Housing benefit and renting??

Wee_Willy_Harris

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

How does woking hard to my own home make me morally bankrupt? So I should sit on my hands and let others pay their way for me, let others pay my rent, council and feed my children and sit back and watch the world go by without making some sort of contribution to society. That's what I call being morally bankrupt:mad:

AMD

Oh please.... let me quote you......

"In the meantime, I am going to advise my nephew to go into emergency housing, hopefully with a child he could be fast tracked into permanent housing.

AMD"

I think that answers your own question far better than I could.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And, as you invite questions, how did your !!!!less nephew get on?....


Renting - guarantor needed!
I came across this problem this week. I was looking for a rental property for my Nephew and his son. Unfortunately, the DSS will be paying the rent. In ringing around, I was told by one well known Estate Agent in my area, that the landlords on their books will only tak on a DSS renters, if a home-owner in the UK will sign as a guarantor on that's person's behalf:eek:. Well I for one will not be putting my house on the line, family or not, should the DSS mess-up. Sounds like some BTLers now want their cake and want to eat it.

Has anyone else come across this stipulation?

AMD



Oh, and this is the cake slice stealing clincher......


In the meantime, I am going to advise my nephew to go into emergency housing, hopefully with a child he could be fast tracked into permanent housing.

AMD

Thanks for your concern, he was lucky enough to housed by his local council. You'll be pleased to know that he has now found himself a JOB as well, daughter is in nursery and the family are supporting him with child care and anything the daughter might need in the way of clothes etc...

Awaiting any more of my posts you wish to dig up!!

AMD

Wee_Willy_Harris

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, he was lucky enough to housed by his local council. You'll be pleased to know that he has now found himself a JOB as well, daughter is in nursery and the family are supporting him with child care and anything the daughter might need in the way of clothes etc...

Awaiting any more of my posts you wish to dig up!!

AMD

Oh good. So you don't mind both your daughter and your nephew being subsidised, just not your next door neighbour.

tbs624

I'll shut the door on my way out - I seem to have stumbled into a den of nimby Daily Mail readers........

C_Mababejive

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Steady on there.

LHA rates are set at the AVERAGE rent for a suitable property for a specific family size. Note AVERAGE. How the recipient should choose to use that amount is entirely up to them (as it is with everyone else). In many cases, landlords have cottoned on to this and will vary the amount charged according to the family size. So, greedy landlords play a part as well as "chav" tenants. As for your comment about working? You don't have to be unemployed to claim LHA. ANY large family on a low(ish) wage may qualify for assistance, particularly in high rent areas. I appreciate this doesn't fit in with your desire, I assume, to ghettoise sections of the community, but we are supposed to be in a fair society.

I prefer black and white.

At least when there are no shades of grey,everyone knows there place.

When i was a kid,the poor people lived on council estates. The scope for private renting wasnt really available. They were happy with their lot. You aspired,worked hard..you go to live in a nicer area. That was the reward.

Today? sit on your backside,drop !!!!!!!s everywhere..fine..you can still have the nice house,either on a combined social housing/private housing scheme or you can rent a nice semi with the working and middle class folk.

So why should anyone work ?

I feel for the OP. They have worked to get what they have and now they will have to endure dolehoppers and baby breeders living next door. It will also devalue their property.

I for one wouldnt buy a house beside a rented one.

Makes you wonder what this country is coming to.

I dont believe in fairness. There is no such thing otherwise this wouldnt be happening to this lady.

socrates

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

In many cases, landlords have cottoned on to this and will vary the amount charged according to the family size. So, greedy landlords play a part as well as "chav" tenants.

Greedy LL's - how is it greedy.

The amount of wear and tear from a larger family is greatly increased - therefore it is justifiable to charge accordingly and well within the law

C_Mababejive

I am fast coming to the conclusion that the romany lifestyle is for me. I can change the view any time i want with the turn of a key...no scummy neighbours,no mortage,no big bills,no council tax....

now lets see...

Ah yes..
http://www.americancoach.com/americaneagle/

Wee_Willy_Harris

socrates wrote: »

Greedy LL's - how is it greedy.

The amount of wear and tear from a larger family is greatly increased - therefore it is justifiable charge accordingly and well within the law

I didn't say it was unlawfull, just greedy. And it isn't about a bit of extra wear and tear. Let's take Woking as an example, as it's in the OPs area. The 5 bedroom rate is more than double that of the 3 bedroom rate. Justify that with "wear and tear".

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Oh good. So you don't mind both your daughter and your nephew being subsidised, just not your next door neighbour.

ANOTHER UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION:eek: you better read the posts again:rotfl: both my daughter and nephew, work!! My daughter has bought her own home and works, yes my nephew is housed by the council and but also now works, how is that being subsidised??? :rotfl::rotfl:

This is prime example to be careful what you write on these threads, there is always a Wee Willy Harris waiting and will to batter you over your head, if you need some advice.

You still haven't won this discussion:D:D:D

AMD

socrates

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I didn't say it was unlawfull, just greedy. And it isn't about a bit of extra wear and tear. Let's take Woking as an example, as it's in the OPs area. The 5 bedroom rate is more than double that of the 3 bedroom rate. Justify that with "wear and tear".

You are making 2 different points.

Firstly the LHA rate is set - (it may well change - I suspect it will) and based on averages.

Your point was that LL's alter the contract/rent to fall in line with the LHA entitlement - that is a decision that is taken on the basis of risk - in this particular case the risk of increased damage and wear and tear and the risk that because LHA is paid directly to the tenants they may not pass that money across meaning that they could be out of pocket for a lot of money.

Human nature and history have shown us that people take what they can when they can if it is on offer.

Example the MP's - they took what they could when they could and supposedly they are supposed to be setting an example.

For me LHA is a far better system than 'bent' rent officers determining rents.