If the government can pay rich landlords mortgages off - why can't they pay the interest on mortgages of people going through financial difficulties?

[UndertheCedartree]

My friend was asking how my financial situation was (as I have been unwell and in hospital) and I was telling her that it has finally been agreed that I am entitled to some help with my housing costs (interest on my mortgage) but that it is a loan. She was shocked and said when she had financial difficulties the government paid most of her high rent (more than double the interest on my mortgage) and it ultimately went to her rich landlord who was able to pay off his mortgage with it. It made me think about the supportive accomodation my boyfriend lives in. The owner is extremely rich and gets housing benefit for 10 bedrooms when there is only 6 as each tenant gets housing benefit at a 2 bedroom rate. He also gets £800 per month for utilities/broadband from the tenants.

It does feel unfair that I have to take out a loan to cover the interest on my mortgage while I'm unwell (as surely keeping a roof over myself and my children's head makes sense?) while wealthy landlords benefit from housing benefit.

We should not blame landlords, people respond to incentives and there were strong and clear incentives to acquire a property portfolio, an opportunity to have your private pension funded by public money...a free lunch, who's going to turn that down!

these incentives are under the control of the government, we employ them to manage the housing market for the benefit society as a whole, people need homes to live in just as they need to be able to access healthcare and education

Thanks @TriangleBingoBongo. If I had the means I may well have been a LL too. I have no problem with individuals doing well for themselves and having an investement. And I hope I've made it clear I understand not all LLs are rich. I was just talking about 2 specific cases.

@UYScuti - I agree. This is about government policy not individual LLs.

I think the tenants use HB for their own personal reasons. If that then pays their rent, good for them. The LL is not claiming that HB. the tenant is.

In my view, we need a lot of single dwellings to be made, with a little space around them. We probably ought to consider our population increase too, as my idea cant go on ad infinitum.

If anything landlords have been manipulated by the government into being The fall guys for the housing crisis ...they are getting the blame and they will also be the ones who take a big hit if property prices drop
We've all been set up by the people at the top

@UYScuti, how is your scenario any different to home owners who got their mortgage interests paid for many years whose increase capital earned a large sum that fund ones retirement?

Because that's what happened. At least in the instance of the landlord, someone benefits from the arrangement, in OPs suggestion that home owner interests are paid, only they get to gain at the end.

That's why the former is deemed acceptable, the latter not.

@something2say - some LLs get housing benefit straight to them.

@Dontdisturbmenow - with a LL the tenant benefits from a roof over their head, with a homeowner their family benefit from a roof over their head. Why is the former ok and the latter wrong?

They do yes, but theyd get rent straight to them too.

As someone said, people have got to live somewhere and LLs are providing a chunk of that. With attendant costs and risks.

@UYScuti - not really the same thing is it. The government aren’t paying for anyone’s investment. They’re paying someone’s rent. They may not pay all the rent and the rent may not pay all the costs (at the very least a deposit would be needed). If you set up a food shop in a poor area are the government subsiding your business if your customers are on benefits?

If landlords accept tenants on benefits (many don’t) it’s still the tenant paying the rent. The source of their income is irrelevant.

I don’t disagree op should get her mortgage interest paid (within limits). Seems like a sensible approach to me.

Also owning a property investment is not any more a free lunch than any other type of investment

Also owning a property investment is not any more a free lunch than any other type of investment

It's not a free lunch at all if you get nightmare tenants who trash the place and pay no rent 🤷🏻‍♀️.

I think somewhere to live is a basic human need and as such buying up property to make money and then raising the rent each year so they can't afford it/ refusing to house children/ playing a part in property price raises is dubious me morally. Personally I would never deliberately become a landlord. Other people feel similar to me but others disagree.

But that said lots of investment ISAs for example invest in property anyway so it probably makes no difference at all. And there is a need for some rental property

Life is about shades of grey after all, no more than over this issue. I am when LL try and make out that they doing it out of goodness and benevolence however.

@something2say - the point is for example in supported accomodation they get the over the odds housing benefit direct to them - there is no issue of a tenant not paying so the costs and risks are lower. As you said people can use UC housing costs money for what they like.

@Teateaandmoretea

I find the basic human right argument quite strange. Almost every basic human need is profited from, eating, drinking, gas, electric, education, healthcare. All suppliers involve profit. Why are have a go landlords singled out in this way? I think the answer is to become mormans.

It might be strange but it's how I feel about it. Shades of grey no right or wrong answers. A home is much more permanent (or at least it should be) feature of people's lives than a bowl of cornflakes 🤷🏻‍♀️

Food is as much a basic need as shelter? Surely. You’d die quicker without food than without shelter.

Over the odds? Having worked in residential services for vulnerable people and a housing association for vulnerable people I'd disagree. The landlords in these instances are dealing with ascending tenants, lengthy eviction processes, complete refits on top of months of non payment etc, possibly county lines type carnage....there certainly are risks of non payment.....help me pleeeeease, I prooomise I'll get it sorted etc.

with a LL the tenant benefits from a roof over their head, with a homeowner their family benefit from a roof over their head. Why is the former ok and the latter wrong?

In the first instance, there are two families benefiting from the arrangement, the LL who puts money towards their pension and the tenant who gets a home.

In the latter, only one family benefits getting in both accountd, in getting a home and an investment for their pension.

It's clear to me why one would be favoured over the other!

@something2say - I think what you are refering to is different to supported accomodation. Would you not say housing benefit for 2 beds per 5 tenants in a 4 bed house plus £800 per month for utilities is over the odds? The housing benefit goes direct to the LL so no non-payment. There may be some excessive wear and tear in some instances, tbf. But none of the other things you talk about.

What I'm talking about IS supported accommodation. And when there is an issue such as roofing, structure, heating, security etc all that has to be sorted right away because it's their right. It's not the right of homeowners unless they can afford it. Having bought at the bottom of the ladder on my charity salary and then going into work to sort out issues for residents and tenants, I really know the difference. I pay for everything myself whereas tenants get it all sorted for them and, where there is HB involved, paid for too. I often wondered whether I'd have been better off renting from a housing authority.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland - I find that a very odd attitude. Like people only deserve one or the other if they fall on hard times. Ok - you can have a roof over your head (temporary accomodation will do!) but don't be so cheeky to think you should be able to keep an investement for your children's future!

@something2say - how is the LL not being paid if HB goes direct to the LL? Many tenents in supported accomodation lack a lot of the rights of a normal tenency. And you don't think 2 bed HB for 5 tenants and £800 pm utilities is over the odds?
If you think you'd be better off renting then why not give it a go? I think you'll find the benefits of home ownership outweigh having things fixed quickly. And if you'd like your housing costs paid - you could quit your job and see if you're happier poor and unemployed?

In the first instance, there are two families benefiting from the arrangement, the LL who puts money towards their pension and the tenant who gets a home.

In the latter, only one family benefits getting in both accountd, in getting a home and an investment for their pension.

It's clear to me why one would be favoured over the other!

Honestly baffled by this. It isn't about 'benefit to families'. It is about people who cannot afford to keep a roof over their heads and preventing homelessness . Paying the mortgage of the family who can't afford it is future proofing against them having similar problems post-retirement whereas for the landlord it will maybe fund some foreign holidays....?

Maybe the HB claim hasn't gone live yet? Happens all the time.

Like I said before, I think there should be more single dwellings built. But the fact remains that housing some sectors of society Carrie's risk and costs money. I've been campaigning within the industry for lifelong supported living for some folks who just go round the houses costing a fortune and failing to maintain their tenancies with all its attendant costs to them too.