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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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!
Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?
Comments
-
I agree but one way or another we pick up the tab so might as well pay £750 straight to landlord
I agree. But I am working upon the assumption that UC becomes truly 'universal' - meaning that the specific HB amount will ultimately be lost in the 'universal amount'... which means that procedures for paying the rent direct to the landlord will require that very lengthy and difficult process of obtaining court orders to sequester wages [or in this case benefits income] at the same time that the energy companies, loan companies, mobile phone companies will all be trying to do the same.
If you are suggesting we simply allow the person to spend the £750 on something else, and give him (or the landlord) another £750 on the basis that this is cheaper than 'picking up the tab' to rehouse then I disagree strongly. Especially as 'eviction' would never be possible until perhaps £5K of arrears are built up.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »I agree. But I am working upon the assumption that UC becomes truly 'universal' - meaning that the specific HB amount will ultimately be lost in the 'universal amount'... which means that procedures for paying the rent direct to the landlord will require that very lengthy and difficult process of obtaining court orders to sequester wages [or in this case benefits income] at the same time that the energy companies, loan companies, mobile phone companies will all be trying to do the same.
If you are suggesting we simply allow the person to spend the £750 on something else, and give him (or the landlord) another £750 on the basis that this is cheaper than 'picking up the tab' to rehouse then I disagree strongly. Especially as 'eviction' would never be possible until perhaps £5K of arrears are built up.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply doling out another £750 per head just because they spent the first lot unwisely or on more urgent priorities.
I doubt the HB element will ever be fully included because it will be a major part of it in the majority of cases. If they only get a £10 top up via HB I doubt overall budgeting is their main issue.
Inevitably a proportion of recipients will fail to make their rental payment for a variety of reasons. That will result in additional overheads to manage these "exceptions" form the DWP, Local Authority through to the landlord and tenant. This element is what is being objected to do if it can be avoided by direct payment to the landlord."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »
You are assessed for benefits. You live in a house costing £750 a week in rent. The government pays you £750 in Housing Benefit. You choose not to pay the council or HA or landlord it's rent. Tell me why this is not a problem 100% your own making. Tell me why the taxpayer should be involved in giving you extra money to pay arrears.
In many cases children, vulnerable people and the elderly will be involved. At some point we will under our current social needs policies end up picking up the tab."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »I agree. But I am working upon the assumption that UC becomes truly 'universal' - meaning that the specific HB amount will ultimately be lost in the 'universal amount'... which means that procedures for paying the rent direct to the landlord will require that very lengthy and difficult process of obtaining court orders to sequester wages [or in this case benefits income] at the same time that the energy companies, loan companies, mobile phone companies will all be trying to do the same.
If you are suggesting we simply allow the person to spend the £750 on something else, and give him (or the landlord) another £750 on the basis that this is cheaper than 'picking up the tab' to rehouse then I disagree strongly. Especially as 'eviction' would never be possible until perhaps £5K of arrears are built up.
No I'm not suggesting that but even if they are evicted it will not end there and the costs to tax payer could be higher.
I believe there are already provisions to make payment direct to landlord see post 740 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »It appears this is what you want the "story" to be or how you have read it and imagined it to be.
Are you talking to the mirror again?0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »And here we go again, by post 3, it's attacking and insulting.
If you believe that the majority of welfare claimants lead chaotic lifestyles and are unable to make financial decisions, that's your choice and you can put it down to that. I purposly didn't bring that into the discussion as it's clearly inflamatory, and not even true.
My thoughts are that he should be able to take a hit without having to go bust. As I stated, it's simply not true that everyone on benefits live chaotic and less intelligent than others not on benefits. The landlord has a VI and doesn't want the system to go this way. I'm exploring the actual system and whether it's welfare or the setup for the landlord that means he faces going bust should anything change.
Just goes to show you that the biggest welfare claimants of all are landlords and big business hoovering up all that housing benefit and subsidised by tax credits which they need to stay afloat.0 -
No I'm not suggesting that but even if they are evicted it will not end there and the costs to tax payer could be higher.
I believe there are already provisions to make payment direct to landlord see post 74
Yes but that's pretty vague isn't it, and unlike the present system, it will now be down to case-by-case decisions.
Mark my words, it will only take a few cases, and a bit of time to convince the world that "Universal Credit" is just that. A single payment to cover all of a family's needs and to interfere with exactly how they spend it will be politically incorrect and 'demeaning'. The exact amount allocated for rent will be lost over the years of hash and rehash the UC system.
Then, predictably, the debate will swing to energy, utilities, food etc. and why the hell we should bail out landlords (rather than British Gas) by sequestering their UC to pay rent directly. Why not their heating bill? Why not their mobile phone? Why not their Sky subscription or HP payments on the 50 inch Plasma?
I can see the outcome now. Government will decide it's OK for Sky to step in and cut off the supply. Same for T-Mobile. Then energy companies will be allowed to shove in pre-payment meters. It will even be OK to spend the benefits on Wonga loans and Bingo instead of food for the kids because free school meals and free breakfasts will be de-rigeur. But the house will become sacrosanct and eviction will become as impossible as sequestration [landlord direct payment] on "human rights" ground.
And then will come this magic want solution: Let's give them something called "rental benefit" or "living cost tax credit" on top of UC, and pay it directly to the landlord. The taxpayer will merrily pick up this huge additional bill...
... no large gin & tonics all round...0 -
Just goes to show you that the biggest welfare claimants of all are landlords and big business hoovering up all that housing benefit and subsidised by tax credits which they need to stay afloat.
Landlords don't claim housing benefit or (in general) tax credits.
If dysfunctional socialists give free money away then inevitably it will be accepted by all classes of people.0 -
Landlords don't claim housing benefit or (in general) tax credits.
If dysfunctional socialists give free money away then inevitably it will be accepted by all classes of people.
Landlords are the indirect recipient of it and benefit from it.
Dysfunctional conservatives (well one actually) started the mass giving away of assets at undervalue."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »Yes but that's pretty vague isn't it, and unlike the present system, it will now be down to case-by-case decisions.
Mark my words, it will only take a few cases, and a bit of time to convince the world that "Universal Credit" is just that. A single payment to cover all of a family's needs and to interfere with exactly how they spend it will be politically incorrect and 'demeaning'. The exact amount allocated for rent will be lost over the years of hash and rehash the UC system.
Then, predictably, the debate will swing to energy, utilities, food etc. and why the hell we should bail out landlords (rather than British Gas) by sequestering their UC to pay rent directly. Why not their heating bill? Why not their mobile phone? Why not their Sky subscription or HP payments on the 50 inch Plasma?
I can see the outcome now. Government will decide it's OK for Sky to step in and cut off the supply. Same for T-Mobile. Then energy companies will be allowed to shove in pre-payment meters. It will even be OK to spend the benefits on Wonga loans and Bingo instead of food for the kids because free school meals and free breakfasts will be de-rigeur. But the house will become sacrosanct and eviction will become as impossible as sequestration [landlord direct payment] on "human rights" ground.
And then will come this magic want solution: Let's give them something called "rental benefit" or "living cost tax credit" on top of UC, and pay it directly to the landlord. The taxpayer will merrily pick up this huge additional bill...
... no large gin & tonics all round...
I think it is very similar to current system for private landlords It's just social housing tenants who get there rent paid direct to landlords.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards