Who Gets Your Housing Benefit ?

evenasus

ILW wrote: »

Are there really that many people out there that cannot figure out that they need to pay rent with the money given to them? I would assume anyone that disabled would have some sort of carer or social worker.

I don't think figuring out that they need to pay their rent is the problem.

Much more of a problem, is that some tenants would rather spend the rent money on other things. And I don't mean essentials like food.

CIS

Because in one pilot area 11% of tenants have got in arrears ?

That just proves that 89% didn't get in arrears.

Wakefield & District Housing say this on their website "Continue to work hard to reduce the amount of rent arrears owed. Current tenant rent arrears expressed as a percentage of the rent due is 2.7%.".

So the arrears have gone up from 3% before the trial to 11% during it. Simple practicalities show that changing the scheme is going to make life very difficult for housing associations and council housing departments if rent arrears go up by 4x .

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I for one am in receipt of HB. But even when I wasn't, my mum taught me, the first thing you pay every week is your rent. The rest can wait. I've stuck to that advice throughout my life and will continue to do so when I receive the HB through my bank account.

It's those with some sort of learning difficulties that may have problems or just plain irresponsible people.

But why should we protect irresponsible people from the results of their irresponsible actions? How will that help them to become more responsible?

gayleanne

Private rental tenants usually have the money paid into there own bank then they give it to their landlord. There was a programme on this on TV last night, one of the areas, in Wales, that have been used as a trial area, by giving social housing tenants the money into there bank, for them to trot down to the local office to pay there rent over the counter, have had a rent arrears increase of 23% in the three months since it started. And yet even though there were housing association officers, and council officers saying that it is not working, because people are not paying there rent, and there have been more eviction notices sent out in three months than the past 2 years, It is now going to be started all over the country, yeah I can see Joe Bloggs, thinking, well shall I buy my drugs and booze or shall I pay the rent. Most people will pay the rent to keep a roof over there heads, but a lot of people will be in the boozer, or down the ally buying the drugs.

What the heck are these people thinking. They say they are doing this to make people more used to handling there own finances, all it is doing is causing more work for the councils and HA's

Own_My_Own

Dunroamin wrote: »

But why should we protect irresponsible people from the results of their irresponsible actions? How will that help them to become more responsible?

It won't. But as I said earlier in thread, human rights will kick in.

They will say, the council helped these tenants get in arrears by giving them the money just to get it paid back to themselves.

If it's not broken !

It may not be right, but it is what will happen.

BigAunty

gayleanne wrote: »

...

What the heck are these people thinking. They say they are doing this to make people more used to handling there own finances, all it is doing is causing more work for the councils and HA's

That's because there is a culture of social housing tenants on benefits not taking responsibility for paying their landlord. The pilots will always flush out these issues and as long as the lessons learned are identified, the roll-out may have less risks than the pilots demonstrate.

Home owners pay their lenders the mortgage fees directly. Private tenants that aren't deemed vulnerable pay their landlords directly. Why should non-vulnerable social housing tenants be exempt in undertaking a really simple activity?

Clearly, the research is showing that the behaviours/attitudes of the tenants and the support from the landlords is weak but these will change as the culture of taking responsibility for simple things becomes more entrenched.

As I indicated previously, many social housing tenants don't even have bank accounts and this is appalling in a largely non-cash based economy and it shows you how out of synch they are with the rest of society.

dseventy

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Because if she lost her job HB would already be in place and only need altering. Something that takes minutes.

Unlike a tenant not on benefit losing their job. A new claim would takes weeks. Could you afford to get no rent while it was sorted ?

My point is not the process.

My point is that in those circumstances you describe, the person in my property cant pay the rent and relies on others to do so. So they immedialtly have a low income (hence qualify for benefits), subject to continued eligibility criteria ("hes not my partner" etc) and government policy (bedroom tax etc).

Since its MY decision on who I rent to, I get to choose.

Go and tell your story to a letting agent and see the response.

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Oh Please.

That link is from 2008

We are talking about tenants in social housing.

No, we are talking about "Who gets your HB", its the title!

2008 was when private let mony was paid direct to claiments and not the LL

mazza111 wrote: »

I can certainly understand why you don't in all honesty. I just don't like being tarred with the same brush if you know what I mean. But if you couldn't rent your property, would you not consider it then?

I am lucky enough to have property in area that has strong rental demand so I never really have to cross that bridge.

If I had to and could not rent it, I would want

• (at least) 3 months rent in advance
• large deposit
• a guarantor,
• satisfactory credit checks,
• referencs

Who on LHA could provide that or was willing to go through with that?

D70

BigAunty

Mods - I think you should just port this over to Discussion Time and merge it with this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4493353

Ravenshade

It's actually normal at least three councils that I've inquired with pay you directly, unless you ask for it to be paid direct to the Landlord. Some council even ask that the Landlord requests in.

However this pilot scheme is about giving more people that control, so those who have never been given the choice before due to a long standing claim and various other reasons.

Where I currently am, I get my Housing Benefit and pass it straight on the day it comes in.

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

But why should we protect irresponsible people from the results of their irresponsible actions? How will that help them to become more responsible?

And where on earth did i say anything about protecting those who are irresponsible? Good grief stop twisting what I say. I have never once said we should protect irresponsible people.

The system works where rents are paid direct to the landlords, why would they want to change that? That seems daft in the first place, especially when a lot of people on benefits are robbing peter to pay paul in the first place.

In all honesty, if they are going to do this, there has to be some protection for those vulnerable people. Like the lass I mentioned before with the learning difficulty. Any one who has had rent arrears should not be given this option.