Housing benefit and renting??

Wee_Willy_Harris

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

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

Won this discussion? I wasn't aware that I was in a battle. Certainly not a battle of wits as I'd never fight an unarmed poster. However, to address your apparent ignorance....


Your daughter bought an incentivised HA property which was sold to her at below market rate to get her on the property ladder. ie it was subsidised.

Your nephew lives in social housing provided by his LA with rents set below market value. ie it is subsidised.

Anything else I can help with, do let me know.

Wee_Willy_Harris

socrates wrote: »

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.

I think YOU are making two different points.

1. How does the risk of non payment of rent differ according to family size?

2. How does a family with 2 more children create so much extra wear and tear that it justifies MORE THAN DOUBLING the rent?

And I can't believe you are arguing that the MPs were perfectly right in their management of expenses?

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Won this discussion? I wasn't aware that I was in a battle. Certainly not a battle of wits as I'd never fight an unarmed poster. However, to address your apparent ignorance....


Your daughter bought an incentivised HA property which was sold to her at below market rate I WISH!! you should read up about this, HA have a duty to the tax payer to obtain market value for any property sold, that why the property is advertised at market rate through an EA and given a property valuation by their building society, the buyer or then decides like any other transaction whether they want to buy or not. to get her on the property ladder. ie it was subsidised.

Your nephew lives in social housing provided by his LA with rents set below market value and quite right too, and least he is not living it up in EXPENSIVE private housing which has a higher rate of subsidy involved, Believe it or not I am all for council housing, I grew up in a council house, but aspired for something better, something to leave my children and their children, what I have achieved was not handed to me on a plate but achieved through hardwork ie it is subsidised.

Anything else I can help with, do let me know.

Nothing I can think of at the moment!!

socrates

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I think YOU are making two different points.

1. How does the risk of non payment of rent differ according to family size?

2. How does a family with 2 more children create so much extra wear and tear that it justifies MORE THAN DOUBLING the rent?

And I can't believe you are arguing that the MPs were perfectly right in their management of expenses?

I know exactly what I am saying and I speak from experience - how many tenants do you have - how many LHA claims have you dealt with and how many properties have you refurbished after tenants have left?

Average family in a 3 bedroom is 2 adults 2 kids - in this case it is 5 kids - almost another family in total - the wear and tear would be considerable compared to a normal size family.

I never said I support MP's or felt they were right - I was making the point that given the opportunity people will take what they can and in this case it is lawful therefore no greedy about it.

Furthermore it is more likely that a larger family will not pay the money across - you made the point correctly that is is double the amount of a normal 3 bedroom claim - as such a larger amount of money to withhold for which there is no punishment whatsoever - is much more tempting.

I am not generalising there are a majority of decent tenants claiming LHA but it is the bad apples that people always remember

Wee_Willy_Harris

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

Nothing I can think of at the moment!!

I gathered thought wasn't a strong point of yours.

So, if I understand your argument, to get key workers onto the housing ladder, no incentives at all are offered?

Wee_Willy_Harris

socrates wrote: »

I know exactly what I am saying and I speak from experience - how many tenants do you have - how many LHA claims have you dealt with and how many properties have you refurbished after tenants have left?

Average family in a 3 bedroom is 2 adults 2 kids - in this case it is 5 kids - almost another family in total - the wear and tear would be considerable compared to a normal size family.

I never said I support MP's or felt they were right - I was making the point that given the opportunity people will take what they can and in this case it is lawful therefore no greedy about it.

Furthermore it is more likely that a larger family will not pay the money across - you made the point correctly that is is double the amount of a normal 3 bedroom claim - as such a larger amount of money to withhold for which there is no punishment whatsoever - is much more tempting.

I am not generalising there are a majority of decent tenants claiming LHA but it is the bad apples that people always remember

Oh dear, where do I start?

The average family has 2.4 children. Therefore, it would follow tha the average family in a 3 bed would have a slightly higher child ratio. Certainly 3 children in a 3 bed house is pretty typical. The extra wear and tear would not justify the inflated (more than double) rents charged by some greedy landlords.

Are you the one person in the entire country who DOESN'T think the MPs were greedy? Moats? Tennis courts? Duck islands? Really?

Your final argument simply beggars belief. A higher rent proves more of a temptation so, to overcome that, you need a higher rent? Make sense man!

socrates

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Oh dear, where do I start?

The average family has 2.4 children. Therefore, it would follow tha the average family in a 3 bed would have a slightly higher child ratio. Certainly 3 children in a 3 bed house is pretty typical. The extra wear and tear would not justify the inflated (more than double) rents charged by some greedy landlords.

Are you the one person in the entire country who DOESN'T think the MPs were greedy? Moats? Tennis courts? Duck islands? Really?

Your final argument simply beggars belief. A higher rent proves more of a temptation so, to overcome that, you need a higher rent? Make sense man!

Where do I start the average family size is actually 1.96 kids per family but I rounded it up to 2 just for you - your stats are a tad out of date and cliched

I never said I agreed with MP's - I said people will take what they think they can get away with - and in the case of LHA and within the guidelines and in accordance with UK law they can charge a particular amount for X amount of people in a property - so it is not greed it is the law.

You said -

How does the risk of non payment of rent differ according to family size?

And I explained how - double the amount of money to withhold.

I note that in other threads you have complained about the tone of others peoples posts towards you - I think you would do well to read over your posts in this thread and look at your tone.

And please answer my questions about your qualifications in this subject - I talk from specific experience not internet research.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I gathered thought wasn't a strong point of yours.

So, if I understand your argument, to get key workers onto the housing ladder, no incentives at all are offered?

A lot of NEW builds being offered to key workers DO NOT carry incentives, take Shared Ownership and the other packages to get them on the ladder, the houses are bought at market rate, and as someone has already pointed out thereby inflating the price of new builds, they can buy a share now with the option of buying additional shares as and when they have the money, in another scheme they could borrow the money from the builders or the HA and but theyhave to pay the money back within 10 years or when they sell the property. If you buy shares in property and wish to buy further shares later on, the cost of additional shares will have risen in line with the property's value at the time. With all schemes they have to have saved a deposit and have money for solicitors fees So no there are no incentives the only people making money are the builders and banks, so if you find some incentives please let me know!! I'm sure key workers out there will be interested.

I don't you about you but I'm not having an argument I'm having a discussion;)

AMD

Wee_Willy_Harris

socrates wrote: »

Where do I start the average family size is actually 1.8 but I rounded it up to 2 just for you.

I never said I agreed with MP's - I said people will take what they think they can get away with - and in the case of LHA and within the guidelines and in accordance with UK law they can charge a particular amount for X amount of people in a property - so it is not greed it is the law.

You said -

How does the risk of non payment of rent differ according to family size?

And I explained how - double the amount of money to withhold.

I note that in other threads you have complained about the tone of others peoples posts towards you - I think you would do well to read over your posts in this thread and look at your tone.

And please answer my questions about your qualifications in this subject - I talk from specific experience not internet research.

Have you considered changing your screen name? It's just that some might find it a bit misleading. Unless it refers to the footballer, of course.

The average family size isn't 1.8. For it to be 1.8, a significant number would have to be below 2 (ie 1). I'm not sure how you can call 1 person a family. Hint. We were talking about a 3 bed house. The ONS has statistics available.

The reasons you give for landlords taking maximum LHA are EXACTLY the same as MPs used for their expenses. Again, were MPs greedy?

Then you say ... high rents provide temtation. To avoid that temptation, charge high rents! As for the risk, once the tenant is 2 months in arrears, the landlord can get LHA direct to them. That risk hardly justifies more than doubling the rent, does it?

I've never complained about the tone of others. If you can read, it was pointing out the double standards, tone wise, of certain posters. I don't care about anybody elses tone. It's just the internet after all.

As for my qualifications/experience? I'll just say that it's professional and far, far more than "internet research".

Wee_Willy_Harris

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

A lot of NEW builds being offered to key workers DO NOT carry incentives, take Shared Ownership and the other packages to get them on the ladder, the houses are bought at market rate, and as someone has already pointed out thereby inflating the price of new builds, they can buy a share now with the option of buying additional shares as and why they have the money. in another scheme they could borrow the money from the builders or the HA and but theyhave to pay the money back within 10 years or when they sell the property. If you buy shares in property and wish to buy further shares later on, the cost of additional shares will have risen in line with the property's value at the time. With all schemes they have to have saved a deposit and have money for solicitors fees So no there are no incentives the only people making money are the builders and banks, so if you find some incentives please let me know!! I'm sure key workers out there will be interested.

I don't you about you but I'm not having an argument I'm having a discussion;)

AMD

Your post mentions "shared ownership and the other packages", loans from developers, yet you don't recognise these as incentives. Why, then, are they so sought after by key-workers? Could it be because it reduces the outlay? If that's not an incentive, what is?