Who Gets Your Housing Benefit ?

mrs_motivated

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest the term "vulnerable" is getting rather overused lately. If someone decides to spend the rent money given to them on fags and bingo, that is just irresponsible and they deserve to be evicted.

Vulnerable will be those with addictions or victims of DV.

Evictions are extremely difficult for arrears, it is not unusual for a court to grant a Stay 12 or13 times, which makes it a bit of a mockery. Also if many more are taken to court, you will be waiting months and months for a hearing.....it already often averages months.....so the debt will be increased and the burden on the landlord.

mrs_motivated

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Oh I am in no doubt that it has. The problem I can see arising is people not paying their rent, the council trying to evict them only to find there is some human right clause that stops them.
As in the council was some way at fault for giving them the money in the first place, and they would not be in this situation had the council left things as they were.

Nothing to do with the Council, they have no choice. It is a Government Policy.

mazza111

dseventy wrote: »

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

I could in all honest I've been frugal with my IHR. Although it's dwindling faster than I would like...

I can totally understand your views on this, but as a landlord, and let's say you did take in HB claimants, would you, as a landlord, not prefer the HB to come directly to you? This is the way it should work across the board imo.

Own_My_Own

mrs_motivated wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Council, they have no choice. It is a Government Policy.

It won't stop the human rights aspect. The council can still pay direct if the tenant is deemed vulnerable. If they don't and someone gets in arrears, it will be seen to be their fault.

Rightly or wrongly.

Ravenshade

dseventy wrote: »

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

I would be HAPPY to provide these, no problem. Well, references I might have a problem with but 3 months rent in advance, large deposit and a guarantor + credit checks I can quite easily do. If I could trust my landlords to be honest (I can't, they're being forced to do repairs by the Public Health) then I'd provide my previous landlords details too!

BigAunty

mazza111 wrote: »

as a landlord, and let's say you did take in HB claimants, would you, as a landlord, not prefer the HB to come directly to you? This is the way it should work across the board imo.

Of course, virtually all landlords would prefer the HB to come directly to them - its a business and this reduces risk.

However, for the good of society and the tenants, it must be better if they can take control of simple responsibilities and get basic budgeting experience rather than being handheld.

I keep saying how appalling it is that so many social housing tenants don't have a bank account and nobody seems to find this odd.

I don't know the definitive stats but I came across a National Housing Federation statistic that claimed 1 in 4 Housing Association tenants do not have a bank account while I've come across other stats that indicate it might be around 1 in 6 across all social housing tenants.

This is mind-boggling.

Credit-Crunched

I for one will be very very reluctant to accept HB tennants now, paid directly to me I have a level of security.

Now it will be employed people only, sorry but they have proven over time to be more reliable payers. That is my experience

Ravenshade

Big Aunty has a point and some of us would prefer that the money comes directly to us. Broadly I'm in favor of the Universal Credit. Though I already get my rent to me monthly. They refuse to pay my benefits monthly which screws over my budgeting sometimes though!

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, but your comment about people with learning disabilities and irresponsible people having problems implied that, for the latter, that was a bad thing.

mrs_motivated

Social landlords (at least the switched on ones) are currently working with tenants, giving budgeting advice, running workshops, encouraging them to open bank accounts (those that can).. Incredibly when I speak to tenants about this and the changes at least 12per cent of them say "it won't affect me, I don't pay rent". There is often little understanding that they are charged rent and it is paid by HB.

However, many families tend to live hand to mouth and have never had to manage their money because the way benefits are currently paid there is a drip feed of weekly money. Under Universal credit and direct payment, families ( or at least one person in the family) will receive say a cheque for £1500 and they will never have had access to so much money before. In addition they will be paid in arrears and social housing rent is due in advance, so they will in effect owe two months rent.

Landlords, worse nightmare.