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

Can you not see the difference between the two things gaelic? This couple may well have a fair bit of equity in the house. They may already have assets of , say, 50k tied up in the house. If someone with 50k in the bank tried to move into a rented house and have their rent paid by public funds, they would not be eligible. So why should the govt pay for a mortgage on something which is ultimately an asset to the couple??

No you aren't missing a thing - the bggest welfare recipients in this country at present are banks and their cronies such as buy to let landlords NOT the ill/disabled/unemployed ordinary Joes. Bibbitybobit has it spot on.

The system isn't fair.

For those smug posters who assume that PPI will pay everything - IT WON'T. PPI didn't cover my school age son's sen.

The days of "jobs for life" are gone for many and sadly insurance companies excel in the fine print that means that they don't have to shell out in the event you need to make a claim - it's how they make their profits ffs! (A career in insurance taught me that btw!)

I advise EVERYONE to have at least 6 months mortgage payments in the bank that is left untouched even if your boiler breaks down, in order to give yourself a fighting chance of getting back on your feet if the worst happens.

I also advise younger women just starting out to eschew a few nights out/makeup & nice clothes etc and save a "get away" fund which they keep secret from their future spouse before entering any kind of long term live in relationship. (The idea being they start saving before they ever meet "Mr Right".) If their whole life runs smoothly they can have a golden wedding party with the secret saviings, if it slaps them down they'll have something to fall back on to ensure their kids are fed.

Lots of people have found out the hard way in this recession just how meagre state benefits are when something unexpected happens. 70% of the British are now homeowners so an awful lot of people are at risk of repossesion if something unforeseen happens, PPI or no. It worries me, especially as so many public sector workers are due to find out over the next 5 years or so their jobs are not as secure as once thought.

callmemrs - short term, say for 6 months, no I cannot see the difference. Unless the State is unconcerned with finding the best, quickest and cheapest way to help people back on their feet and out of dependency of course. Surely not?

And what about when interest rates go up gaelic?? When the interest on the mortgage might be 2 or 3 times a rental would be? Public money should still pay the mortgage? Even if this couple have, say 50k equity in the house??

ok,ex spent some time with his kids tonight friend came round to me

had chat with him his proposal is to claim JSA until work improves,thus hopefully IS will pay 50% of total after 13wks.she is going to building society tomorrow to see if she can take a payment holiday till IS kicks in

Atleast things will have settled by then and hopefully she will be able to look ahead and decided what is the best course

hes said he will help where he can but as he will be on JSA till work picks up she wont hold her breath but atleast she has a rough plan and hopefully a little breathing space

obviously she will have some hard choices to make but shes very practical and she will get through

thanks for some good advice,

i still dont think the system is fair but it never was/will be but being able to have some help can make all the difference.

Interest payments that keep repossession at bay? Of course. Why the hell not? What on earth will be gained from forcing them to sell, then forcing them to use all their savings to pay a private landlord's mortgage and then, finally, onto housing benefit. All because they had to give up their jobs to move to an area where they could afford the private rent with no assistance from HB which they couldn't get because of the "equity" from their home. Very sensible.

You're now left with two people who have lost everything, will never ever be able to save for a mortgage again, will have no assets for the State to use to fund their care when they're old. You have two long term burdens on the State, all for the sake of 6 months interest payments and a healthy dose of green-eyed monster.

You sound like a good friend to her op

But interest payments alone would not be equal to what tenants currently get...ie: their whole rent paid up to a particular amount. OP has already stated that one of the things she finds very unfair is the discrimination between tenants who rent and get their rent paid (in full in many cases) and homeowners who do not get their full mortgage paid for a limited time (although that would still be discrimination surely because tenants are not on a time limit AFAIK).

Gaelic- read the op. this couple have not been able to afford to live in their house before all this kicked off. He has hardly been working! If there is no equity in the house, they would be eligible for HB. If they have say 50k then actually, they do have assets so why on earth shouldn't they be expected to use those to support themselves?? Obviously you think people should be able to cling on to whatever assets they've accumulated while public funds pay their bills... okay...

Having 6 months mortgage payments in the bank would preclude you from claiming many state benefits pushing the time scale from 13 weeks from redundancy to 13 weeks from when the money runs out, so basically having savings will mean you have to wait longer for the same outcome and of course make scarifices in order to save in the first place.

How about we abolish the discrimination between tenants and homeowners and just pay everyone's rent/mortgage up to a certain level if they are claiming means tested benefits?

So if the LHA in a particular area is £200 a week for a 3 bed house, and OP's friend happens to live there, why doesn't the govt treat her the same as they do to tenants on HB and just pay her mortgage in full? For as long as it takes her to find a job? Just as they do with tenants?

Why can't the govt do this? And do away with the discrimination once and for all? The more I read this thread, the more I am wondering why there is any discrimination at all??

Some potentially useful stuff on Shelter, OP. It talks about different types of mortgage support, eg partial sale to housing association.

She may not be eligible, as there are lots of conditions, but there might be something useful.

Callmemrs - I am talking in general terms. Unlike most Governments I don't believe that public policy can be invented on the basis of individual cases.

"Obviously you think people should be able to cling on to whatever assets they've accumulated while public funds pay their bills... okay..."

No quite clearly not. But I do NOT think that people who have paid into the system for their whole working lives should be forced to strip their assets as soon as they fall on hard times to the detriment of their long-term financial stability and to the detriment of the taypayer in the long run. While people who have never contributed a bean get it all handed to them on a plate. What kind of morality is that? Obviously the prevailing one, but that does not make it right.

oh and as i have said,she would need 3bed min you CANNOT get that for less than £850 pcm even the ex council houses,somebody was asking about rent here

financially it dosent make sense to me,morally to some it seems wrong to pay HB but not intrest

as things stand i bet shed love a 3bed council house reasonable rent etc (oh sorry maggie decided to sell them to tenants that had enjoyed cheaper rent and then bought at massive discount,Then sold on for huge profit,to a private lanlord who rented to some family that years previous possibly would of lived there under the council but now either they or council pay huge rents,

if anybody ran a buisness like that they would be bankrupt but goverments get away with it

build bloomin social housing again and restore some of the lesser well ofs condidence in their lives

My understanding of the state is that is it is there to meet basic needs of those most in need. That means providing some basic housing provision for those unable to house themselves independently.

If you chose to get married have four children and save a deposit large enough to buy a house which you are expecting to pay off for the next 20 years you should be financially capable of sorting yourself out if the shit hits the fan.

It is not the same as an unmarried parent with no assets relying on finding somewhere affordable to rent because they have no choice (at that point in time). Perhaps the second is seen as less worthy but if you want to be a homeowner then separation/death/unemployment is surely something you would have considered. Everyone buys a house these days instead of renting to make money on it. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to sell up and use the money for a) somewhere smaller or b) somewhere cheaper. After all that's what people in rented are expected to do if HB doesn't pay enough.

Of course, none of us should be under any illusions that public policy has anything whatsover to do with best value for the taxpayer. It is the spending policies of public sector organisations writ large. Value for money is one of the lowest priorities, coming far down the list below the danger of having to think out of the box.

caller,thank you i try to be and weve been very good mates for years,shes really helped me in the past,its good to help somebody,and she really is a fantastic women and mother,im lucky to have her to

Gaelic - as long as you realise that what you propose would apply equally to those nasty horrible landlords people were mentioning earlier.

Landlord moves into his property (in which he's nicely built up a few tens of thousands of pounds equity) and gets govt money to pay his mortgage, because now he's stopped running his letting business he hasn't got an income. That's ok is it??

You are wilfully misunderstanding and failing to appreciate the difference between paying interest to keep the wolves at bay, temporarily, and "paying the mortgage". There is a saying in law - hard cases make bad law. ie you cannot use an unusual and perverse situation like that to argue against making laws that would benefit the majority.

Frankly there is no difference between the scenario you describe and the scenario when that landlord's mortgage is being paid by the taxpayer via HB, with a healthy profit on top to boot.

There is a fundamental difference, because a landlord is running a business. You may not like it, but he is providing a service for which he gets paid whether through private or public funds

The moment he stops running the business and moves into the house to live in himself, he is in a situation far closer to the one the op describes. He doesn't have income from a business any more but wants public funds to pay him simply to live in his own house.

No wilful misunderstanding at all. The landlord would no doubt feel in exactly the same situation as the ops friend. Circumstances have changed, business gone, let's have a handout to carry on paying for my assets.

What is the difference between that and my taxes paying for HB that allows people to afford holidays and gadgets that I can't afford?

I agree with littlemisssarcastic - the State should help with housing costs (albeit for a fixed period in some cases) where people are claiming means tested benefits. Simple and fair. Why do people always get penalised for daring to try and help themselves?

I don't think we should discrimanate between tenants and homeowners though. It muddys the waters imo.

Just as a tenant in HA or council house can have their rent paid indefinitely so long as they are on means tested benefits...why shouldn't homeowners enjoy the same security? Why should it be interest only?

If we do for one, then surely in the name of all that's fair, we should extend to homeowners who find themselves on the same income (means tested benefits) as tenants??

Give me one good reason why we should discriminate?? Just one??

If we are not going to do for one, then surely we shouldn't do for either?? Especially since as has been pointed out many times on this thread, rent can quite often be more than mortgage payments. So it can't be from a financial point of view surely??

Can I just say I don't mind if "my taxes" pay housing benefit or mortgage repayments if people are in need? I really don't.

just a thought,those saying the state should not pay for somebodys morgage even short term i hope you willingly sell your property if you need care in later life and dont try and hide funds,sign over to somebody so that your entitled to state help,as some say its an asset and crap happens

One reason ? Because when all is said and done the HB will not provide the tennant with a nest egg they wouldn't normally benefit from without doing a stroke of work I guess.
I can think of one case where the owner was a disabled man with 4 children who's wife had left him. He had a bad back, no comment, the LA had paid his mortgage interest for 15 years when he finally decided to downsize and who should pop up out of the wood work but the ex wife demanding and receiving 50% of the now inflated asset price.
Not only had a roof been rightly provided for the family but now a nice cheque for £150k was on it's way to the scumbag that walked out on her children. That one made my blood boil I can tell you.