Who Gets Your Housing Benefit ?

Own_My_Own

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

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

I am employed and on benefits.

Where do I fall ?

BigAunty

Own_My_Own wrote: »

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.

Wrong, as I posted before, perhaps on another thread, I can't remember, there is already a precedent whereby a non-vulnerable council tenant who wracked up extensive rent arrears because she didn't properly complete a HB claim did successfully challenge her eviction on Human Rights grounds. The council was deemed at fault for not helping her enough with the forms.

It has set a precendent, this is an area of law where it will be hard for a council to defeat.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/human-rights-ruling-halts-eviction/6513846.article

http://www.rla.org.uk/news/news.shtml?post=1245

Own_My_Own

mrs_motivated wrote: »

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.

So true.

I saw a Mum on the news recently who was moaning about the upcoming benefit changes. She said, 'I can't make my money last 2 weeks , how I am going to last a month ?'

I was shouting at the telly, ' You get a months money, take off your bills and divide the remainder by the weeks in the month! Then take that amount out in cash each week.'

But being on benefits doesn't make these people the way they are. My sister worked full time, but I was always lending her money. She bought big at the beginning of the month then run short. I bought big at the end of the month, with what I had left.
We were both bought up in the same house, but had different money management.

Ravenshade

Own_My_Own wrote: »

So true.

I saw a Mum on the news recently who was moaning about the upcoming benefit changes. She said, 'I can't make my money last 2 weeks , how I am going to last a month ?'

I was shouting at the telly, ' You get a months money, take off your bills and divide the remainder by the weeks in the month! Then take that amount out in cash each week.'

But being on benefits doesn't make these people the way they are. My sister worked full time, but I was always lending her money. She bought big at the beginning of the month then run short. I bought big at the end of the month, with what I had left.
We were both bought up in the same house, but had different money management.

Ugh... I have to agree. Some people can budget on what we're paid, others... not so much. I always make sure that everything i have purchased will last me at least one month. (Which is why I freeze milk and bread...).

BigAunty

mrs_motivated wrote: »

... 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.

Yes, I've noted before that one thing landlords did not like before the introduction of LHA was the belief by some tenants that any problems with their HB (and hence non payment of rent) was hardluck to endured by the landlord. They viewed the council as responsible for paying their rent, and therefore tended to be passive about issues relating to arrears or their claims. For them, as the rent was invisible, their responsibilities as tenants seemed invisible, too, so they didn't tend to be particularly proactive at resolving issues and often thought the landlord ought to sort it out with the council directly (there is no legal relationship between the council and the landlord whatsoever).

On some documentaries I've seen, benefits have been described as 'earnings' which show the mentality of some long term claimants.

I remember one documentary series where an employment advisor got workless households off benefits and into employment and many households weren't even sure how much they were receiving or that other people's taxes paid their benefits. They were completely insulated from basic economic reality because payments were just regularly dropping into their bank account and the rent was being paid for years without any intervention by them.

"She does explain to claimants that their benefits are paid for by other people paying tax – "And they're always shocked. Total shock. They just saw it as free money. They didn't know what national insurance is, they had no concept."

Confuseddot

Yet another huge divide between social and private rentals. One of my mums friend had a son William who has severe learning difficulties he is now in his 50s. She taught him how to manage money, clean the house, take care of himself and since her death is managing great. He gets some help within the local community but is pretty much self reliant. I think its all about learning the correct ways.

Own_My_Own

Confuseddot wrote: »

Yet another huge divide between social and private rentals. One of my mums friend had a son William who has severe learning difficulties he is now in his 50s. She taught him how to manage money, clean the house, take care of himself and since her death is managing great. He gets some help within the local community but is pretty much self reliant. I think its all about learning the correct ways.

But as I have said, my sister was bought up in the same house as me, but is useless with money. You can either do it or you can't.

And what is the huge divide ?

evenasus

Own_My_Own wrote: »

Human Rights will jump on it.

But as the quote says...

Last night Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It seems to me that the courts always find in favour of the human rights of people who are doing something wrong. We have got to change that balance, it is getting completely out of hand.
‘What about the human rights of the landlord to get their rent, what about the human rights of the taxpayer?’

Murphybear

evenasus wrote: »

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

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.

My brother was a letting agent for many years before he retired. He used to tell me:

The vast majority of tenants are good and pay the rent on time and look after the property

The vast majority of landlords are good, are not overly greedy and sort out issues when required

The number of occasions a court had to evict one of his tenants could be counted on fingers of one hand.

One "bad egg" - single mother on LHA paid direct to her. She stopped paying the rent with no reason given. She was evicted by the court and told to pay the arrears at £5 per month. She never paid anything. The reason she gave the court for not paying the rent? She gave all the rent money to her mother to pay her debts! Final outcome? Landlord got fed up with renting and sold the house.

I am not surprised that so many landlords won't let their properties to people on benefits, the very small minority who act irresponsibly ruin it for the rest.

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

I never said anything of the sort nor implied it. If I've got something to say I say it. I feel that this way of doing things will confuse a great deal of people. It works as it is at the moment. Why change things when it works. This way it will leave more people who can't handle finances whether that be through being of a vulnerable group or those irresponsible, likely to have rent arrears, which is why I'm against this.

WITHOUT GOING INTO WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROTECTED OR NOT.