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

How much are arrears usually? By the time the LA come to agree paying them, how much is typical?

nilgiri I had to read it twice. I am just amazed at some peoples ignorance to anything that isnt within their own experiences.

karma, I know, at the moment there's nothing one can say that's so outrageous someone won't agree in all earnestness.

I used to defuse people's anxiety about my wheelchair by joking about it. I daren't any more.

Can you imagine the reaction these days to, "Oh, I'm just a lazy bugger".

The one I saw was £8,000, the court papers had arrived for eviction and maybe that is the difference, you actually have to be starring down the barrel of a gun before they will step in, but given the choice between putting a family of 4 into a B&B and paying the arrears, they paid.

YANBU.

I was in a similar situation to your friend 15 years ago.

I was left with 2 toddler DDs and a £10,000 a year job working shifts that I had to quit due to having no affordable childcare.

I had a small mortgage and PPI would not pay out (smallprint!).

I claimed income support and got nothing towards housing costs for the first 9 months of the claim, then after 1st 9 months the interest only (it didn't cover the interest).

I was on benefits for longer than I would have liked as I didn't want to take a temporary paid job only to end up back to square one if the job ended.
It is a benefit trap.

I went back into paid employment in 2000 after the Labour government brought in the New Deal for lone parents and Tax credits for child care.

I think benefits are probably better nowadays but it would definitely be more worthwhile for your friend to take a job if she can find one and claim child tax credits for childcare.

£8000

All these hard hitters seem to think that their tax pays people's benefits - they barely pay enough to cover their own (nhs/schooling/childrens medical care etc). So that 'I don't pay taxes so you can suffer bereavement flee abuse be left in the shit sit on your lazy fat arses' attitude is complete bullshit.

If he isn't currently earning enough to pay the mortgage, and she isn't working, then the fact that they've split up is a bit of a red herring really.
If they'd stayed together they would still be at risk of repossession like countless others in this financial climate. While this is quite sad, there is no respite for any of the people this is happening to from Housing Benefit or anywhere else, your friend's circumstances are actually no different.

Agree flogging.

And in response to lilblondepessimist- try reading what the thread is actually about. If the woman gets a job, she'll probably have most of her childcare paid, tax credits and all sorts of top ups. If she remains unemployed she'll get her rent paid, council tax, free prescriptions and dental care etc. Its bollocks to suggest everyone is saying she shouldn't get anything- people are just saying she shouldn't have her house bought for her by govt funds!! And as the mortgage is also the ex's too- the govt would be paying his mortgage, ie, buying a house for a lazy shit who has not bothered to work recently and has been off shagging some other woman. Oh hang on, this is MN so of course we're all supposed to pretend that it's ok to use public money to pay for things people want but don't wish to pay for themselves...

It's strange, isn't it, that you can buy a house on a buy-to-let mortgage, and if you let it out to people claiming housing benefits, then effectively the State is paying off your mortgage and buying the house for you. Nobody thinks badly of people doing that, and in fact you are lauded for providing a public service, even though you are probably only doing so for an investment, and not to provide for your own housing needs.

But somehow, if you are the one claiming the benefits yourself, then you are robbing the State if you claim benefits to pay a mortgage just to keep the roof over your head.

Funny logic, that, int it?

Not really strange logic thistle. You may not like it but the two things are not comparable. A landlord is responsible for paying his own mortgage. He may do that by letting privately, or to a tenant who pays the rent through benefits. But at the end of the day, if the rent doesn't cover the mortgage, if mortgage rates rise massively, if the landlord makes crap business decisions, then the govt isn't going to step in to pay his mortgage for him. If he decides he wants to live in the house himself, the govt won't pay his mortgage. He is providing a service for which there is a demand. As I say, you may not like it. You may wish regulations about buy to let were different. But you cannot equate the Woman in the ops post with a landlord. The landlord is ultimately responsible for servicing the mortgage on his property. The govt won't pay him just to live in the house himself, which it would be if the woman in the op were to receive govt funds to pay her mortgage.

I've read every post on the thread actually and am more than aware of the context/content, but can't help be incensed by the "I don't pay my taxes for you" brigade,of which there have been several on this thread.

Why should taxes be used to pay her mortgage though? That's all people are asking. Why should taxes pay for her and her ex to own a major asset??

Do you understand the concept of interest-only mortgage payments, callmemrs?

It is crazy that benefits won't cover mortgage interest. Like there are so many affordable houses/flats to rent out there!

When people froth on about lack of housing in this country because most of it is going to illegal immigrants and the like, they are forgetting that by far the biggest consumer of housing now (that was not such an issue 50 years ago) is split families.

Yes, and if it is not acceptable for the Government to pay off the mortgage of a divorcee or lone parent then it is surely not acceptable for them to pay off the mortgage of an amateur buy to let landlord? Or am I missing something?

Yes of course. Why should govt money be used to pay the interest on a mortgage for this couple?

So....are you suggesting that a buy to let landlord should kick out his tenant, move in himself and the govt should pay his mortgage for him to live in his own house?! Because that would be the equivalent situation to the one the op describes!!!

Well for starters if it doesn't pay the mortgage then it will have to pay the rent somewhere else, and I doubt op's friend could find a place to rent for five people for less than £400 per month.

It's cheaper than hb, and would keep these kids in their own home. Agree that it couldn't be a long term measure, but sometimes people just need a bit of breathing space.

It's not like there is enough social housing for everyone who wants it and buying a house is a genuine choice. For a lot of people, getting a mortgage is the only way they would ever get a home, especially in places where private rents can be as expensive as buying.

The benefits will cover her mortgage payments after 13 weeks and up to £200k of interest which is actually £900 ish. Nobody will ask if there are too many bedrooms and for 2 years nobody will bat an eyelid. After 2 years if this woman is still eligible to be considered for income support the state wi continue to pay her mortgage interest for ever more giving her more security than any renter could dream of. And of course if the house rises in value she will be free to downsize in years to come and pocket all the capital gains. Nice work if you can get it eh ?

That's not answering the question. The govt may well have to pay rent unless this woman gets a job. But mortgage payments are not the same as rent. The amount will be variable anyway- sometimes mortgage payments tend to be higher than rent; it's only because of ridiculously low Interest rates at the minute that mortgages are low. When interest rates rise, to 3, 5 or whatever % the interest payments may well outstrip rental

That was to bibbity btw

Surely the point of housing benefit is to allow a family to have a roof over their heads. What the hell does it matter if the home is rented from a private landlord or (effectively) rented from a mortgage company? It makes absolutely no sense at all to force a family into long term dependency, much more expensive for the state in the long run, all in the name of some very dodgy ideology.

Sorry, what was the question?

And should the govt pay for the OP's friend alone? Or should other women in her situation also get their rent paid?

As has been pointed out on this thread a number of times, £400 a month is not a large mortgage. If changes are made to HB to ensure that mortgages are paid for X amount of time, then where do we draw the line??

Do we draw the line at £400 a month? £4K a month? More? Do we pay the mortgage for as long as it takes for the homeowners to be able to afford it again on their own, without needing govt support like HB pays for tenants currently because of course it is wrong apparently to discriminate between homeowners and tenants? How long does the govt pay for?

I said earlier, and I'll say it again, the OP's friend, in these particular circs would be far better off in the long run remaining in the house and paying the mortgage imo unless I've missed something.

Very soon when the benefit cap comes in, she could quite possibly find herself in even mre financial dire straits, because it will be impossible very very difficult to rent somewhere for less than £400 a month.