Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?

Graham_Devon

I dunno, all these issues. Now even those getting their housing paid for can't afford their housing.

All leads back to one thing in the end...

No real point in the government increasing demand if they are going to decrease the money avaliable to pay for the increased prices at the other end.

boltneck123

Well you would have the original amount of employed tenants + 50 new employed tenants paying rent and now minus 50 benefit tenants. So out of the remaining tenants, if a small percentage fall into areas he is going to be better off than if he hadn't of transitioned to more employed tenants at all.

But, yes I accept that I know nothing about his finances and how leveraged he is, so I cannot say anything for certain - am just hypothesizing.

Ok, set the Direct Debit up for a day or two after their UC goes in. If someone knows they have to pay rent out of their UC, they should ensure that all other bills are set up to go out a bit later after their UC payment, so the rent always goes through first.

Set them in order of importance and stagger them slightly so they do not all go out at the same time, reducing risk of un-arranged overdrafts etc. It really is just simple financial planning, most people can do it. Even people on benefits.

Having them set a direct debit up to coincide with their UC payment, just means that their rent is paid, done and dusted, secure for another month. When it goes out, if it falls on a weekend day, if they have other bills to deal with etc etc, are just semantics and can be worked out by each individual in the property. I am just talking about a broad solution here for the land lord, not the tenant.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

I guess this guy is the new hate figure instead of the Wilson's now.

What makes you think that?

No ones uttered one single word against him to be fair. Everyone seems to be discussing the general model and the issues raised rather than anything to do with him personally.

In actual fact I'm really rather pleased with the way this thread has gone. It's really explored the issues rather than getting personal and had been a breath of fresh air!!

Generali

chucky wrote: »

I guess this guy is the new hate figure instead of the Wilson's now.

There's nothing people love as much as hating others with more or less than them.

CLAPTON

on a technical note many landlords can't set up DDs

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What makes you think that?

I don't need to think it.

I just need to read a few of your posts.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

There's nothing people love as much as hating others with more or less than them.

Very true. That trait is engrained in many people unfortunately.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

There's nothing people love as much as hating others with more or less than them.

I think Jeremy Hunt is going to be hated (even more so) by a number of NHS workers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-joins-cabinet-rich-list-with-17m-sale-of-company-8930024.html

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....In actual fact I'm really rather pleased with the way this thread has gone. It's really explored the issues rather than getting personal and had been a breath of fresh air!!

Until now that is.....;)

That's probably because the thread has got rather 'muddled' and hence 'fresh air' to you.

There is a very clear theme in your posts which basically sets out a distinct distaste for private landlords. You keep advocating 'solutions' that surround going back to some form of the old council house system. You are entitled to that view but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the central issue here.

The central issue here is quite simply stated. It is that by its nature, UC will pay benefits (including housing benefit) direct to claimants, and rent will not be paid to the landlord directly. This will apply equally whether the landlord is the council, a housing association, a mega-landlord like Mr Green, or a plain Joe Blogs with a single BTL property let out to someone on UC. Thus we can predict - and indeed know that this will dramatically increase rent arrears.

We have heard that there are various provisions under which orders can be made to pay the rent direct to the landlord - and I assume these apply whatever 'form' of landlord is applicable. It strikes me that landlords of all stripes will need to take an initial 'hit', followed by a great deal of bureacracy to correct the situation and obtain direct payment, and ultimately it will all 'settle down'.

Yes this is bad news for Mr King. Yes it is bad news for Innercityshire Council. And yes it's bad news for Anytown Housing Association. If any of them go bust as a result, it probably exposes an extremely 'fragile' business to start with, which would definitely fold anyway with a mere 1% rise to interest rates.

Mr King's important subsidiary point is about the reasons for the [what will be] significant interruption of cash to the landlord which I mentioned above. Those reasons are quite clearly poor financial management, and chaotic lifestyle - latched onto quickly by Hamish much to your dislike for some strange reason.

Mr King's other subsidiary point was a bit of a 'threat' intimating that people like him will be forced to stop renting to HB claimants. This is unlikely to become a reality because it will be cheaper, ultimately, simply to join with the council [who will have exactly the same problems] and get a fast-track process to go through the painful procedures and get direct rent payment reinstated.

These are the issues, which should not be muddled by tangential discussions on overall government housing policy, house building policy, or levels of benefits payments. All three are valid discussions, but are nothing to do with this piece of "news".

For my own part, if the government are hell-bent on relying on all these millions of people paying their full rent on the nail, then the least they could do is (a) introduce a very strict, rapid, and 'painless' process by which defaults can be picked up by future payment [+ arrears] direct to landlord, and (b) reinforce the UC system by making it abundantly, and legally clear, to the claimant that their UC contains an element of £X a month rent, and that as a result, non payment of that money to the rightful landlord can be treated as theft, with all it's natural consequences. After all, that's exactly what it is.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

non payment of that money to the rightful landlord can be treated as theft, with all it's natural consequences.

No it's not.

If your income comes from work; investment income; Government largesse; or any combination of the above, if you enter into a contract and don't keep your side of it then that's breach of contract, a civil matter.

Where your income comes from is completely meaningless.