Housing benefit, shared ownership

IAmWales

teddysmum wrote: »

That's fair enough if someone is in a shared ownership contract and falls on hard times, but surely not if they choose to enter such, because freeing up income (replaced by HB) to pay the mortgage part means that the taxpayer is helping to buy the house ?


Also, if they can afford the mortgage part, should they , even at the moment be eligible for HB, as they have the value of the mortgage element as spare money?


Isn't going for shared housing , where the full cost is not affordable, like expecting full HB on a property with higher rent than the cap, because they have no means to top up ?

The OP is going to be claiming less than they are now as their eligible rent will be lower. Would you rather they continue to claim for 100% rent and line some landlord's pocket?

ERICS_MUM

jobbingmusician wrote: »

You may have o-level sums, but 100% minus 65% is not 45%......

Inflation since the days of 'O'. Levels could account for the 10% difference ? !!

teddysmum

IAmWales wrote: »

The OP is going to be claiming less than they are now as their eligible rent will be lower. Would you rather they continue to claim for 100% rent and line some landlord's pocket?

Should the taxpayers, some of whom can't buy a house themselves, be helping them to acquire a property ? It is very wrong.

SnooksNJ

Cakeguts wrote: »

Right so if you can't afford to pay the rent part without claiming housing benefit how are you going to pay for the repairs to the house? This is one of the problems with shared ownership. You only own a small proportion of the property but you have to pay for 100% of the repairs. The repairs are not done for you as they are if you rent the entire property. If it is a flat you pay the same service charge as someone who owns 100% and you also contribute towards repairs of the block of flats as if you own 100%.

Home owners have to have a lot of savings in case they need to make a major repair. So for example if your house needed a new roof you would have to pay for it.

Didn't putting people in houses they can't afford cause a mess in 2008? At least George Bush will be in the clear.