Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

if you enter into a contract and don't keep your side of it then that's breach of contract, a civil matter.

Indeed.

The problem is though, that we will have many tens of thousands of benefits claimants who are incapable of properly budgeting and who fail to use their benefits to pay for the intended purpose.

The end result of this will be additional cost to the taxpayer, either though picking up the pieces with homeless families that have been evicted, or through additional admin charges to reinstate direct landlord payments.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree.

And there appears to be two main solutions

A) We carry on paying private landlords more and more taxpayer money. The housing benefit bill however, is increasing at an alarming rate. It's increased over 30% in JUST the last 5 years. Looking forward, this solution appears to be unsustainable.

we start a programme to build state owned houses in order to place those people in need of cheaper or financially supported housing. We learn lessons from the past and do away with life long tenancies etc. Allocate on need. This should also have the knock on effect of recuding the rents private renters pay, freeing up money for the rest of the general economy. Provides jobs, growth etc.

There may be other solutions which I'd be interested to listen to.

It's somewhat ironic that for someone who bleats on about government interference your two solutions involve government interference and a taxpayer contribution.

How about the state provides nothing more than a basic safety net and if someone chooses to pay their free money on something other than rent they get evicted. If the landlord's business model can't cope they go bust?

Why can't the tenants be allowed to find their own solutions - do you think everyone who gets housing benefit is an idiot?

ukcarper

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/blog/posts/2013/payment-of-universal-credit-direct-to-landlords/


this might be interesting

Londonsu

OK I may get flamed as I am a bit wooly on Benefits, but I seem to remember that when I did get JSA ( for three weeks in March) it was paid into my bank account, if all benefit claimants have to have a BA to get their money why cant landlords insist their rent is paid either by Direct Debit (or Standing Order if the Tenant want to keep control on who takes what out and when) If a tenant is worried about managing their finances it would take a load of their minds to know the money would go out of their account and they would not have to do anything. And LLs would be happy knowing that the money would be paid.

Looking at the internet even a basic bank account for people with a poor credit rating allows people to set up DDs.

So all LLs have to do is to make it a condition of tenancy for the rent to be paid via a bank account

If someone knows why this is not feasible please let me know

Edit the only people who would find this difficult are people with mental health issues or other issues and reading the link above it seems that things will be in place to support these people

CLAPTON

Londonsu wrote: »

OK I may get flamed as I am a bit wooly on Benefits, but I seem to remember that when I did get JSA ( for three weeks in March) it was paid into my bank account, if all benefit claimants have to have a BA to get their money why cant landlords insist their rent is paid either by Direct Debit (or Standing Order if the Tenant want to keep control on who takes what out and when) If a tenant is worried about managing their finances it would take a load of their minds to know the money would go out of their account and they would not have to do anything. And LLs would be happy knowing that the money would be paid.

Looking at the internet even a basic bank account for people with a poor credit rating allows people to set up DDs.

So all LLs have to do is to make it a condition of tenancy for the rent to be paid via a bank account

If someone knows why this is not feasible please let me know

Edit the only people who would find this difficult are people with mental health issues or other issues and reading the link above it seems that things will be in place to support these people

most tenants pay by bank a/c

most landlords can't accept DDs

There is of course nothing to stop a tenant from stopping a SO at any time

Londonsu

Thanks I was just wondering

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

do you think everyone who gets housing benefit is an idiot?

This is somewhat a bizarre response considering it's been me defending the benefit claimant from the idea that they are all financially illiterate and living chaotic lifestyles.

If I'd suggested anything that could be taken as what you have suggested then it would be fair enough, but I haven't.

I'm not sure what the need is to make something completely random up and pin it to a poster to make a point.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is somewhat a bizarre response considering it's been me defending the benefit claimant from the idea that they are all financially illiterate and living chaotic lifestyles.

I don't think anyone has suggested that they all are.

But that a significant percentage of them tend to be, is I think, beyond doubt.

Given that we already have the results (posted earlier in the thread) showing rent arrears increased by 700% in one trial area when the new system was introduced.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested that they all are.

But that a significant percentage of them tend to be, is I think, beyond doubt.

Given that we already have the results (posted earlier in the thread) showing rent arrears increased by 700% in one trial area when the new system was introduced.

Is that typical of the trials or cherry-picking an outlier? It would also be interesting to know what the increase was. If it's a jump from 1 to 8 families that's very different to a jump from 1,000 to 8,000.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Is that typical of the trials or cherry-picking an outlier? It would also be interesting to know what the increase was. If it's a jump from 1 to 8 families that's very different to a jump from 1,000 to 8,000.

The trial covered 950 tenants.

The thing we don't know is what the arrears actually are on average for those in arrears.

But on a very crude level, the average arrears over those 950 tenants equals £147 per tenant, which is around a 3rd of the average monthly rental there. Obviously for those actually in arrears the figure will be higher.

A lot of this data could depend on when the data capture took place too. If taken towards the start of the month, a switch from direct payments to the tenants paying will obviously see a rise in arrears, as it's going to take longer for the tenants to receive the money and then send it on.