.

Until then, John Stevens, who rents in Leiston, believes some landlords will look to move current tenants on in order to make use of East Suffolk Council’s Sizewell C housing grants scheme.

Aiming to provide an additional 1,200 beds, it offers property owners up to £7,000 if they agree to turn their spare rooms or spaces into suitable accommodation.

The council told the BBC it had so far “received significant interest” and expected to “see a significant uptake in awards” over the coming months.

Mr Stevens, 72, says: “[The landlords] are thinking, ‘Let’s evict these people and get the money, plus bigger rents’, so why wouldn’t landlords take advantage of it?”

“But it’s ridiculous and it’s changing the landscape because different people I know are going through murder because of Sizewell; they are being evicted.

“A friend of mine is [being evicted] and she is a single parent and has one kid – where is she going to go now?”

Rent hikes have proved particularly controversial in Leiston, traditionally seen as more affordable than the affluent coastal towns of Aldeburgh and Southwold.

The current average monthly rent in the town, once a thriving manufacturing centre, is £773, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

But last month, the BBC found one three-bedroom semi-detached property in Carr Avenue advertised at £3,000 a month, including bills and cleaning costs.

Another three-bedroom home was going for £3,100, including bills, while a two-bedroom apartment was being let for £3,045, including bills.

Since then, some rents have increased even further, with one three-bedroom house currently being advertised for the “attention of Sizewell workers” at £4,500 per month.

Daniela Delfino, 31, returned to Leiston in November 2023 to reconnect with her friends and stepfather.

She rents a one-bedroom flat that her landlord, with whom she has a “good relationship”, is looking to sell within the next few years.

“I really love living here and I don’t want to leave, because then I will just be running around like a headless chicken, looking for somewhere affordable,” she says.

“I did see a one-bedroom flat the other day but it was going for [nearly] three times as much as what I am paying now. The greed that is going around is not fair.

“No normal person can afford the current prices in Leiston or Saxmundham. It’s not feasible, even if you are working full-time – it’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Tina Ashford, 53, rents a detached property in the nearby village of Sudbourne with her two children for £1,000 a month.

But she has been served a no-fault eviction notice, which her landlord says is unrelated to Sizewell C.

He says he simply plans to retire, and reduce his outgoings by selling the property.

Nevertheless, it has left Ms Ashford, a single mother who works in holiday lettings and cares for an elderly couple, looking for a new home and worried about what she can afford.

Ms Ashford says: “My whole life depends on me being here, but the greedy prices and extortionate rents are affecting the rest of the market.

“I feel very angry and I think what is happening in Leiston is criminal. Landlords are cashing in and the good days are way behind us.”

According to the ONS, 79.1% of people in East Suffolk aged between 16 and 64 are in paid work.

The average weekly wage in the district is £545, equivalent to a £26,705 salary.

But Toby Lindsay-White, who runs the Leiston Pantry food bank, is seeing a steady increase in members, and says locals no longer “have the money to live in the area”.

He says he knows of someone evicted from a four-bedroom bungalow that is being turned into an eight-bedroom home.

“It’s a bit of a double-edged sword because we have a number of people who have finally secured employment with Sizewell C, so they are now on good pay,” he says.

“But there has been a larger proportion of people who have had to move out of the area because their rent has increased or they’ve been served with a notice.”

Software engineer May Hall, 39, is also concerned.

She rents a two-bedroom property in Leiston for £850 a month and has recently been offered a six-month tenancy.

“I don’t know why they didn’t offer me a one-year contract, but I’m hoping if they had wanted to rent it to a contractor for double or more, they’d have done so,” she says.

“But I am still afraid that ‘the market’ will trend upward quickly and they will just follow it or change their mind.

“So yeah, it feels like Sizewell is the feudal lord of the land here with landlords as vassals and we’re at their total mercy. ‘Uncertainty’ is the word.”

However, the employment boom has helped save one struggling village pub.

Sarah Hartman, 66, runs The Butchers Arms in Knodishall, offering bed and breakfast, a 10-minute drive from Sizewell.

She estimates about 75% of guests are Sizewell workers, bringing in an extra £10,000 a month.

“It makes a lot of difference to us and keeps us open because, as just a pub, it is not sustainable. So if it wasn’t for Sizewell, we would not survive,” she says.

“It has done us a brilliant turn and come at just the right time, really. But I don’t want to be greedy, so I haven’t put the prices up. I just want to keep the place open.”

Tim Day, director of Suffolk Coastal Estate Agents and Sizewell Lettings, says much of the current demand is for “a service solution” – a short-term option including bills and cleaning, “not dissimilar to a holiday letting”.

Although quoted prices may state, for example, £3,000 a month, the tenant may not actually have to stay that long, says Mr Day, 55.

“There’s not much difference between offering a service solution to Sizewell workers and doing Airbnb.

“We’re in the accommodation business and we are responding to demand. But when one looks at that headline rate, it might not tell the true story.”

Mr Day believes the demand for accommodation will soon spread far beyond Leiston as workers begin to travel in on park-and-ride buses from Wickham Market or Darsham.

“So… the catchment area for accommodation for contractors is going to be absolutely vast, stretching from Lowestoft to Ipswich to Felixstowe.

“With time, the reach for properties is going to be huge, and that might well mean that Leiston becomes less relevant.”

Sizewell C, partly funded by EDF, says it will support up to 70,000 jobs and provide energy for about six million homes for 60 years.

Those behind the project, in which the government has an 85% stake, previously said they were working “closely with the housing team at East Suffolk Council” to ensure “no negative impacts” on the private housing sector and the local area.

They also suggested it was “unlikely” that many workers involved in the project would have to pay the higher rents.

David Beavan, independent cabinet member for housing at the council, says the authority is “proactively engaging with landlords to ensure rental prices remain as affordable as possible” and monitoring the number of people presenting as homeless locally.

“We have a dedicated team working to mitigate any negative housing impacts from the construction,” he adds.

The housing situation is “concerning”, says Suffolk Coastal’s Labour MP Jenny Riddell-Carpenter.

She says Sizewell C and the council need to work together to ensure that people in Leiston, rather than just private landlords, benefit from the opportunities of the new plant.

“I am in touch with Sizewell C, East Suffolk Council and relevant ministers, and will continue to make this point clearly,” she says.

The BBC contacted four landlords advertising homes for rents of at least £3,000 per month in Leiston, but they either declined to comment or failed to respond.

A spokesperson for the National Residential Landlords Association says “fluctuations” in rental prices reflect the increasing costs of providing quality accommodation and the scarcity of available homes.

“Landlords’ costs have increased significantly, which has unfortunately meant that many landlords have been forced to increase rents to ensure their businesses remain viable,” they say.

“These financial pressures include hiked interest rates, significant tax increases, and the rising cost of maintenance which has forced many landlords out of the market.

“We continue to urge the government to introduce measures which will help stimulate growth across the UK’s rental market.

“A failure to do so will mean rents remain high and may continue to rise as the shortage of housing becomes more acute due to landlords exiting the market, reducing overall supply.”

Billionaire Elon Musk has given away $1m (£770,000) cheques to voters in Wisconsin after the state supreme court refused to intervene.

Musk announced the prize earlier this week, ahead of Wisconsin’s tightly contested Supreme Court election to be held on Tuesday.

Wisconsin Attorney General and Democrat Josh Kaul had sued to stop the giveaway, arguing that Musk was violating a state law that bans gifts in exchange for votes.

The race, which could flip control of the state’s supreme court to the Republicans, has become a flash point and the most expensive judicial election in American history.

Speaking at a rally Sunday night, Musk said “we just want judges to be judges”, before handing out two $1m (£750,000) cheques to voters who had signed a petition to stop “activist” judges.

Kaul had tried to argue the giveaway was an illegal attempt buy votes. Musk’s lawyers, in response, argued that Kaul is “restraining Mr Musk’s political speech and curtailing his First Amendment rights”.

Musk’s lawyers added that the payments were “intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate”.

After two lower courts sided with Musk, Kaul begged the state’s supreme court for an 11th hour reprieve. But the top court unanimously declined to hear the case.

Musk and President Donald Trump have endorsed a conservative candidate, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, in hopes of flipping the liberal-leaning court.

Judge Schimel is running against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, who has been endorsed by the state Supreme Court’s liberal justices.

Lawyers for the tech titan also argued that judges who have publicly endorsed Judge Crawford in the Supreme Court race should be barred from ruling on the matter, arguing that it is a matter of bias.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race is being seen by political watchers as a referendum on Trump’s second term, just months after his inauguration.

It also comes ahead of consequential cases that will land before the court on abortion rights, congressional redistricting and voting rules that could affect the 2026 midterm elections.

Musk himself has framed the election as a chance to stop redistricting which could give Democrats favour in Congress.

He has donated $14m to Judge Schimel’s campaign, as the race proves to be the most expensive judicial race in the country’s history, with $81m in total spending.

Despite his support, Judge Schimel appeared to distance himself from Musk in recent days, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday he had no plans to be at the rally.

“I have no idea what he’s doing. I have no idea what this rally is,” Judge Schimel told the newspaper.

This is not the first time Musk has announced a giveaway to voters. Last year, he similarly offered a cash prize of $1m a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states if they signed a petition supporting First and Second Amendment rights.

A judge in Pennsylvania later ruled that the giveaway was legal, saying prosecutors failed to prove it was an unlawful lottery.

Victims of infected blood are dying “two a week” while awaiting compensation for the biggest scandal in the history of the NHS, campaigners say.

More than 30,000 people in the UK were given treatments infected with HIV and Hepatitis C between the late 1970s and early 1990s, resulting in more than 3,000 deaths.

Tony Summers, 89, whose son died after being given infected blood products, said he was told he may not receive compensation until 2029 and fears he might be dead before then.

A Labour MP described the delay as “embarrassing”, while the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) said its priority was to pay compensation to “as many people as soon as possible”.

In May 2024, a public inquiry found the authorities had covered up the scale of what is now known as the infected blood scandal.

In response, the UK government set aside £11.8bn to compensate the victims – including parents, children and siblings – of which there could be as many as 140,000.

But many victims, charities and the inquiry’s chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, have expressed concern about the way compensation is being implemented and the time it is taking.

Forty people have accepted offers of compensation, and 18 people – less than 1% of those eligible – have received compensation so far, according to the IBCA.

Mr Summers’ son Paul was diagnosed with HIV and Hepatitis C after being given a blood clotting product used to treat haemophilia.

He died in 2008 at the age of 44.

“I just feel so proud of what [Paul] achieved, because he had so much to offer,” said Mr Summers, from Llantwit Major in the Vale of Glamorgan.

“I would like to feel that everything we started in 1984, which has been a long journey, we won’t have lost it.

“We will have achieved and that will give me more satisfaction than anything. Just to feel that we did the right thing.

“It’s probably the most important thing in my life to get to the end of this, to get closure. I just want this to be over.”

Mr Summers claims to have been told he may not receive compensation until 2029 – five years after the inquiry’s final report was published.

“By then I’ll be 93, you begin to have doubts,” he said.

“People are still dying from any affected illnesses. Parents are dying. So it feels as though there’s a policy [of] ‘if we hang on long enough we won’t have to pay that money’.”

Lynne Kelly, chair of Haemophilia Wales, said people wanted closure after campaigning for more than four decades.

“People are dying two a week at the moment, so we’re in a really difficult position,” she said.

“They’re delaying and delaying because more and more people are dying.

“The infected are dying, and when the affected die their claim dies with them so there’s no claim to be made and bit by bit, less and less people will be eligible for compensation and less money will be paid.

“They’ve been ignored for 40 years, they’ve campaigned for 40 years. We feel history is repeating itself. It’s heart-breaking.”

The IBCA is administering payments, which are exempt from tax and will not affect benefits.

A person infected with HIV could expect to get compensation of between £2.2m and £2.6m.

Those with a chronic hepatitis C infection, defined as lasting more than six months, could expect to receive between £665,000 and £810,000.

The partner of someone infected with HIV who is still alive today could expect to receive about £110,000.

Around 4,000 survivors or their bereaved families have also received interim payments worth up to £310,000 since 2022.

Labour MP Clive Efford, the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, said the situation had become “an embarrassing issue for the government”.

“We owe it to these people to get this compensation out the door as quickly as possible because they’ve been suffering as a consequence of this for many, many years, they’ve been forced to take on the state.”

David Foley, Interim Chief Executive of the IBCA, said its priority was to pay “as many people as soon as possible as we design and build a compensation claim service”.

Mr Foley said the IBCA had now contacted more than 250 people but he said they were “acutely aware there are many more awaiting compensation”.

“We will continue to increase the number of compensation payments made as we build the claims service further,” he added.

“We are committed to making payments to the majority of infected people by 2027 and the majority of affected people by 2029 – making these payments faster than this wherever possible.”

It was the last thing I was expecting as I sat in my office late one evening.

I had been using some new facial recognition software, seeing how well it worked.

I put a photo of Craig Arch – the CEO of Cask Whisky Ltd, the multi-million-pound international award-wining cask whisky business – into the software.

I wasn’t expecting to get much but I couldn’t have been more wrong.

There, in front of me, was a police mugshot.

The articles linked to the image told of a £6.2m fraud with hundreds of victims.

And the man behind it was the one staring back at me.

I have spent years investigating serious criminals. From human traffickers and gunrunners to contract killers and cocaine smugglers. One thing I never thought I’d end up investigating was whisky.

BBC Producer Liam McDougall told me of a source he had – a whistleblower – who said that organised crime had infiltrated the whisky industry, that he had compiled a hitlist of suspect whisky investment companies, and would we be interested in looking into it?

One of those on the list was a company called Cask Whisky Ltd.

It was set up in 2021 and, in its first year of trading, it reported a multi-million-pound turnover.

It boasted of operations in Hong Kong, and it was winning awards.

The CEO was a man called Craig Arch.

In interviews, he spoke of opening brand new headquarters and doubling their staff in the first twelve months.

He also told of their ambitions for the future, and said he was “excited for what the next few years will bring”.

It was only when I put his photo into the face recognition software, that I discovered the shocking truth behind the man.

His real name is Craig Brooks. He was jailed in 2019 for his part in a £6.2m investment scam. The 350 victims were mainly elderly.

He had come out of prison, changed his appearance, changed his name to Arch, and set up Cask Whisky Ltd.

Disqualified from being a director, he put his fiancé – an eyebrow technician from Essex – down on the paperwork as the boss.

I spoke to investors who had handed over tens of thousands to Craig Arch and his gang, believing they were buying the best of whisky, in casks, which would give them returns of 13% or more.

Yet the investors discovered that many of the casks they had bought, had either been heavily overpriced – up to five times in some cases – or didn’t exist at all.

Little did they know that they had, in fact, been handing over their money to a convicted fraudster.

A man disqualified from being a director. A man who was lying as to who he was.

I wanted to catch Craig Brooks in the act, but no sooner had I started looking into Cask Whisky Ltd, than the company disappeared.

It was under investigation by the City of London Police for alleged fraud.

I had missed my chance.

And yet, it seemed, no-one knew that Craig Arch wasn’t Craig Arch. That he was really Craig Brooks, a convicted fraudster.

My chance to expose this came when I noticed a new whisky company coming to the fore – Cask Spirits Global.

Immediately the red flags went up.

The branding looked similar. The social media images I’d seen before.

When I checked the history of the company name on Facebook, it was there in black and white. It was Cask Whisky Ltd.

Had Brooks simply set up yet another company? Was he already back on the hunt for potential investors?

Seeing this as my chance, I sent Cask Spirits Global an email, pretending to be an asset management consultant who was representing a wealthy client keen to invest in whisky.

Within minutes of sending it, I got a reply. From a man called Hutchins. Craig Hutchins. It was too much of a coincidence.

Although I believed this to be Craig Brooks, I had to prove it.

No investor I spoke to had ever met the man in person.

All the financials were done by email.

But with the lure of a potential big-money deal, it wasn’t long before a meeting was arranged.

A few weeks later and I arrived at the Westminster office of Cask Spirits Global.

Walking into the room, I came face-to-face with a man I had come to know well.

I had been looking at his image for months now, had been investigating his tactics which had cost investors millions, and had been tracking his every move.

It was Craig Brooks.

And here he was, now pretending to be the managing director of yet another company. Under yet another name.

Alongside him were two members of his gang, both of whom had worked for Cask Whisky Ltd – the company under investigation by the police.

And both of them were now also using false names.

During the secret meeting, Brooks told me he had 11,000 clients all over Europe, built up over a seven-year whisky career.

“The youngest is 19,” he told me. “The oldest is about 92.”

As for the size of his business, he said: “I’ve got contracts with all the warehouses in Scotland.

“The majority of clients, they start small and so, anywhere between £3,000 and £50,000.

“So, I think my largest trade is £1.4m. We can receive any amount up to £4m without notifying the bank.”

He told me there was no mark-up on the casks they bought for investors, and they only made money down the line from the sale of those casks.

Brooks then proceeded to give me a list of casks for my client to buy – totalling almost £1.5m.

I showed the list to several industry experts, who said they were heavily overpriced – in some cases, up to ten times the real value.

As for the company, he ran it, he said, and all financial decisions were made by him.

“We’re in safe hands?” I asked him.

“Yeah. 100%.” he said.

When I confronted him a few weeks later, he admitted his real name was Brooks, but said all the whisky he had previously sold existed, and that he hadn’t been jailed for fraud, but for unfair business practices.

The two colleagues who were also using false names, said they had simply been using names given to them when they joined the new company.

During my eight-month investigation into the whisky trade, I met so many investors with heart-breaking stories of losing all they had.

And I discovered the callous tactics that criminals were using to take it from them.

If there was one lesson I took away from it, it was this: if you are thinking of investing in cask whisky, do your homework – because not everybody is who they say they are.

Police are investigating three Scotch whisky companies over fraud allegations, with investments running into the millions.