To think that making the benefits system instant would help alleviate poverty?

[AndHarry]

Hands up, I have no experience of how the system works but as I've been reading the news and various threads on here, the same thing crops up again and again: JSA, housing and other benefit claims take so long to process that people are left destitute and once they are approved it takes so long to make changes that it's often not worth taking casual jobs.

So with the universal credit why can't job centres process claims electronically during appointments with claimants, with money paid using the 3 day payment system?

Is that totally naive?

I don't think I've said anything either raging or passionate. And I'm sure not all of them are paying off mortgages with the money they extort - a fair few of them probably use it for school fees or long-haul holidays or even a new helicopter or two if the fancy takes them. nice to see public money being put to such good use, eh?

If its enabling someone who can't pay for themselves to have a home, then I'd say it was money well spent.

It would be kind of nice if working people (the majority of HB claimants in London and a substantial majority elsewhere are in work) could afford to have a home without having the state having to subsidise the prices landlords charge though, wouldn't it?

Sorry that should read 'substantial minority'.

Yes, it would. But the fact that it isn't like that is not down to individual landlords.

Yes, I'm sure they were all forced into being landlords at gunpoint.

I'm a landlord, always rented to DSS because it was guaranteed money, always happy to wait a month or so for claim to kick in as we knew it was coming.

However council changed regs, pay direct to tenant, had one tenant who made a claim got the money but never paid us had to wait six months before we could chuck him out.

Twat lived in my house rent free for seven months before we could get rid of him and he wrecked the place.

Reported him to the council, we argued it was fraud, claiming HB but not passing it on they didn't care, said he was assessed as being entitled to the HB and if he didn't pay the rent wasn't their problem.

This is why landlords are reluctant to take on HB tenants these days.

Being a landlord is not the terrible moral crime that you think it is.

I'd have thought, although I could well be wrong, that a lot of HB that goes from public to private hands (through someone that would be homeless otherwise!) ends up with not for profit housing associations.

YADNBU. People who can get casual work, especially during summer/Christmas are put off taking a few weeks or months work because they know they will suffer hardship when they are let go.

A much quicker benefits process would probably reduce the overall benefits bill.

I haven't said that being a landlord is a terrible moral crime. Do you have comprehension problems? Only that's the second time that you've ascribed thoughts to me that I haven't said, and I'm asking you that question rather than jumping to the conclusion that you would prefer to argue with your version of what I say than the points I am making.

Wallison, you appear to be quite hostile towards landlords, you must have some horrid ones in your time, we are not all scum trying to rip off society you know, my houses are the same or cheaper than council rent

Certainly a way better system for people relying on temporary work and coming on and off benefits would be brilliant for my phone bill.

No benefits = no phone credit = the inevitable "Star can I borrow your phone?"

Perhaps you're not very self aware, but these statements ..

Landlords should be fucking grateful to HB claimants;

Damn right they should be grateful. Still, of course they won't be - they think they have a God-given right to other people's money anyway, because that is the very definition of a landlord.

Yes, I'm sure they were all forced into being landlords at gunpoint.

do indicate that you have a very low opinion of all landlords. Especially when combined with the fact that you have chosen to ignore valid points that have been put to you.

BullieMama, it is perfectly possible to view landlords as parasites and the inevitable carbuncles that form on a capitalist society without having a personal beef with them.

I am now getting a bit bored with people telling me what I think and what my experiences are.

Ishoooooos.

Ooh I've never been called a carbuncle or a parasite before what a marvellous raft of insults, thank you so much!

And yet another amateur psychologist chips in. I'm really not that fascinating, folks.

Yes, counter someones points by telling them they have issues and that they aren't very self aware.

What an intelligent debate...

There is an issue with the cost of housing in this country, but all the LLs on this thread seem to want to blame someone else. So who is to blame for extortionate rents then? Because it certainly isn't the tenants.

Wallison "it is perfectly possible to view landlords as parasites and the inevitable carbuncles that form on a capitalist society without having a personal beef with them"

What?? If my wife and I decide to rent out our spare room we become "parasites"?? Oh dear, I guess we'd better not rent it out.

The issue with landlords and HB claimants is a vicious circle unfortunately, and it can only be solved by HB tenants (as a group) changing their patterns of behaviour. As others have said, most LLs with mortgages on the property are simply not allowed to take certain categories of tenant. This can also include students.

For those mortgages that will allow it, the loan to value rate is much lower and the borrowing rates are much higher which in turn pushes up the rent. LLs get slated for being greedy opportunists but sometimes it's just the simple laws of economics, supply and demand, and risk v. reward in play. No-one investing large sums of their own money and putting their own credit rating on the line is going to accept an excessive level of risk unless the reward is worthwhile, and it's unfair to expect them to.

Quite simply, if HB claimants (as a group) were better, more reliable tenants then rents would be lower and decent quality housing would be easier to find. The complicated reasons for why certain sub-sections of HB claimants are not always great tenants is not the mortgage company's concern. They are not a charity. But you only have to look at many areas where most properties are still traditional council to see that low-income renters unfortunately have a very poor record for keeping the area pleasant, tidy, clean and safe.

Let's not forget as well that if a road of privately owned housing becomes too saturated with HB tenants, students or whatever then this in turn discourages private (non-LL) buyers from wanting to buy there due to the reasons outlined above, and so the price drops which increases the risk of negative equity for the LL and a problem for the mortgage company. It's a constant balancing trick.

As far as discrimination goes, I am sure there are ways of knowing which HB tenants are most likely to default or trash the house and which are not, but it would become discriminatory to break it down more specifically, so a blanket rule is applied. Where risk is concerned it is permissable to profile customers in some ways, but not in others - this much we know from car insurance, medical insurance etc.

What I find amazing is that this thread has totally gone away from the OP into a HB tenant versus LL... which was only part of the post.

Universal Credit has yet again been delayed and there are so many flaws in the system. It was supposed to be rolled out in 6 areas in July now that is down to 1 due to happen any day, another Coalition failure putting the most vulnerable at risk...

Last month the National Audit Office warned that "throughout the programme the Department has lacked a detailed view of how Universal Credit is meant to work", that the 2017 national roll-out date is in serious doubt, that the department "has not achieved value for money", with £34m of IT programmes written off, that the current IT system "lacks the ability to identify potentially fraudulent claims" and that the DWP repeatedly ignored warnings about the viability of the project.

The whole welfare system at this time is a nightmare and yes it does need reforming but in a humane way not the way it is being approached by this bunch of "I'm alright Jack, let them eat cake" merchants that are administering at the moment.

Not everyone is a landlord by choice. I'm stuck with my flat that I had before I moved in with my husband due to negative equity so I was forced into renting. I hate it its stressful and I'm constantly worried where I'll find money for repairs should anything break down. I'm on maternity leave and money is tight. I charge average rent and it just covers all expenses there is no profit and until recently I was topping up from my own pocket to cover it all

I have a hb tenant and she's great always pays on time. Looks after place well so it is unfair that they all get tarred with same brush

Not all landlords are ruthless money grabbers. Some of us have no choice if we don't want a repossession against our names

diainchio I agree with you, but as the welfare system had become so incredibly complex and difficult to navigate it was always going to be a nightmare job to try to unravel and simplify it. Hopefully the simplification of the system itself will cut the wait for eligible applicants to get processed, and will motivate people to find work (even if low paid or temporary) in between periods of full benefit dependency. I think the current system is designed in a way that completely traps many people who would otherwise wish to work, and the amount of money spent processing and administering it must be mind-blowing.

Its all well and good blaming HB claimants for pushing rents up, but what about the rents in the houses that don't accept DSS? They have lower rates and insurance because they aren't letting to bad tenants, yet the price is still too high!

Nothing to do with bad HB claimants there then.

So who is to blame for the high cost of housing in this country?

Being a LL is a business and should be treated as such. If there is no contingency then a business would go under. It is widely known that HB takes at least 6-8 weeks to process, if you cannot cover that period you can't afford the BTL property. I have no sympathy for a LL who has overstretched themselves in order to have a property paid for by the state.

As for the benefit system, it is archaic and administered (mostly) by jobsworths who do not connect their tardiness and inability to complete paperwork in a timely fashion, to a familys ability to eat.

I completely agree with you wannabe. Unfortunately if you took away all the BTL landlords who operate on a very, very tight margin for whatever reason (particularly in circumstances like the last poster said, she is not a LL through choice) there simply would not be enough property to go around.

I am a landlord but I would still welcome a return to the old system of many more council/HA properties that are offered at sensible rents for people on low incomes (especially low paid key workers) who fulfill certain criteria of need, and that cannot ever be sold off to the long term tenant. People would perhaps be more motivated to take low paid jobs rather than stay on benefits if it was linked to their ability to secure decent low-cost social housing as well.

Perhaps the system should be that as your salary increases your council/HA rent goes up, and you are asked to either leave and rent privately or pay the increase accordingly. That way the people with the greatest need would have access to affordable social housing as there would be a more regular turnover when previous tenants better their circumstances and move on. If they choose not to at least they will be contributing a fairer level of rent in relation to their income. There is and always has been a huge problem with subletting of HA and council properties as well, which should be dealt with and punished much more harshly. It's morally reprehensible IMHO.

I would also welcome a system where HB is always paid directly to the LL. It would stop so many vulnerable people ending up being kicked out of their housing because they robbed Peter to pay Paul and got in a pickle with their finances. The other huge problem is that if you fall seriously behind with your rent and your LL wants you out, as an HB tenant you are advised to stay put until you are physically evicted, otherwise the council deem that you have made yourself intentionally homeless and you are not a priority for re-housing. Of course this is time consuming and hugely expensive and stressful for a small time LL, and most are just not prepared to take the risk so they stay away from HB tenants even if they are not bound by their mortgage company.

I have a person in one of my properties who is solely funded by social services paid directly to me (tenant is a care-leaver in a complicated, non-straightfoward situation.) It took me 8 months to get a single penny in payment for that tenant, and the deal was all utilities included, so you can imagine how much that cost me upfront!