It’s not fair those renting get more universal credit?

You are missing the point. If both a home owner and a renter are on low wages and are entitled to UC why should they be treated differently?

If they are entitled to the benefits then it would be stupid not to claim. Morals won't feed the family.

This isn’t a good long-term strategy. If I sold my property, I’d probably get about £50k back. Then I’d have to spend that down on rent to under £16k before I got any help. I’d probably never get back on the housing ladder again after that and I’d be dependent on the state even longer.

@LolaSmiles I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint. But it still wouldn't help a large number of the population who rent. They still need to pay the rent....

Well maybe it’s because people who are renting don’t have increasing assets like those who own a house. And thatcher sold off all the council houses and private rents are astronomical etc.
But rent money doesn't go to make the lives of renting people better long term.

Rent money goes into the pockets of landlords. Those landlords are increasing their assets and their portfolio... Funded by the taxes of people much poorer than them.

Too many people are seeing it as:
Welfare support given to poorer people renting
Vs
Welfare support given to people who have a mortgage and will eventually own their property

Which is why we're getting so much 'but at least you'll own your asset'.

What they'd be better doing is presenting it more accurately:
Welfare support given to landlords who often own large numbers of properties (via the benefits system so taxpayer money passes through the hands of those who are renting, but ultimately lines the pockets of landlords)
Vs
Welfare support for average people who need a bit of help with their mortgage through a rough patch

Why people are happy with the state paying multiple mortgages for the wealthy and privileged, whilst objecting to normal families having a bit of help is beyond me.

There would be hundreds of thousands of homeless people and hundreds of thousands of empty homes if they stopped the housing element, though.

If you're suggesting everyone should be given benefits to get a loan to buy a house, instead, that's an interesting idea.

Years ago the Govt paid your interest (for a period) when you lost your job

I earn 11k, I don’t qualify for UC. I agree that they shouldn’t give more to renters, but I also think that people shouldn’t qualify for it if they earn £30k either.
It’s a mad system, people on low incomes can’t get it, but well paid people can. I don’t understand it at all.

Yes. My mother's paying about £8,000 a year in rent for her home and has had the tenancy for 40 years, so has certainly paid a decent sum (it was purpose -built over 100 years ago); I'm paying c. £10,000 a year in rent and have been here 25 years (home built as affordable housing 150 years ago); my dad's flat is about £8000 a year, has had the tenancy over 40 years and the place has been council-owned for 60 years. Some of my neighbours have been paying the rent (same as mine) for over 50 years.

Not saying I agree or that it would be smart to sell your home. Or that people who own shouldn’t have some help if they fall on hard times. Just saying what the benefits are there for. You also couldnt go from rented to owning while claiming uc, as once you had saved £6k your UC would reduce/stop. The point is that it’s designed to help people who have no other choice. I doubt there are many renters who are choosing not to buy to get a bit more in benefits.
The fact is, it’s a dire situation when people working full time cannot afford their rent without a top up, and cannot afford to buy their own home. Totally agree with a pp about how we should be looking to the people above us who are holding us all down while the rich get richer, instead of bickering between the people with less over who has it worse!

Yes so it doesn't go directly to the landlord as the pp suggested. It can do after a special application is made but it is not an automatic thing.

Yes so it doesn't go direct to a landlord unless they specifically apply. The poster suggested this was automatic.

Read previous - I don't want them to.

@nadine90

yeah because there's a plethora of rental accommodation just waiting for people to sell their house & rent it.

no, it doesn't make sense, you're right about that.

so why not support people to keep their ones homes?

it's really not that different if you can get past people not being kicked out of their homes.

obviously they need help to downsize if the homes are ridiculously over sized etc.

They could if they live in a very high rent area.

Standard and child allowances come to £1,163.40. Assuming the £60k is £30k each, net pay is iro £2k each, so £4k. After deducting the work allowance and applying the taper, the tapered income is a tad over £1990.

If the relevant LHA was £1500pcm, the maximum allowances would be £2,663.40; after deducting £1990 of tapered income, £673.40 of UC would be payable, approx £165pw. To get £240pw, the relevant LHA would have to be £1800pcm or thereabouts. That's not inconceivable in central or inner London for 3-bed property.

Very rough calculations, btw, and they involve all sorts of assumptions, eg no disabled child or carer elements and we know nothing about pension contributions or student loans. And I still think it's bullshit!

I explained upthread how council housing is effectively self-financing in the medium-long term upthread, @Bigbenbube .

My MIL has lived in the same council house for 63 years, and paid full rent until FIL died a few years ago and the loss of his pension meant that she had to claim HB.

They must have paid for that house and a few others in that time, given how little houses cost when it was built in 1958.

Yes, exactly that.

Homeowners have an asset that they should be selling before taking thousands of pounds off the taxpayer. It's the same as someone having thousands of pounds sat in their bank and then claiming they need the taxpayer to fund them as they are in diar need.

The entire point of benefits is to help those in the most dreadful of situations, those facing homelessness, for example. If you have a house, it should be sold so you can fund your own rent if that's what you need to do (maybe due to bankruptcy/job loss/etc). After that, if you still can't afford housing, you'd be given money from the taxpayers' pockets to help you rent until you can make ends meet. It's a separate topic that landlords are making money from anyone.

Either way, we all know there are thousands receiving benefits when they morally shouldn't be, but again, that's another topic.

And the cost to the public purse of that hotel room or bedsit is likely to be exorbitant. Councils are spending more than £1.5bn on temporary accommodation for homeless families, and some councils may well end up "bankrupt" because of it.

Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is not a benefit. In areas accross the UK, it sets the maximum amounts of housing support claimants of Universal Credit and Housing Benefit can usually get for private rented homes of different sizes.

UC only covers £875 of my rent, which is £1475 a month. It hasn't increased in the two years we've lived here, while our rent has increased.

This problem is easily solved op. Sell your property, let your savings dwindle below 16k, move into rented then claim the extra UC. I hear they give out the goats and flat screen tvs on a Wednesday. It's funny how no one ever quits their job/sells their home to go and live the life of Riley on benefits.

You want the extra UC payment, but are not willing to give up your asset/future security of being a homeowner. You can't have it both ways. I'd glady take a reduction in UC if it meant I could own my own home.

A test..

Taking the postcode of Leamington Spa Train Station, for.no other reason as I travelled there the other day...

LHA Rate for a 2 bedroom property in Leamington Spa.
£172.60 a week
Multiply by 52 weeks = £9027.2
Divide by 12 = £752.26

2 bed rental properties with in 5 miles of the same postcode for a maximum of £800 a month..
0 results.

The cheapest is £875 and is in the next village over from Leamington.

So for anyone thinking LHA Rates are generous or some how something to dream about living with or aspire too, get real...

You don't know the reality of getting £340 a month unemployment element of UC and handing £100 of that to your landlord straight away to top up rent. Leaving you £240 to buy heat, light, food...

So, to be clear.

You're mad that the government has to help pay people's rent to the tune of £300 a week.
Which is NOT set by the claimants or the landlords etc.
any one can look up the LHA rates for any postcode by the way...

But instead of looking up and asking,
"Why do working people need so much help? Who is benefiting from keeping the rents high and wages low?"
You'd rather look down on the people who need the help and would rather they didn't get it and thus be homeless...

Stop looking down at those with little. Look up to those stopping you, and everyone else, having more.

And fwiw. Local Housing Allowance rates are not in anyway enough to pay actual rent, they're more like an average of the housing stock of an area. If your area has a lot of high priced housing stock, LHA will be higher but it will be offset by the amount of cheaper properties.

It's very likely, your £300 a week wouldn't be enough to cover the rent of a 2 bed in most areas, £1200 a month sounds a lot, but in some areas, that's barely enough to cover a one bed flat.

and I note you don't give any clue as to where you are or where you got that figure...

But what is they lose their jobs or become ill and have to give up work?

They shouldn't not get the same support as someone who rents.

You may think it's extortionate but it's calculated on the lowest one third of local rents. Ime many landlords set their rates above this in order to exclude benefit recipients without having to state that they are doing so