SMI: More changes on the way

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

It seems that the ConDems haven't finished with their reform of SMI.

Which is

not sustainable

and

does not encourage people to get on top of their own finances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/06/coalition-charge-support-mortgage-interest-scheme

Looks like another prop is to be kicked away.

System

You had a slight misquote there. What was said was

The current system of SMI payments does not encourage people to get on top of their own finances. It is also not sustainable.

Graham_Devon

Theres quite a few changes put forward, but how long will they simply talk about it?

Notice the CML is against the idea of the payment being made to the homeowner, rather than the mortgage company direct. They are scared homeowners may spend the money on something else and therefore end up losing their homes. Surely at this point, if they spend it and lose their homes, that was their decision. I understand however why the CML would prefer, for its own interests, for this not to happen.

Also put forward is reversing to the previous rule of 39 weeks before a claim.

Seems it's all getting a little too costly?

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

Everyone deserves some grace in the face of unforseen circumstances, I could support SMI payed at the debtor's actual rate of interest for a limited period of just 6 months. Time to find alternative employment, sell the house an otherwise sort out their affairs. As soon as the 6 months are up then they should be on their own. Perhaps even 9 months. But the system we have now is a disgrace.

ruggedtoast

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

Everyone deserves some grace in the face of unforseen circumstances, I could support SMI payed at the debtor's actual rate of interest for a limited period of just 6 months. Time to find alternative employment, sell the house an otherwise sort out their affairs. As soon as the 6 months are up then they should be on their own. Perhaps even 9 months. But the system we have now is a disgrace.

I thought that too until I got a mortgage.

FTBFun

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

Everyone deserves some grace in the face of unforseen circumstances, I could support SMI payed at the debtor's actual rate of interest for a limited period of just 6 months. Time to find alternative employment, sell the house an otherwise sort out their affairs. As soon as the 6 months are up then they should be on their own. Perhaps even 9 months. But the system we have now is a disgrace.

Although there is an argument that its actually cheaper to keep SMI going rather than housing someone in HA or council housing, or via housing benefit.

You're obviously trolling though so there's little point arguing with you.

Heyman_2

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

Everyone deserves some grace in the face of unforseen circumstances, I could support SMI payed at the debtor's actual rate of interest for a limited period of just 6 months. Time to find alternative employment, sell the house an otherwise sort out their affairs. As soon as the 6 months are up then they should be on their own. Perhaps even 9 months. But the system we have now is a disgrace.

Do you think the system should only pay Housing Benefit for 6 months as well?

Rikki

SMI is normally a lot less than the rents being paid out.
My friends MIR payment is only £35 a week compared to rents of £100's.

RenovationMan

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

Everyone deserves some grace in the face of unforseen circumstances, I could support SMI payed at the debtor's actual rate of interest for a limited period of just 6 months. Time to find alternative employment, sell the house an otherwise sort out their affairs. As soon as the 6 months are up then they should be on their own. Perhaps even 9 months. But the system we have now is a disgrace.

I totally agree with this, but for all unemployment-related benefits, not just SMI. The benefit system should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

ruggedtoast

I wouldnt mind the state taking over ownership as a kind of council house, with the proviso that if the property is too large for whoever lives in it that they can be moved somewhere else suitable, that would make some sense.

It doesnt make sense to put a family through the horror of repossession so they end up on housing benefit costing a grand a month to some landlord while another landlord buys their house for a song and then also charges the council a grand a month for a family to live in it.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

Heyman wrote: »

Do you think the system should only pay Housing Benefit for 6 months as well?

No. I don't think the system should pay housing benefit at all. That would reveal the true cost of renting.