URGENT Changes to Morgage Interest Support [merged]

anmarj

Lea74 wrote: »

For the calculation I have been told a figure per week, paid every four weeks. Therefore should the calculation be:

DWP SMI x 4 weeks x 13 payments / 12 months??

Many thanks.

try this and this should give you a better idea of what the calander monthly payment would be towards your mortgage ie £14.00 per week x 52 = £728.00 for the year/12 = £60.666 per month less your "normal" monthly amount. the DWP should be notifiying the the lender of amounts, unfortuntely there is no way to check and see if letters were issued

Lea74

Thanks that worked out. I am still anxous about when the next payment will be made by DWP to my mortgage lender.

anmarj

it will be 4 weeks after that first payment went out, they pay up to the week before the payment is due so if paid 15 november then payment would be up to 7 November next payment due 13 december for the period 8/11-05/12/12 and so on.

Lea74

My letter from DWP says that entitlement is due from 27 October 2010. They sent 1st payment on 8 November. Whe do you think that the next amount will be sent through and for what period??

Lou76

Lea74 wrote: »

My letter from DWP says that entitlement is due from 27 October 2010. They sent 1st payment on 8 November. Whe do you think that the next amount will be sent through and for what period??

Hi Lea, my SMI payments are made 4 weekly, I assume it's the same for everyone?

Taking an educated guess, as I honestly don't know the answer, you'd have to phone them and ask, but I would assume that your payments will be made 4 weekly from the 8/11.

I'm guessing your payment, on the 8th November, would be a 4 weekly payment, plus whatever was due for the period 27/10 - 7/11?

It'd be worth double checking with your mortgage company though, they can tell you what payments have been received to your account.

Incidentally, I phoned the Halifax today (well, yesterday now, I suppose ) to ask how much was being paid from DWP - I still haven't received a letter telling me that my payments are going down. Thank Gawd for this place, I was forewarned... :T

Anyway, the girl I spoke to said she's been innundated with calls this week from people who were oblivious to the changes, the first they knew about it was the letter they received this week [from the Halifax] telling them they're in arrears, as their 'shortfall' payments are a wee bit shorter than they expected. :mad:

How can this be right, surely we deserve to know what help we're receiving?

My first "new" payment amount was made on 29th October, next payment due on Friday, if I didn't know better (thanks to this forum) I'd be at least 2 months down before they bother to notify me of the changes. How can this be fair/right?

I don't want to start a debate on this, but just thought I'd say, if I didn't have a mortgage I'd be costing the Govt £98 a week (local LHA rates for 1 bed flat). As it is, I'm now getting £75, was £114, every 4 weeks. Surely that saving alone should justify the cost of a second class stamp and the cost of a sheet of paper/envelope to notify me of the changes? :rotfl:

krisskross

Lou76 wrote: »

I don't want to start a debate on this, but just thought I'd say, if I didn't have a mortgage I'd be costing the Govt £98 a week (local LHA rates for 1 bed flat). As it is, I'm now getting £75, was £114, every 4 weeks. Surely that saving alone should justify the cost of a second class stamp and the cost of a sheet of paper/envelope to notify me of the changes? :rotfl:

i would completely agree with the complaints about how much SMI was paid and how it is paid if a running charge of how much has been paid by taxpayers towards a personal asset is kept to be recouped when the property is sold. This would then put the owner occupiers relying on taxpayer funded housing costs on the same footing as those claiming rent payments.

That is neither would be making money from it.

dmg24

krisskross wrote: »

i would completely agree with the complaints about how much SMI was paid and how it is paid if a running charge of how much has been paid by taxpayers towards a personal asset is kept to be recouped when the property is sold. This would then put the owner occupiers relying on taxpayer funded housing costs on the same footing as those claiming rent payments.

That is neither would be making money from it.

As those claiming LHA/ HB never have to pay the money back, the idea of a charge against the property would definitely not put them in the same position!

krisskross

dmg24 wrote: »

As those claiming LHA/ HB never have to pay the money back, the idea of a charge against the property would definitely not put them in the same position!

Only have to pay anything back on the increase in property value whilst receiving the help. Still seems fair to me. Bit like lending the banks money to avert the crisis but having a stake in future profits.

dmg24

krisskross wrote: »

Only have to pay anything back on the increase in property value whilst receiving the help. Still seems fair to me. Bit like lending the banks money to avert the crisis but having a stake in future profits.

That makes more sense, but would you like to be the person who does that calculation, and what happens if the property devalues in that period? Also, I take it you would deduct the relevant LHA rate from the amount in the interests of fairness?

A nice idea in theory, but it would be near impossible to administer!

MissMoneypenny

dmg24 wrote: »

Also, I take it you would deduct the relevant LHA rate from the amount in the interests of fairness?

Why? The idea of housing welfare, is to put a roof over someones head, not to give them money to keep.

If you want it to be "in the interests of fairness" those on SMI would have to move if they had too many bedrooms for their allowance. That wouldn't work either though would it.

A much fairer and more workable solution would be to pay their full interest rate, but limit all SMI, to 1 or 2 years. That would give claiments plenty of time to sort their finances out.