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
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »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.
Any idea who did the trial or got a link to a news article? I like picking over those sorts of things as the methodology is often highly dodgy. As you say, the increase in arrears could simply be a one off caused by bad bureaucracy
It appears (if the link is to be believed) that between 7 & 10% of tenants are generally in arrears:
http://www.cwhr.co.uk/news/item/143-citywest-homes-residential-maximising-westminster-rental-investmentsoverall tenant arrears fell in February, with 7.4% of all rent late or unpaid. This compares with 8.1% in the previous month and 10.1% in December.
Assuming this is an average area, that would mean between about 70 and 96 households in arrears.
If the study is to be believed, that would mean the total number of arrears rose to somewhere between 490 and 672 out of 950 households! Either:
1. Well over half of households receiving HB are incapable of completing a simple financial transaction
2. Well over half of households receiving HB are incapable or unwilling to make good on rent if bureaucratic delay results in late payment of HB
3. The study is crap
We can all make up our own minds on this. I reckon #3 is most likely: the numbers stink.0 -
Any idea who did the trial or got a link to a news article?
Seems my 950 number may have been wrong, although the two articles suggested 950 tenants were trialled, which is rather misleading, as the BBC article below suggests it was one social housing group which reported the 140k and 950 figure, a social housing group who are, in other places, vocally against the changes.
So whether they were the trial, or the trial encompassed more than 950 households, I don't know.
So it all seems very unclear. A quick search seems to reveal mostly landlord magazine articles amongst the general news items which seems to simply report the figures without even mentioning where the figures were from.
This article is the most in depth article I can find on the "trial".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21725686
Otherwise, when searching for articles on these trials, I seem to have the choice of a website called "Landlord Referencing", propety118, landlordzone and insidehousing as the main returns in google.0 -
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.
Not really that bizarre. Your two solutions both involved nanny taking responsibility for the housing of an increasing proportion of the population.
You're defending the benefit claimant from claims that they're more likely (not all of them BTW) to be financially illiterate. Yet you can't envisage a solution to the problem that isn't controlled by the state.
Why can't we treat adults like adults instead of emasculating them and turning them into the proverbial 'man babies'?0 -
Not really that bizarre. Your two solutions both involved nanny taking responsibility for the housing of an increasing proportion of the population.
You're defending the benefit claimant from claims that they're more likely (not all of them BTW) to be financially illiterate. Yet you can't envisage a solution to the problem that isn't controlled by the state.
Why can't we treat adults like adults instead of emasculating them and turning them into the proverbial 'man babies'?
Perhaps it would be more efficient for all concerned if the payment was automatically directed at Landlord. irrespective of whether someone is a man baby or not.
Whatever makes the process cheapest for the tax payer. I really don't care whether recipients feel emasculated.
Whatever happened to Secure Homes? There must be an opportunity there."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 -
Not really that bizarre. Your two solutions both involved nanny taking responsibility for the housing of an increasing proportion of the population.
If my solutions are wrong...
Wheres yours? Easy to tell everyone else they are wrong. Why not back it up with a solution that you feel is better? I did invite this at the time of making my suggestions.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »If my solutions are wrong...
Wheres yours? Easy to tell everyone else they are wrong. Why not back it up with a solution that you feel is better? I did invite this at the time of making my suggestions.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 buy into the idea that the government should (or are able to) solve everyone's problems?0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Perhaps it would be more efficient for all concerned if the payment was automatically directed at Landlord. irrespective of whether someone is a man baby or not.
Whatever makes the process cheapest for the tax payer. I really don't care whether recipients feel emasculated.
Hardly a solution though. Not only do we take away the responsibility from perfectly able people for providing their own housing we even need to shield them from even the most mundane of tasks like transferring the rent to the landlord.
We're into the realm of special needs if they can't prioritse shelter, food, water and warmth for themselves AFTER they've been given free money to do so. The first humans must have been amazing - they sussed this out without a government department to do it for them.0 -
The system of paying housing benefit direct to landlords has worked perfectly well and it's a small price for tenants to pay.
I thought the idea of UC was to save money but if it results in more costs because some tenants can't manage their money what is the point.0 -
The system of paying housing benefit direct to landlords has worked perfectly well and it's a small price for tenants to pay.
I thought the idea of UC was to save money but if it results in more costs because some tenants can't manage their money what is the point.
My understanding was that it was not primarily to save benefit money, but mainly to save admin costs caused by all the different benefits.
This, of course, being the government's intention means that the absolute reverse will happen. They have "form" on this. The intention of "tax credits" was to simplify how benefits were paid (by DWP) and allow the payment to be administered by HMRC as taxes are for working people. Instead, it turned into a simple device to pay more benefits. The intention of CPA was to hunt down stray 'fathers' and make them pay maintenance to reduce the Benefits bill. Instead they interfered with totally amicable divorce settlements. The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) had the intention of seizing the assets gained by individuals guilty of a crime. Instead, it hardly seizes them at all. Instead, 'negotiates' and in return for a tiny proportion of money, grants "certificates" guaranteeing that the remainder is Kosher and legally belongs to the criminal.
The intention (I believe) of UC is to simplify benefits and consolidate 6 different types into 1. I am sure it will "assess" UC initially on the same formula as if the 6 seperate benefits still existed, but the end result is a "total figure" which becomes your "Universal Credit". That's why (I think) they are not allowed to continue paying landlords direct, because "technically" the Housing Benefit proportion ceases to be "Housing Benefit" but is, instead, simply part of your income.
I am convinced that as a result, payment of rent to the landlord will ultimately become very similar (if not identical) to existing cumbersome processes used by councils to extract rent from working people by "sequestering" their wages. I believe this is where the key problems will come.
Ultimately, of course, being a cynic, I am convinced that after a few years, things will settle down, and UC will become an accepted "income" for unemployed, single parents, lower paid etc. until such time as the 'wets' will notice that the poorest of these are not paying their rent [because the money is going on Bingo or Wonga loan interest], and they will come up with the "magic" idea of paying "Housing Benefit" on top for qualifying people.0 -
Hardly a solution though. Not only do we take away the responsibility from perfectly able people for providing their own housing we even need to shield them from even the most mundane of tasks like transferring the rent to the landlord.
We're into the realm of special needs if they can't prioritse shelter, food, water and warmth for themselves AFTER they've been given free money to do so. The first humans must have been amazing - they sussed this out without a government department to do it for them.
If paying HB directly (or that bit of UC that was HB) directly to Landlords saves money overall then I fail to see what the problem is.
Simply paying out UC to some recipient who then p*ss it up the wall and then still need bailing out (which they will), together with the administration costs and potential re-homing issues, doesn't seem a good use of money IMO.
As they need some form of HB it suggests even the good ones are on tight budgets. Stuff happens and rent will be missed."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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K 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