Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

What behaviour do you want to change?

Seems to take issue with people not having insurance in the event of losing job.

Yet is probably happy with some recieving housing benefit for decades.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

What behaviour do you want to change?

Not saving or insuring against job loss etc. and expecting the state to pick up the tab when things go a bit awry.

MacMickster

Benefits of any kind should be there to support those who are either unable to support themselves (perhaps due to illness or disability) and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times.

I agree with Graham that 18 months is about the longest that should be regarded as temporary. After that people have had sufficient time to adjust to their change in circumstances, which may include looking to sell their home.

The taxpayer should not be expected to help someone to buy property. The fact that someone once had an income, sufficient to obtain a mortgage to buy a nice house in a nice area, should not guarantee them the right to remain in that house if their circumstances change.

ILW

ess0two wrote: »

Seems to take issue with people not having insurance in the event of losing job.

Yet is probably happy with some recieving housing benefit for decades.

Different topic to this thread.

ess0two

ILW wrote: »

Different topic to this thread.

Maybe so but it all falls into the responsibilty issue.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've said it so many times Carper. Honestly, I'm not trying ot be difficult, but it's tiring going over and over the same thing several times only to be accused of wanting families chucked to the streets so that you can pick p a cheap house.

I've stated personally I wouldn't be able to afford the house at the moment or in the near future anyway, so it's a none point only used to have a pop.

For about the fifteenth time to clear this up. I believe SMI should be available for an 18 month period.

This gives people time to A) find another job look at selling and moving C) look at other ways to secure their home.

After that, the terms and the big bold writing in capital letters on your mortgage statements and any written communication takes place. Reposessions starts.

The only people getting repo'ed will be those who have failed in A, B or C above. They may not have equity, and in that case, it's harsh, BUT life.

If they have equity and they have still failed, then that's their problem.

The people who get repo'ed and who qualify for housing benefit should get housing benefit. Anyone else outside of that who does not qualify for housing benefit has too much money to do so (possibly due to sale of the house). They should use that money for their living expenses.

I've said this so many times that I'm loosing the will to live.

SMI is only available for 2 years for new claims, and has been since 2009. Whilst there may be historic 'indefinite' claims, going forwards this will not be the case.

So basically you're getting a bit red in the face about nothing in particular. I doubt that reducing SMI from 2 years to 18 months would make a blind bit of difference to anything.

MacMickster

RenovationMan wrote: »

I really don't have an issue with your argument, I just have a problem with how un-even handed it is. Why should the 18 month rule not apply to all housing benefits?

And once the home owner has sold/been reposessed, would it not cost the state more money to have people on housing benefit than on SMI?

Again, I agree that housing benefit should not enable people to remain in a nice property in a nice area ad infinitum. If someone is already living in privately rented accommodation and suffers a change in circumstances then support them to remain there for up to 18 months, but after that their changed circumstances should no longer be regarded as temporary. Housing benefit should be reduced forcing them to look for accommodation more suitable for their reduced means.

Currently housing benefit artificially props up both rents and house prices, making them more expensive for all.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

Not saving or insuring against job loss etc. and expecting the state to pick up the tab when things go a bit awry.

Isn't this the whole point of having social security? You can't cherry pick which parts of society you will and won't help when they get into difficulties.

Do your views about people expecting the state to pick up the tab when things go a bit awry cover everyone? This is more like the US model I guess rather than the socialist model that most European countries use. I'm not against people lookign after themselves because then I'd have to pay less tax and would have more of my income to support me and mine.

Is that what you're saying though? I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

I really don't have an issue with your argument, I just have a problem with how un-even handed it is. Why should the 18 month rule not apply to all housing benefits?

Good grief.

Because housing benefits do not BUY the renter an asset. It' provides a service, as covered just a couple of posts previously.

How many times?!?!

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

SMI is only available for 2 years for new claims, and has been since 2009. Whilst there may be historic 'indefinite' claims, going forwards this will not be the case.

That's wrong.

People on IS and Pension Credit can claim for over 2 years, and this hasn't changed. It's in the proposals to change, but hasn't been changed yet, hence why 70% are on it for over 2 years.