To think being able to use housing benefits as a mortgage is unfair?

@Workwork21 You ve made an excellent argument for an alternative and workable policy, one that could really help people improve their life chances....cheaper rents, via more HA and council housing, enabling folk to save and in your case get a degree.

I wonder how many people who get Housing Benefit have any savings, let alone 1000s.

Madness to sell off social housing when it's in such short supply

That’s actually a complete myth credit files on not their bibles at all each individual lender has its own criteria.

Its always a combination of factors not one single reason why somebody might be excepted for a mortgage with one company and not with another.

for example the Natwest you can already include your benefits in the income for the affordability calculation but you must have a spotless credit rating. Others are a lot less fussy on your credit rating but they will just charge you more because you’re a bigger risk.

How would that help poor people? The vast majority of landlords would sell and poor tenants who couldn’t afford to buy would be left homeless. It would likely reduce cost of buying housing though so wealthy people would be better off.

A lot of people on low incomes and on benefits have incurred debt, and might have a not great credit file as a result. There’s absolutely no way the big banks will compromise on that. The credit files are their bibles.

Ok thanks

I should probably read an article but feeling newsed out and lazy, will do later

Are you a troll?

@MarshaBradyo, the house will be sold to the tenant for 60% of its value. That will be the amount of the mortgage. It’s only for FTB HA tenants - forget everyone else, it doesn’t apply to them.

We also have a crisis of people not being able to get on the housing ladder. The conservatives are meant to be a party of the middle class so will prioritise home ownership over rental properties as that's their values.

I'm northern so the 16k saving limit would be fine for a deposit I also wonder if they will exclude help to buy ISA from the savings limit so they can save more to buy a property

She actually banned councils from using the funds to build new houses

You mean people who have equity already will do this? Eg use it when they can’t pay mortgage

what about those trying to buy for first time - is it for them too?

If this new policy means that those who lose their jobs don't automatically lose their homes

That isn’t what it means. I’d love to know what Johnson’s trying to hide while we’re all talking about this.

Em no. Elderly people or anyone else are not being made homeless by the sale of a house they don’t and can’t live in.

I think it's a fantastic idea. We are heading towards a massive recession and many people will lose their jobs. Many self-employed will struggle to find work as people don't have money to spare. The rising costs of everything will also push many small businesses over the VAT threshold, which may mean even more going out of business.

If this new policy means that those who lose their jobs don't automatically lose their homes, then I'm all for it. If someone is out of work for say, 6 months, why should they have to sell their house, fall off the property ladder and rent somewhere that is likely double the price? It doesn't make sense.

Look at the bigger picture

It is another desperate attempt at deflection and smoke and mirrors.

The stock isnt the government to sell. Banks will not loan against benefits. Banks are reducing what they will loan to people with jobs. People on benefits do have a deposi and in alot of cases may not have an employment history.

That's before they sort out a system without staff of how this could possibly work.

I think every tax payer, housing association and homeless group will be up in arms.

YABU. How would it be fair that someone would only be able to claim the cost of housing themselves if they rent? The housing element of the benefit only covers interest, and is quite limited.

Can you say more - who pays the 40%? How does that part work

Nobody pays the 40%, it’s the equity in the house effectively. Obviously 40% isn’t the actual figure, I’ve used it for illustrative purposes. The amount varies depending on length of tenancy.

I didn’t think it would be the same but I wasn’t really listening re discount part

Can you say more - who pays the 40%? How does that part work

The discount is the deposit. So if the discount was 40%, the LTV would be 60%. And you’re all assuming applications would be assessed in the same way and using the same criteria as commercial mortgages. They wouldn’t.

I see it as better than paying landlords mortgages!

But yes it's basically Johnson shit stirring to distract - don't fall for it!

Why exactly do you think those on benefits are less worth of a secure home?

The other part that I heard was the change in LTV - so creeping up to around 98%

this seems odd considering interest rates. You certainly won't be able to get a good deal at 98%

How much is the deposit?

The other part that I heard was the change in LTV - so creeping up to around 98%

That’s why default seems concerning to me

We had buffers put in after 2008

So, we have a major public housing crisis with people waiting years, and a lack of affordable housing. So lets sell some social housing off? WTF, you may wonder if these things are made up when they are all drunk. I could see why Thatcher went there, but there was not the housing crisis then.

It’s never going to happen but if it did the discount is the deposit.

Get everyone into a mortgage (deathgrip) where their home is directly tied to their income.

Make living unaffordable and thus mortgage repayments unaffordable.

Legitimately repossess all homes and get back under bank control.

Rent the homes out under conditions (digital identity with enough social credit)

Hunt the homeless for sport.

Reduce the population/only ones left are in smart cities linked to a grid based on social credit and digital identity.

Freedom gone. Total control achieved.