to think that people with savings don't realise they may not be eligible for ANY Universal Credit

[OriginalRoute]

Universal Credit will be affected by savings over £6000 and if an individual or a couple have savings of £16000 between them they will not be entitled to any Universal Credit. I'm in a full time low paid job and have no pension, but do have savings slightly above £16000 from my inheritance. It wasn't a big safety net for the future especially with current interest rates but I thought it was better than nothing. Now Nothing would actually give me a much better return and I'm going to have to spend it on topping up my income, as I don't think the chance of getting a higher paid job is likely in the foreseeable future.

Nappies- Yes I agree a little but what about DC future? University, weddings, house deposit etc? How do you pay for that?

Instead of nazel gaving about owning properties, we could work towards more secure tenancies, tenants' rights etc.

Bunfags if you read the original post it has nothing to do with her being unemployed or ill. There are already limits in place for savings for people claiming JSA etc. This is about someone who is working full time.

"we could work towards more secure tenancies, tenants' rights etc."

Yes, please!

But you're living in dreamland if you think a government full of landowners and landlords is going to go for that! :o

Viviennemarie. That's arse, if you don't mind me saying.
People want to buy because, one day, they will OWN a house, and they can leave A PLACE TO LIVE to their kin, that NO-ONE will be able to kick them out of.
It's really that simple.
I don't want to own a house because I want to accrue wealth. I just want my son to not have to move house anymore,(he has already moved 3 times)and I would like to NOT lose £100 of my deposit to a landlord every time I move.
Renting actively loses you money, what with the inevitable deductions, agent fees, the money you end up spending on the garden (I could cry over the plants I have left behind) and the paint to make a shitty place look decent. It all adds up.
It just makes me laugh how much you get people on here saying things like "oh, how silly, this UK obsession with buying, it's not like on the continent you know"
You can bet your left tit that these people poo-pooing the very idea that people want to buy, OWN their house.

I did read the first post.

I was just saying that I wouold prefer to use savings than having to fill out forms and all that sort of thing.

As for whether it's wrong to have 16K and claim tax credits, I think it's fine. The upper crust are on the fiddle, so if people earning minimum wage manage to squirrel away 16K or more, good luck to them!

I honestly don't get worked up about benefits. Some people seem to be under the impression that there tax will go down if the government gets rid of the welfare state. They are deluding themselves. They'll just find other ways to take their money! Fwiw, I like the idea of communism, but it doesn't work in reality!

Sorry for awful typing and grammar btw

The trouble is, I've heard people bleating their rights when they withheld rent because they're short on money as if it's their LL's fault! My auntie (who I adore) cannot manage money and has been kicked out of rental after rental for non-paying of rent. I don't see why she should have rights.

People want to own their homes and then not sell it to pay care home fees if the last thread was anything to go by................

Oh right, so you don't want people who rent to have rights?

Oh FFS, I did not say that! Don't be obtuse. I just think that people who deliberately don't pay rent are part of the problem.

P.S. my auntie did have rights which of course she should have done. She stayed by an extra 3 months despite not paying rent. I'm not sure what other rights people like her should be afforded?

People who don't pay rent are nothing to with the problem.

The problem is that property owners' have nearly all the rights.

That's why everyone is "obsessed" with being one.

Paying your rent is part of your contract as a tenant. So nobody has the right not to pay.

Why are you trying to make out that your financially incontinent aunt is not just one irresponsible person, but a whole category of person that poor vulnerable landlords need to be protected from?

People who don't pay rent are a huge part of the problem!

I'm all for tenants rights, but they need to be improved alongside landlords rights. A landlord has next to no protection from tenants that don't pay, or damage their property. Tenants might not have the right to change the property or get a new carpet when they fancy one, but they do have rights when it comes to getting certain things fixed that homeowners would just have to live with because they can't afford to fix. Their deposits are protected. Private tenants don't have the right to live in the property for as long as they want to if the owner wants them to leave, but social tenants are on to a very good thing.

I own my house but I'd give it up for a similar sized HA/council property any day. Someone else to pay thousands of pounds when I need my boiler replaced - yes please!

How can people who don't pay rent be a huge part of the problem that tenants don't have any rights to their homes?

They may be a problem.

But the problem of tenants having fuck all rights is nothing to do with them.

It is to do with making the ownership of property (and the extracting of rent) as worthwhile as possible.

Non paying tenants are part of the problem because they leave landlords reluctant to allow them to have rights that they don't have to. Landlords would be more inclined to be generous over rights to things like redecorating if they didn't have to fear non paying tenants.

Bad tenants make all tenants be viewed more negatively than the majority of them deserve. And it works the other way too, bad landlords give all landlords a bad name.

"Landlords would be more inclined to be generous over rights to things like redecorating if they didn't have to fear non paying tenants."

:o

Are you actually dumb enough to believe that?

You are really saying that the poorer, less powerful people in the relationship are responsible for their own exploitation?

FFS

Landlords don't want to give tenants right because it is inconvenient, expensive and reduces their profits.

They aren't offering to concede these right to the vast majority of paying tenants, are they?

I mean, I get that you despise anyone you think you can exploit for your own ends, but this is laughable.

:o

Well we won't get universal credit and have no savings so think yourself lucky!

Where do you find the bullshit that you talk AThing? The extent of it is actually quite impressive!

Let me spell it out for you. Tenants are not poor just because they are tenants. Tenants are not routinely exploited. Tenants are definitely not less powerful than their landlords. You may be aware of tenants that are all these things, but that has not come about simply because they are tenants.

Landlords don't want to give their tenants rights because they themselves would end up with even less protection from bad tenants than they already have. It is not because it would reduce their profit, or because it's expensive, or because it's inconvenient.

It is not inconvenient to have a tenant have the right to rent long term, nor does that reduce your profit, nor is it more expensive. If anything, it's the opposite.

It does not reduce profit if your tenant has the right to change the carpets when they want, or to let them decorate/make home improvements when they want. Nor does it reduce profit, nor is it more expensive.

So I realise I may be missing something here. If its not the right to long term tenancies that you want, and it's not the right to be able to make home improvements, what is it that you want tenants to have more rights to?

"Why are you trying to make out that your financially incontinent aunt is not just one irresponsible person, but a whole category of person that poor vulnerable landlords need to be protected from?"

Your ignorance is astounding. I work with people who, for a variety of reasons, default on rent. I work bloody hard with these people to address the issues which are often part of a wider problem. So, wind your neck in! I don't think LLs are vulnerable, so don't put words in my mouth, it makes your argument look weak.

Just back to the thread, as I've been out AT WORK! I deliberately didn't frame my AIBU as should I be entitled to the money as I can see both sides of the argument, and I have no objection to calling WTC a benefit if that's how people want to frame it, but I must reiterate that I work. Full time.

If I don't get WTC then I will have to use my capital for living expenses because my full time wage is not a living wage and I will actually be be subsidising my employer's low wage out of my savings.

I don't live in an expensive area of the country, I don't have expensive tastes, my clothes come from the supermarket and my telly is deeper than it is wide. A full time wage should be enough to live on and it's not.

My capital that takes me over the threshold is an inheritance from my mother, including a savings account she set up for my DC. It may seem a lot of money, but now I 've lost my mum I feel quite alone and it doesn't seem much of a safety net against the world.

Also thank you to those who have linked to further info, especially propertynightmare I haven't had a proper read through yet but it looks a bit hopeful.

I should also have said that my situation and others who fall into this category is nowhere comparable to the plight of others illustrated elsewhere on this board who are being pushed into desperate measures by the benefit changes. I count my blessings every day and while me and my children are healthy and have a roof over our head I will continue to do so whether i have money in the bank or not.

My AIBU was more about lack of awareness for how wide reaching these changes will be.