Welfare Reform

seven-day-weekend

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.:(.

sfm82

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.

darren_clarke

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

Depth_Charge

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

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

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

BigMummaF

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
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!

tpl

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

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.

stitching_witch

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!!!