to worry that some people on benefits won't manage when payments are made monthly

[SuedeEffectPochette]

Of course, many people on benefits are doubtless great at managing a budget, but at the moment people are paid weekly, so if money runs out, it's only a day or so (still bad enough). But when payments are monthly, some people may have a couple of weeks of no money - what is going to happen to them? Also Housing Benefit won't be paid direct to landlords any more, which will lead to a massive increase in homelessness if that money is not passed on. If you have run out of money for food, you won't be paying any to your landlord will you? I think the government should stick to weekly payments.

I actually DO believe that Rhiannon, I am on benefits becaise my son is disabled. ....monthly payments won't be an issue for me as I am used to a monthly salary (while I was in work).

My best friend is disadvantaged by a seriously abusive childhood which has left her with massive mental health problems. She really cant work.

I work with many benefit claimants who cannot read or write adequately. ...this is a massive disadvantage and I am currently working very part time(paid) plus more (voluntary) for a charity set up to tackle this.

I coukd go on....

Obviously it doesn't apply to all claimants but msny are very disadvantaged in some way or other.

yes rhiannon. do you not? think of disabilities, MH illnesses, carers, pensioners, people fleeing domestic abuse, people without adequate education, people with language difficulties, people with learning difficulties never mind all those people who haven't met enough of the criteria to get a diagnosis but are still very much unable to work and those who aren't even on the radar as vulnerable (too afraid to seek help/dont know they can seek help, no-one supporting them to get help)

i'm sure someone will come along with the right statistics to show this. i haven't a clue where to find them but yes i do believe that most people in receipt of benefits in the UK are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way.

xpost with jake

Surely just by being on benefits that makes you both vulnerable and disadvantaged to some degree? People are subject to the govt changing the goalposts and completely throwing their lives into disarray and benefit claimants are socially disadvantaged because it seems a lot of people just assume they're feckless and work shy.

I also think a lot of people in above NMW jobs are just assuming that everyone gets monthly. I certainly didn't when I worked in a nursing home. I queued up with everyone else on a Friday to get my little brown envelope of cash. Budgeting comes easily to some but for others is, and always will be, a struggle. For those just saying get on with it, what do you expect will happen with the most vulnerable? Or don't you care because you don't live in area with those kind of people?

actually, most people in receipt of benefits are working Rhianna. The number of claimants who are fit and able for work and are on full benefits is actually very small compared to the vast number receiving working tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit, but who have jobs.

And yes, we are disadvantaged simply by the fact that we cant find jobs.

I suspect the queue for crisis loans may be round the corner for the first few months whilst people adjust to the change.

I had to get one of these recently, I started work but couldn't afford to get to work (£15 a day) but that is beside the point.

There is a message before you get to speak to a person that says you cannot apply for a crisis loan if it is because your benefit has started to be paid monthly.

Are the payments monthly or four weekly? Because four weekly is much harder to manage since it is not always easy to manage direct debits if you don't have a set pay date each month

Benefit rates are based on weekly amounts so is the amount you get going to change each month? Or are they going to pay 4 weeks worth of money a calendar month?

Other things that are geared towards people on benefits such as social housing rent and payments at rip off outfits shops like Brighthouse are worked out weekly.

Do you really think that the vast majority of people on benefits are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way?

Would you be on benefits otherwise?

Checking back in to see that most people do agree and some interesting points made. I wonder if the monthly payment will be made on the same day for everyone? Eg. if it is 1st of every month, NHS are going to have be busy on 1st and 2nd of each month I would have thought, much like Friday nights (payday for lots) now.
Sorry to hear about the poster who works in a shop and anticipates increase of anti-social behaviour (stealing/threats) when the changes come in. Of course most people on benefits won't behave like that but it only takes a small percentage increase to make life more difficult and challenging for people who work in shops where shoplifting is common.

Yes...forgot to add to my post that the vast majority of claimants getting benefits will be working....and being paid very little for doing so...even if full time. NMW is not that much tbh and when I decided to find work the advisor told me that to be financially better off Id have to be in 30 hours at NMW. I am not and so not any better off, however I am not any worse off either, it's just that a portion of my income now comes from a job and not entirely from the taxpayer.

Just to freak you all out a bit more,

you do know they are completely doing away with the whole crisis loan system, and my understanding is that they are not replacing it with anything, they are keeping the special hardship payment system but its also keeping the same rules the important one being that they do not make payment where a paying claim is current

So no the crisis loan que will not be very long because there will be no crisis loans.

YANBU.

There are going to be many people who won't manage with getting paid monthly, losing money to the bedroom tax, and to sanctions.

Also with only one person in a couple now getting all the benefits paid to them, many partners in abusive relationships will find they don't have access to any money (except CB).

And as has been said, no crisis loans.

There seem to be some very short-sighted people around IMO, who are only concerned with laying blame ("well they should have though of that before having children" etc etc).

I am more concerned with what will actually happen to people who lose access to the bare minimum needed to live on, and/or lose their homes?

We are looking at a massive rise in homelessness, child poverty, diseases associated with poverty (e.g. TB - linked to overcrowding - children already need to be inoculated against TB in some areas e.g. many inner London boroughs) and social ills such as a rise in crime, once these policies bite.

From a totally selfish point of view - do you really want to live in a society like that? I don't!

I am constantly amazed that even the most selfish of people don't seem to realise that increasing poverty in this country may well affect them too! Possibility not directly, but very likely indirectly. (e.g. failing economy, higher crime rates, leading to higher insurance bills, higher incidence fo diseases lined to poverty, bigger burder on the NHS, etc etc).

aufaniae You're completely right about this affecting everyone.

People who turn to crime have got to burgle someones house! This whole plan is very short sighted, but then so are all of the Tory plans to batter the "underclass" into the ground.

Has Call me Dave been tested for Myopia?

Is it really true that Dave didnt want IDS to bring this in?

If so, why is it happening? Surely the PM has some kind of say?

Aufaniae,

Am I correct in thinking that ids ( sorry I refuse to put his initials in capitals) is making attempts to limit the hb/LHA/ rent part of UC to 2 year support only if your unemployed or under employed?

Or have I made that bit up cos I'm not sure now?

Someone flouncing?

It cannot be healthy to post on the same type of threads, every night, having ruck after ruck, so it's probably a good idea really.

The thing is, lots of people are not madly good at managing money. But if you've got quite a bit of the stuff, comparatively at least, it doesn't matter too much. My partner isn't very good at his own finances (weirdly enough he's excellent at it at work ) but he isn't having to manage the pittance that benefits provides. And even when he does get into hot water, he's got access to loans or overdrafts. A lot of people don't have those options.

It looks like the Govt has said that there will be some flexibility to make more regular payments to vulnerable claimants: www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2013/feb-2013/dwp020-13.shtml
Quote: All cases will be considered on an individual basis, and some people in vulnerable circumstances, for example people with a history of addiction, mental health conditions, or those at risk of domestic abuse, could be eligible for alternative arrangements. In cases like these, payments direct to landlords, more frequent than monthly payments, or split payments between different household members could be considered.

Sockreturningpixie is housing benefit going to be limited to 2 years? Possibly I'm not really sure either!

None of the newspapers seem to have reported it. But plenty of people are talking about it online.

It was mentioned in this DWP document: "Explanatory Memorandum for the Social Security Advisory Committee"

Limit on Payment of Housing Costs

91. There is to be a time-limit of two years on payment of housing costs to claimants in the full conditionality group of Universal Credit. When such a claimant has received help with housing costs for a period of two years these payments will stop and will not be reinstated until a claimant has had a break in claim and has served a further waiting period. This is underpinned by the principle of providing short-term help through the benefits system and because it is not considered appropriate that this help is provided indefinitely. This is intended to focus the help that is given through the benefits system on those on low income when they need it most."

As with much is the rest of this mess, it's not clear exactly what is meant. Some people seem to think that this only applies to mortgage payments. I believe now there is already a 2 year limit on mortgages. However the way it is worded doesn't mention mortgage payments, and so it's very reasonable to ask if this applies to rent too. Their justification doesn't mention mortgages at all does it?

If they really are going to remove the housing element after 2 years, I can't imagine the trouble many families will be in in a couple of years' time.

I should say, that document was put out in June. It's very possible things could have changed since then - does anyone know?

Johnny Void's blog seems to think it's just applicable to home owners.

"Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) payments are designed to help those who find themselves out of work ? whether through redundancy, sickness or disability- to continue to make interest payments on their mortgage.

Payments are limited to two years except for those over 60 or those judged unable to work due to sickness or disability. Payments are currently only available to those working less than 16 hours a week and in receipt of Income Support, ESA, Job Seekers Allowance or Pension Credit.

As the recession began to bite in 2009 and house repossessions soared, the waiting period for SMI was cut to 13 weeks. Despite the Tories plunging the country back into recession, the Tories are consulting on increasing this to 39 weeks in January 2013 ...

It will mean householders who face unemployment will now have to wait nine months before receiving any support with housing costs. Few mortgage companies will be prepared to wait so long before calling in the bailiffs. The capital limit, which is the size of the mortgage that can have payments claimed against it, is to be halved from £200,000 to £100,000 ...

The Government is considering making payments recoverable, should the householder die or sell the property. Currently those who are long term sick, have children or are pensioners can have mortgage interest paid indefinitely. Those who are simply unemployed have payments stopped after two years. The Government plans to extend this two year limit to include those with children or those who have been moved from disability benefits to job seekers allowance.

The new death tax will see these payments recovered when the claimants dies. ... The Government is considering making all SMI repayments recoverable on death.

... The next sentence in the Universal Credit regulations do contain one key phrase which tells us everything we need to know about where welfare reform is heading:

?This is based on the principle that it is reasonable to expect owner occupiers to make some provision, whether by insurance or savings, to fund their housing costs for a period in the event of a change in their circumstances such as unemployment or sickness.?

The inference is clear. Decent people will be expected to take out redundancy or income protection insurance as the Welfare State is whittled away. The uninsured squeezed middle may now find themselves plunged into mortgage arrears and repossessions should they lose their job or fall ill.

This dovetails with George Osborne?s bungled Child Benefit cuts for higher earners. The intention to undermine the Welfare State is clear. A universal system means that everyone has a stake in the Welfare State. This is being eroded. When the changes to SMI are introduced ? which will also see SMI stopped for those who take on a few hours of work a week whilst looking for a full time job ? huge numbers of people will no longer have a safety to ensure they can keep their home should they have to give up work ...

The end result, if they succeed, will mean people paying more money for welfare insurance than they ever paid through the tax system, whilst receiving far less comprehensive protection.

All the benefit bashing, the suicides, the disability hate crime, as well as the poverty, homelessness and ill health that has been inflicted by welfare reform has had one key aim in mind. A big fat payday for private sector sharks"

He also mentions that the document (linked to in my last post) was being put ut for consultation, so perhaps it has changed? Does anyone know?

The housing association I am involved with is gearing up for the two year hb cap so I think it's still on the cards.

I've had staff contacting LA/HA's in the areas my clients live in and nobody is able to give me any other info on that aspect of it no confirmation or anything

That's why I was starting to think I had imagined it.

Rhonda,

From what angle are they gearing up for?

Actual full tenancies or part own part rent or just a huge influx of homeless people needing housing?

Taken on a money advice worker. Building stringer links with local agencies. Preparing for an increase in applications ( we get 170 a month and have about 12 vacant properties a month on average as it is). Working with existing staff and the local authority on priorities and arrears management. Getting info out to tenants ( where we have it).

Sorry for typos, on phone.

But no as far as I know no proper confirmation yet. I'm attending a presentation by the local dwp reform manager on 20 th march ill ask specifically.