fuming for friend = Housing benefit V morgage payments

[thekidsrule]

Hi,this does not effect me but a very close friend of mine

will try to keep brief and to the point

friend has 4dcs,age 3,5,8 and 13,she has been with her partner 16yrs,has worked,bought a home together etc etc

she has found out the last week that he has been having an affair on/off for last 5months,she had suspisions and finally admitted it only when other women rang her (nice) hes said all the normal he dosent want OW,its over,everybody does it (do they) blah blah blah

anyway she has kicked him out,kids devastated,she is but says no way can she take him back,anyway ive been helping her get benefits sorted,buying some shopping (left her overdrawn) generally trying to help

spoke to income support and that wont be a problem,but because she has a morgage and he is on the morgage

1, they say she will have to wait 13wks before they help

2, they will only pay £100 when her morgage is £400,her parner is supposed to make up rest

3, her partner hardly works so cant see that happening as his work has slowed alot due to recession,and if he went onto JSA there no way he could pay it,NO income payment protection

but if she rented they would pay upto approx 750 / 800 pcm for here straight away,its madness they wont really help with her housing because its a morgage but if she rents they will and straight away

I think its disgusting,it wasnt her kids or her fault her partner is a twat,where is the logic in these decisions they make,so now not only has her relationship failed,kids in bits,the only home theyve known could be lost

am i unreasonable to be so cross about this

and hopefully people that think benefits come easy please take note,they dont

I think most people feel the same bibbity - it's just that people's idea of 'need' varies, and legislation needs to be clear and consistent and draw a line somewhere.

To one person, it might seem quite reasonable to pay Housing costs for someone living in their own, mortgaged home, even though they might have 50k of equity. Others might say its acceptable with even 100k of equity. Others would say that anyone with 50k or more in assets is bloody fortunate and should use them to help support themselves.

It's very easy to say 'of course I want to help those in need'- and I am sure most people do want to do that. But reality is a lot of Grey areas

Unfortunately there is not enough social and low-cost housing to accommodate all families in receipt of benefits, so why should a buy-to-let landlord have his mortgage paid off before a home owner who has fallen on hard times? I'm afraid your argument does nothing to persuade me.

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. Simply pointing out that you can't create legislation which then only applies in the cases you want it to.

As I say, reality is shades of grey not black and white. The imaginary landlord we're talking about might equally feel he's having a hard time. He might have had a relationship break up or feel he doesn't want the responsibility of running a business any longer. Who is to judge who is 'deserving?'

thekidsrule Why should it be short term though??? If you rent a social housing property and you find yourself on means tested benefits, the govt pay your full rent for as long as you are on means tested benefits such as IS/JSA etc. Why should homeowners only receive support short term???

littlemiss,dont really think i should be short term if im honest,just dont get the logic thats its ok to pay huge rents but not small morgages

also is there a time limit on how long they will pay the intrest,it never used to be and i know this from personal experience though with so many changes over the years i must have missed that one

There is no time limit whilst you are on Income Support.

Once you are changed over to JSA, there is a time limit of 2 years.

More Information here OP

ah ok makes sense (kind of)

i was on IS with morgage and that was ongoing,on the other hand seems a bit rough for peeps on JSA,but then again it seems i think pretty free with other peoples money,lol

...just dont get the logic thats its ok to pay huge rents but not small morgages

Totally agree.

Everything about this system smacks of doing down the private homeowner who has (more than likely) been trying to pay their own way in the world.

As someone else said, you could make no effort to support yourself and just take, take, take. But if you work, make an effort to buy a house and then fall on hard times, god help you.

There seems to be a huge amount of pre-emptive jealousy; someone might gain equity in their home (by no means guaranteed) so let's make sure they're flushed out and lose everything instead of giving them some help to get back on their feet.

Do you not think that someone who has striven to buy their home will be inclined to try to support themselves again if they can? More so than someone who is in a rented house paid for by HB?

just read links didnt realise the changes

shelly good point,

some posters are forgetting alot of families that have a morgage want one as a home and treat it as such,not a money maker but if it increases then great,many live in family houses for years and are not treated as a buisness

It's actually a big Q about What Sort of System We Want.

a) A system where we pay minimal tax, but have to be at starving point for the system to pay out, so a comparatively small number of desperate people benefit. And everything from child benefit to basic state pension is strictly means-tested.

b) A system where we pay a bit more tax and all expect to receive some benefit over our life times. The system acts as a smoothing device, taking more when we're at our peak earnings, giving it back to us at pinch-points. Just this little bit of extra help can stop families falling all the way to the bottom due to a crisis (divorce, illness, unemployment) or the predictably tight years of child-raising and retirement.

We've had (b) for a while - and mortgage support schemes and all.

The Welfare Reform Bill will move the system towards (a).

I do see the point about people who have equity in the house. After all if you have savings you don't get benefits. But couldn't the govt just pay interest on the condition that there is acharge attached to the house so when it is sold they get back all the money they gave the home owner plus some interest?

I just don't think it makes sense to make people homeless. Particularly as the people who will be worst affected will be those in cheap houses with probably low equity.

And for those talking about PPI, many people are not eligible to get PPI. I have been for 8 years on short term contracts - no company will sell me PPI. My DP is self employed and again not eligible for PPI. And more people these days are in this kind of insecure employment. I know lots of people in this situation.

Way back in the Dark Ages, you could get your whole repayment mortgage paid if you were on your uppers. Not sure of the details, even I was too young to give a shit back then.

Then The Sun ran a series of articles about Dem Furriners Coming Over Here and having their houses paid for (on mortgage) by Us Taxpayers (always huge families in Kensington or similar, it was iirc mostly Arabs they were highlighting)

And yes, why should anyone gain an asset for which they have not paid, Furrin or not?

So housing benefit law got a bit more draconian.

And then Thatch arrived and started selling off public housing, while not allowing councils to rebuild.

Then Oor Tone carried on Thatcherite policies for another decade and more, there was an obviously unsustainable housing "boom" and the inevitable is now starting to hit home.

I do think paying the interest is Ok. I don't think benefits paying off the capital debt is ok, but perhaps something could be put in place to give the Government a share of any capital accrued, because it does seem silly that rather than paying £400 capital+interest on a mortage, the taxpayer will have to shell out twice that much, indefinitely.

Nilgiri (7/2/12 00:57) has hit the nail on the head. We do have (b) but the income to pay for (b) is not available. We could argue that what we pay in taxes is therefore too small, or that what we pay out in benefits is too large or that the figures balance but the govt chooses to spend our money on Trident and foreign aid to China.Whatever theory you prefer there is more money going out than coming in and people should not rely on the state to keep them as the state can pull the financial rug just as easily as an unfaithful husband buggering off to live with another woman.

Where we can we must make provision for ourselves and not rely on anyone else.There will always be exceptions who should be able to rely on state help and and upthread I listed what my personal choice for those exceptions would be full treatment for cancer patients regardless of cost, support both financially and with proper respite care for those with disabilities and their carers. I think we are very fortunate in this country to have a welfare state and happily pay in to help those who can't help themselves.

I said The state should not be responsible for paying either rent or mortgage for anything but a very limited term and very specific circumstances. Everyone else needs to pre plan for disasters and take responsibility for their own actions, their own choices and their own families.How some people have managed to read this as "we all live in our own bubbles and no-one should help anyone else" god knows.

People can find themselves in terrible difficulties if they rely too much on the state, either by assuming that benefits will pay for things that it won't, or by getting themselves caught in the benefits trap.

I love the idea that people choose to buy houses as way of making money. Unless you are a landlord, you've probably had to buy a house, as most people are ineligible for social housing and renting has been equally,if not more, expensive. Most people buy a house because they need a home. Equity is theoretical, until you want to sell, and there is no guarantee that people can sell their houses for the amount they want or when they need to.

Takeresponsibility, so what do you suggest for people who can't get PPI, or whose savings eventually run out? Unless you can save up and buy your house without ever needing a mortgage, you will always run the risk of unemployment scuppering your plans.

If there was enough decently paid work for everyone who wanted a job, and enough reasonably priced childcare, to enable people to work, then you'd have a point about self reliance, but given those things do not exist, it is impossible for people to pre plan and cover all possible disasters.

To all those saying the state should not be helping people to buy houses:

THEY ALREADY ARE. Where do you think the housing benefit rent money goes? That's right, straight to the pocket of the landlord to help him pay his mortgage!

The injustice here is that commercial landlords get their mortgages paid for by the government via housing benefit, yet private homeowners get shafted.

Housing benefit should treat both rent & mortgage payments equally.

I agree that buying a house for most or many people at least, is not a business decision. My Dp and I spent our early years in a grotty bedsit. We were on a list for social housing, but frankly would have waited decades for it. So we saved up and bout a 2 bedroom terraced house in a cheap area. Our mortgage payments were less than the rent on the grotty bedsit.

It was not a business decision, but a decision to want to live somewhere decent. And when we sold we actually lost money. The only money we have made in our house is our present one. But it isn't real. If we sold up yes we would get a lot more money for our house than we paid for it, but house prices everywhere else have rocketed, so we would be no better off when buying a new one.

but if they pay a mortgage for 10 years, then that homeowner will undoubtably walk away with a profit.

If they pay someone's rent, then they will walk waway with nothing.

would you want there to be guidelines? like mortgage of a certain amount on a house of a size necessary for the family size? (like there is for rent)

We live in tied accomodation...... god knows what we would do if my dh suddenly became unemployed.....

But paying interest on a mortgage is like paying rent. You are not paying off the mortgage. And of course there would have to be a limit on the size of mortgage/house. That currently exists anyway. Govt has just increased the size of mortgage you will get help with interest payments on from 100k to 200k. But if the house is deemed to be too large for your needs, you will only get a proportion - same as housing benefit.

Rolo I don't mean to aim this directly at you because there are many people on MN that hold your opinion, but frankly, it bollocks.

Most landlords with BTL mortgages can't accept HB claimants because of the clauses in their mortgage agreement.

Many landlords that already own their rental property outright don't accept HB claimants because of the problems it can cause for them.

The relatively few private landlords that do accept HB are not just having their mortgages paid or their pockets lined by the taxpayer. They are being paid because someone who can't afford to pay for their own housing needs somewhere to live. The taxpayer/government is paying for that person to have housing

From the rent that a landlord receives they have to pay for all maintenance and repairs to the property, insurance because of the amount of tennants that screw landlords over and possibly a mortgage. It doesn't leave much left over. They may have the benefit of owning a property, but that is a risk they take that may or may not pay off.

God forbid they should actually earn anything for the responsibility of being a landlord, for being on call to deal with any problems, for the work that is involved in finding tennants, checking references, dealing with the fallout if a tennant defaults or won't move or damages the property

As a taxpayer , i would rather pay £400 a month to house a family , than £750 . Im not very good at maths though , but even i know that leaves £350 in the kitty for someone else .

thanks for clarifying that lesley - in that case i would definitely agree with it

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll - if landlords have it so hard, they shouldn't buy. There would then be more housing on the market for everyone else, hence lower prices, hence fewer people unable to afford their own housing in the first place.

I didn't mean to imply that landlords have it hard. I'm just saying that it's wrong to assume they are laughing all the way to the bank at the taxpayers expense.