I’m not missing something here am I? Universal credit, renting and saving for a deposit.

[tiredconfusedhungry]

Keeping it a bit vague. I’m separated, STBXH and I were looking at figures last night and we’re not going to come out with much to put towards a deposit. We’re looking at around £15k each, I’d need a deposit of around £60k - £70k and that’s to buy a 2 bed house.

We’re in the South East and house prices here are high, rent is high. We’re already in the ‘cheaper’ part, moving further away from where we are puts us in prime commuting land and would be more expensive.

Anyway, it’s likely I will end up renting and saving for a bigger deposit. I did a calculation on entitled to (based on no savings) and I could get some help with rent, which is great. It means I could save some money each month and then hopefully buy after about 4 years.

But now I’ve looked into it further, if you have more than £16k in savings you aren’t entitled to any help. Which I do understand, but it then means that after all essential bills and costs are covered, I’d have about £200 left a month. Which doesn’t go far with 2 kids and certainly wouldn’t leave me anything to save.

So essentially I’m never going to be able to save a deposit am I?

@Allisnotlost1
my post sharing the flat was just a guide/idea. There are also 2 bedroom houses on the market without ground rent.

Nope. Along with millions of others in the same boat, including me and my husband. We don’t have £2 in savings never mind £16k. That’s our own fault we should have saved, it’s not on anyone else to help us.. yes cost of living is high and house prices even higher but that just life unfortunately. I’ve assigned myself to the fact I’ll rent forever. And to be honest, when you do own a house 9/10 it gets taken off you to pay for stuff when you are unwell or dead. Life’s a shit sandwich ain’t it.

And it’s only going to get worse isn’t it. As generation rent retire (or more likely unable to work anymore.

This is the dilemma isn’t it? I understand the (strong) desire not to see people benefit from the benefits system, but the current system means someone always is. It probably costs less in the long run for individuals to get on the property ladder, and then be able to draw down their equity in later life, than continue to be pay that money to the PRS. I’d like to see what the long term calculations look like.

If you just want a handout then start a go fund me page.

Do you think of all benefits as handouts?

Why should any of us without children pay for child benefit, for example? Why should our taxes be used on breakfast clubs? The point is if we bave a healthy and thriving population then we all ultimately benefit. If it costs less in the long run to allow people with savings to retain them while claiming UC, with some conditions - eg money must be kept in an account that can only be used for paying a deposit, for example - then why would you be against that?

Quick back of a fag packet calculation using Thanet Council's current local housing allowance. It'll probably go up from these figures over the years - it certainly won't go down lol.

UC housing award until youngest child is 18
£750 x 12 months x 14 years = £126,000.

Housing benefit award from age 68 - 78
£576 x 12 months x 10 years = £69,000.

So housing costs alone payable while kids are young and once she retires, if OP never buys, are close to £200,000. At the end of all that expenditure, the only one with anything to show for it will be op's landlord.

At 68 OP would also be eligible for prescriptions, council tax benefit + anything else that state pension passports into at that time. If she needs any care she won't contribute costs to that either. Depending on circumstances you're looking at another £50k worth of value over that ten years.

So say maybe quarter of a million overall. Allow for inflation, maybe £275k/£300k.

I'd say letting her save a deposit and buy somewhere would be cheaper for everyone in the long run. It's not like it's a luxury item - this is a home for her and her kids to live in.

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I used to be on UC and I think in the first year (if you've not claimed that benefit before) you can have as much in savings as you like, but after 12 months it would cut off completely if you have over £16k. However, they do reduce the money you'll receive if you have over £6k. I believe I've read on UC support groups about those in your situation, or inheriting, have some leeway if you can move fairly quickly. It's worth just applying and seeing if you're entitled to anything?

Does seem unfair that you can’t save /have savings more than £16k to buy a property / that is can’t go into like a lisa and only be used for a mortgage

as if you buy then uc won’t be paying your rent of £600/1200+ every month

so in the end will actually save government millions

you are trying to save. Other may blow their uc/wages on booze fags large tvs (you know all the ‘usual’) that people on benifits buy

yet you and other are trying to better your life but can’t

yet those who were on fax credits could

I agree it's incredibly frustrating.
We scrimped and saved for years to put money towards retirement (I can't see myself still being able to do this job until I'm 70) we were entitled to child tax credits and until the last couple of years Working Tax Credits too. That stopped because I took on a 2nd then 3rd job, but we were still entitled to Child Tax Credits.
We live so much more frugally than others as I work hard to save.
I put a lot into a lifetime ISA, (as encouraged by the government) so that's tied up until I'm 60, without paying huge penalties.
Then it switched to Universal Credit and we get nothing because I've saved too much.

I'd have been better off if we'd had foreign holidays every year, eaten takeaways every week and not bothered saving.

I get that the tax payer shouldn't fund my lifestyle. But I do think the Lifetime ISA's shouldn't count towards savings

The issue is the deposit. 100% mortgages were available previously. There’s a difference.

A lot of generation rent will inherit houses or large amounts of money for deposits from boomer and gen x parents.

Dont count on gen X - first generation to end up on balance being poorer than their parents. Many of us are also set to inherit fuck all due to care home costs.

Lots of wealthy gen x round where I am. And not all elderly end up in care homes. There’s going to be a lot of wealth passed down. I’m a millennial with boomer parents, no one on my circle is particularly wealthy but all have parents with houses in the south worth at least £700k now, not may of them will go into care homes and those that do the majority won’t be in for long.

Off topic but how can you know this ‘not may of them will go into care homes and those that do the majority won’t be in for long’?

No, you could have savings and claim tax credits.

Some won’t make it to needing a care home, some will be cared for by family or partner, some will buy in carers, some will refuse and muddle along when they shouldn’t. Those who do go to care homes most wont be in there more than a year or two. The average length is 13 months. DHs grandma was in a care home for longer then average and there was still over £500k left in the estate for inheritances. People say not to rely on inheritance as that’s the sensible thing, and it also makes those who won’t get any inheritance feel better, but in reality there is and will be a lot of money passed down, especially to those of us with family in the south where there’s a huge amount of wealth in houses.

I didn’t know that the average care home stay was so short. But buying in care is expensive too no?

Of course you’re right about property in London and SE though, especially older people who have been in the same house for a long time.

Benefits are a hand out thats why so many people never come off them. Why would you go to work when the money just drops into your account.
If there was no help and everyone had to work for what they had, things would be very different in this country.

Removing benefits from the sick and disabled wont cure them and enable them to work. It would just push them into starvation and onto the streets.

Well read your history books and you will have an idea of what that sort of world is like when it was like that here. Plus I think there would be a massive rise in crime.

They’re not really are they, we all pay in so that there’s a safety net if and when it’s needed. That might be benefits, it might be health care, it might be making sure restaurants are safe and hygienic.

Everyone on UC has to work unless they are found to be unable to work due to health (this takes months of assessing), have a child under 5, or they are a carer. No one can afford to live on UC alone if they aren’t in one of the above categories. Your comment sounds very judgemental and uneducated

Yes people on uc have to work but I get what some are saying.

some won’t up their hours or look for a second job as will lose 55p in every pound of their uc if their income goes up

Would you up them if it makes you worse off? Maybe they are making the best financial decision for their family.