We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Welfare Reform

1679111249

Comments

  • Well of course it was a mistake to pay rents directly to the Landlords in the first place. If people had to take responsibility for paying their rent they might be better prepared now. I have even heard from these forums that some people don't even know they have to pay rent!:eek:

    And also of course, this is why many private landlords are reluctant to take people who rely on Local Housing Allowance - because they know some of them will just not pay the rent with it.:(.
    (AKA HRH_MUngo)
    Member #10 of £2 savers club
    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
  • sfm82
    sfm82 Posts: 185 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Do you think that putting the onus on the tenant to pay the rent will reduce rents to guarantee payments every month? Might be interesting to hear from ll's on this point.
  • sfm82 wrote: »
    Do you think that putting the onus on the tenant to pay the rent will reduce rents to guarantee payments every month? Might be interesting to hear from ll's on this point.


    no, i think some people will use it as free money and not care about rent, then come on here saying LL wants to evict me as rent is always late
  • Hi

    Some very interesting points made and a good cross section of opinion.

    Latest BBC article from a few hours ago

    'Welfare cuts unjust, say four churches'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21986041
  • RevolvingDoor
    RevolvingDoor Posts: 1,108 Forumite
    Growurown wrote: »
    I read Gordan's take on this and think he's right too. People who live in social housing in my area have very little choice about where and what type of property they live in. There aren't enough single bed properties on the housing register for all the single people to move into. I know this for a fact as I work with the housing associations as part of my job and this is what they have told me. It's not an option for many people in social housing to rent privately either as the rent is usually higher than housing benefit will pay anyway.

    I understand that many tax payers out there will be saying 'why should I pay for someone to live in a bigger house than they need?' Yes people not on benefits have to make choices about where they live etc. but they have options to take. Is it fair to reduce housing benefit to people, most of whom are already poor, when they have no choice about where they go and no properties to move into?

    Exactly. I agree with the principle that people should live in the appropriately sized social housing property but if there aren't any suitable properties for people to move to then why should they be penalised?
  • Growurown
    Growurown Posts: 5,498 Forumite
    Debt-free and Proud!
    Well of course it was a mistake to pay rents directly to the Landlords in the first place. If people had to take responsibility for paying their rent they might be better prepared now. I have even heard from these forums that some people don't even know they have to pay rent!:eek:

    The reason rents were paid directly to the landlord was because people didn't pay when they were given the money directly. There will always be a small strata in society whom, for whatever reason, won't pay their rent. Yes this is irresponsible but how do you make people behave responsibly? It is easier and cheaper for the authorities to take on that responsibility. The cost of eviction and the knock on effects of eviction cost us as tax payers a lot more than just paying the rent to the landlord on behalf of the tenant in the first place.

    As much as this government want people on benefits to behave in the same way as people who work, for example pay their rent themselves, manage a monthly budget etc. it just won't work for that minority. Many people on benefits I have worked with behave responsibly, but there will always be those few who won't.
    DMP Mutual Support Thread No. 421

    Debt free date 25/11/2015 - Made It!
  • BigMummaF
    BigMummaF Posts: 4,281 Forumite
    I'm sorry; is it me, or are the guvmunt being a tad 'p0llyann@' about all these jobs that are out there, just waiting to be snapped up by those on any kind of Benefit big-thumbs-down-smiley-emoticon.gif
    I'm pretty certain that for many months now, news reports have mentioned how the number of applicants far outweighs the availability on the Sits Vac scales.

    The young people especially can no longer look foward to a career in the Armed Forces, nursing or the Emergency Services. Shipyards & the larger manufacturing sectors are virtually non-existant, & what is left has become increasingly mechanised.

    And don't get me started on that lassie who lost her giro because she--rightly so I think, from the little evidence there was about it--refused to work in a High St store for no pay. IF they had to give you a proper insight into various departments of whichever business they operate, that's different! But to stack shelves & nothing else--that is slave labour, NOT work experience!
    Full time Carer for Mum; harassed mother of three;
    loving & loved by two 4-legged babies.

  • tpl
    tpl Posts: 187 Forumite
    edited 2 April 2013 at 11:38AM
    Growurown wrote: »
    I understand that many tax payers out there will be saying 'why should I pay for someone to live in a bigger house than they need?' Yes people not on benefits have to make choices about where they live etc. but they have options to take. Is it fair to reduce housing benefit to people, most of whom are already poor, when they have no choice about where they go and no properties to move into?

    I'm not sure what world you live in, but many people not on benefits do not have choices or options about where they live - as they have to live within their means, and private rentals are too expensive - so yes a bedsit or one bedroom flat (for more than one person), or shared house, is the most many people can afford. Perhaps you need to get more experience of working with people who do not (have the luxury) of living in low cost social housing - and you might get a more well rounded view of the difficulties other people, who happen to be taxpayers, face.
  • Growurown
    Growurown Posts: 5,498 Forumite
    Debt-free and Proud!
    tpl wrote: »
    I'm not sure what world you live in, but many people not on benefits do not have choices about where they live, and they do not have options about where they live - as they have to live within their means, and private rentals are too expensive - so yes a bedsit or one bedroom flat (for more than one person), or shared house, is the most many people can afford.

    Sorry have to disagree. Low paid working people do have more choices about where they live than those on benefits. For a start they aren't excluded from renting a property simply because they are benefit claimants. I do know how difficult it is to find somewhere to live when you are on a low wage and my own adult children are living in rooms in shared houses because that is all they can afford. I work in the voluntary sector and earn less than the average national wage, pay tax and also live in rented accommodation, so I do live in the real world.
    tpl wrote: »
    Perhaps you need to get more experience of working with people who do not (have the luxury) of living in social housing - and you might get a more well rounded view of the difficulties other people, who happen to be taxpayers, face.

    Yes you could say living in social housing is a luxury, and I am not saying that it is fair that the tax payer bears the cost to house people in properties too big for their needs. The point I am making is that it isn't fair either to penalise people living in social housing when they have no choice about where they live. There simply aren't enough one bedroomed properties in the social housing sector for people to move into, and renting privately is not an option for many people either. A single person on JSA gets around £70 a week. Tell me how on that amount of money do you get a deposit/bond and the first months rental together, plus pay the fees to the agent advertising the property? and that's only if you can find a landlord who will take someone on benefits - because a lot won't. In my County it takes three months when you claim housing benefit to receiving a payment. Not many landlords will wait that long for their rent.

    There must be a better way of doing this that is fair to tax payers and fair to the people it is going to affect.
    DMP Mutual Support Thread No. 421

    Debt free date 25/11/2015 - Made It!
  • stitching_witch
    stitching_witch Posts: 1,257 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Photogenic
    Growurown wrote: »

    There must be a better way of doing this that is fair to tax payers and fair to the people it is going to affect.

    Hear, hear!!!
    Making magic with fabric
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.