Very low income, but own houses. Do I get benefit

garysletters

Hi to all in the know.
I gave up my job 5 years ago to move up north to live with my girlfriend.
The first 6 months I recieved contribution based j/s benefit, but after the "contribution based" ran out I was told I could not claim more as I owned 2 properties.
I had a couple of houses which I rent out, so make some money. However, my houses rarely make me a gross profit in excess of my personal allowance, normally about £3,000 p.a.
I know my properties have capital value, but as my actual income is so low (and variable), and releasing the capital would mean either paying more out (mortgage) or selling one (meaning loss of income), should I not be entitled to something to bring me up to a minimum living standard???

I currently live with my girlfriend (who works) and my baby.

Thanks for any help

Gary

healy

I dont think you would get any benefit because you would be expected to sell the houses and live off the profit until you are within the limits when means tested benefits can be received. Added to that as your girlfriend is working, depending on how much she earns, you would not be entitled to benefits either.

Tallymanjohn

Yes, houses are classed as 'savings' for all intents & purposes so you would need to realise & use the value of those before you could claim. Otherwise I know a lot of people would be just ploughing everything into property & then pleading poverty - luckily it doesn't quite work like that

Scarlett1

gary is there any reason why you arent working ? if it is because you are at home looking after your baby you could always get a night job that starts after your partner gets home from work so she can then take over the babysitting

JohnInDebt

Are you saying that you should get some money from the benfeits system so that you don't have to sell your houses???

The benefits should only be as a safety net for those that need it most, not those that want it the most!!!

Surely the OP is joking?

healy

I dont think they are joking.

Voyager2002

healy wrote:

I dont think you would get any benefit because you would be expected to sell the houses and live off the profit until you are within the limits when means tested benefits can be received. Added to that as your girlfriend is working, depending on how much she earns, you would not be entitled to benefits either.

The only possible exception would be if the mortgage outstanding on each property were almost as much as the value of the property. In other words, it is the equity you have in the house that counts as savings.

Anyway, does your partner claim WFTC? That might help a little.

zoezoe_3

garysletters wrote:

I know my properties have capital value, but as my actual income is so low (and variable), and releasing the capital would mean either paying more out (mortgage) or selling one (meaning loss of income), should I not be entitled to something to bring me up to a minimum living standard???

Yes, you are entitled to sell the houses you dont live in and use the income for the sales.

Why on earth would the tax payer want to support you and your family when you can do it yourself ?

LizEstelle

JohnInDebt wrote:

Are you saying that you should get some money from the benfeits system so that you don't have to sell your houses???

The benefits should only be as a safety net for those that need it most, not those that want it the most!!!

Surely the OP is joking?

I've only just discovered this thread and find it fascinating.

The consensus seems to be that 'houses' have to be sold and the money used for subsistence until it runs out - and only then can one claim any state benefits.

I would like to know whether there is a distinction drawn here between the words 'house' and 'property'. If one owned, say, not houses but chickens, alarm clocks or frilly knickers, would the sale of these be similarly enforced before any benefit payment could be made..?

akin_drum

LizEstelle wrote:

I would like to know whether there is a distinction drawn here between the words 'house' and 'property'. If one owned, say, not houses but chickens, alarm clocks or frilly knickers, would the sale of these be similarly enforced before any benefit payment could be made..?

Owning one or more houses and expecting to claim benefits is ridiculous - as is your question!

Show me a pair of knickers, alarm clock or chicken worth the same as a house and we may be able to debate this.

garysletters

I am indeed not being entirely serious about the matter....I have been in this situation for a few years and this is my first mention, but I do feel slightly aggrieved......
....however the point about chickens and knickers is a valid one. Change chickens and knickers for cars and jewelery for example or designer clothes and mobile phones (lots of claimants have these), and what about those with a £20 a day fag/drink habit? Why shouldn't claimants sell a car before they get benefits or have to give up fags etc. I'm sure most tax payers don't want to be buying 20 a day for someone who sits at home all day watching their £50 a month Sky sports channel.
Also, I saved all my life for my properties, others may have spent wildly on expensive holidays and partying, but they would get benefits.

P.S. My girlfriend works nights and sleeps days while I look after baby, so working nights isnt an option.

I know I could sell my houses, although the chancellor would then want his 40% CGT on the sale, and my income would drop even more.

Cant wait for the replies to this one.