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.

@TakemedowntoPotatoCity - no not in negative equity. I'm not in a position to sell up at the moment as I'm still in hospital and I'd have to find somewhere for my DC to live, move everything. Just not possible right now. But I'd much rather keep things stable for the DC as much as possible.

Underthecedartree

You have capital in the form of a house

There are many people already homeless without any money

Where should the money go?

You want it for stability to own your own property

Someone else wants it to have a home

Your mortgage is very low / why didn’t you get insurance?

Thank you underthecedar tree for your reply.

Interesting that some on here are happy for a landlord to accrue wealth from housing benefit but are aghast at the idea that the homeowner who was unfortunate to get ill should not get any support with their mortgage.

Until Osborne and Cameron’s government changed it people would get their mortgage interest paid if they got ill.

To insure against ill health there is either private insurance or the nation paying higher taxes and pooling risk collectively via the welfare state. I remember reading an article that pointed out private insurance is more expensive.

@MadFrog2020 - I think there was probably a reason we didn't get insurance but I can't remember what it was. My house hasn't got up much, well it went down then went up a bit. I'm sorry to hear you may be in a similar situation.

Chopear

I’d rather there were higher taxes and more decent social house, I’d like to see 50% of all new homes built have to be social

I’d like to see R2B stopped

@mumwon - I've been trying to get help for a while but it has been difficult being in hospital but luckily CAP (Christians against poverty) have agreed to help and are coming to see me next month.

Supported accommodation is not subjected to Local Housing Allowance - the usual upper amount of HB or UC housing costs payable for private renters - because it includes elements of care and supervision. The rule is not that tenants get twice the usual LHA - it just doesn't apply. In your BF's case the rent just happens to be 2 x LHA.

LHA is incredibly low. It's capped at the 30th percentile of rents for the local area. More accurately, it's capped at what those rents were in 2016 because it's been frozen since then. In high rent areas further caps apply.

LHA will not cover the costs of private sector supported accommodation.

YANBU OP, the whole housing situation in the UK is fucked, along with the HB and UC housing costs system.

They don't want to provide any help to people with mortgages because they don't want to be seen to be helping you acquire a valuable asset. You have to filter it through a buy to let mortgage and a poor tenant before that becomes respectable. Most rage-inducing is when you see this happening in a former council property.

The feeding frenzy over 'unregulated supported housing' for both vulnerable adults and for children is horrific.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/housing-associations-keeping-thousands-in-unregulated-supported-housing-says-report-64088

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49673455

The answer is to build a fuckton more proper social housing and bring care services and supported accommodation back into LA control. Poor people on benefits, vulnerable children and adults - clearly these people are not profitable in themselves. Anybody making a profit from them is sucking it from the public purse.

And yes they should pay mortgage interest. It's hardly going to be cheaper for them if you are made homeless and they have to put you in temporary accommodation (another category of private rented housing not subjected to LHA - kerching!) - before even considering the effect on your mental health and the associated additional support costs.

I get it OP.
My mortgage is less than rent would be for the equivalent house but once the equity had gone in rent payments they would pay a buy to let mortgage purely there for profit through HB but not an amount to help keep me in cheaper housing.
The Government used to pay but in the ‘80’s when there was the first big financial crash the traders on their mega salaries that were suddenly out of work all applied for interest paid on massive mortgages which screwed the councils hence no help now......
I have critical illness cover but not redundancy, purely after I got screwed over on it years ago when the insurance company tried to pull a fast one on me, and the way how We had to prove partner at the time was still out of work was one hell of a process designed to try and make you give up.
I totally agree with HB, but I also think that there should be something to help mortgage payers short term to give them some breathing space even if just to sell without the extra stress that the current system has

If the government helps a homeowner with housing costs & they retain the home the government has assisted in retention of an asset that the homeowner is likely to benefit from down the line.

Why should taxpayers fund your asset.

@CooCooAchoo - paying the interest on a mortgage is not the same as paying it off. And until recently that was what happened - so it certainly can be that way! And ethically I would much rather keep children in their own home while things are already so difficult for them. If I sold my home which I can't currently as I'm in hospital - I'd be able to live off it for a few months - then the government would be having to pay a larger sum out in benefits. If my home is repossesed (possible) the government would be providing extremely expensive temporary accomodation. It makes no sense to me.

@MissSueDenim - yes that of course was just the experience of my friend

Yes, it may have been your friend’s experience but it is very much the exception NOT the rule yet you are basing your argument on it. Your title alone is based on the assumption that benefits pay off landlord mortgages - this simply isn’t true.

It is widely known that there are restrictions by lenders & insurance companies that prevent landlords renting to people on benefits. It’s actually a huge problem & there are several groups & organisations campaigning to try & change this. On here alone, there is thread after about people unable to find private rentals because of the restrictions in place.

If you have no equity in the house, there are some companies who do "buy to rent" schemes, where they will buy your house then rent it back to you.

If your priority is staying in the house, rather than owning it, it might be worth considering as then you would get your rent paid through housing benefit and you might be able to negotiate a sale on the basis that the hb would cover the rent that they would charge.

@ivykaty44 - where should the money go? I think I've already explained the cheapest option should happen so money is not wasted - the interest on my mortgage should be paid - so there is more money to go around and help others. I also want my children to stay in their own home for THEIR stability. My children have been through enough and I'm sure any mother would feel the same. I haven't said how much my mortgage was but it wasn't a small amount to me - I don't think I could afford insurance maybe because I have a long term health issue that made it more expensive.

Op won’t be able to claim for HB it would have to be UC and their housing element rules are different from housing benefit rules

@ivykaty44 - I agree with more social housing. If I lose my house we will be in extremely expensive temporary accomodation as there is so little social housing round here.

• I don't think I could afford insurance

But you could afford to buy a house and now want the government to pay the mortgage as it’s cheaper than paying rent

And think it’s crazy not to

I can’t agree with you that for the government to pay your mortgage would be crazy

Sell the house, sell the house and rent it back until you need benefits and then if you need help so be it

But to capitalise on home ownership through government benefits to my mind is not correct

Benefits are for assisting not for making a profit

@LangClegsInSpace - I know the tenants in his supported housing get a 2 bedroom rate but I presume it is still subject to the usual cap. The care, of course is paid for by social care. The £800 a month for utilities etc. I actually think is ridiculous - I don't know why it is so high?

@LangClegsInSpace - I agree with all your points.

I also want my children to stay in their own home for THEIR stability. My children have been through enough and I'm sure any mother would feel the same.

OP you’ve said this several times now & I completely understand where you’re coming from (and I’m very sorry about your situation) however your children are no more important than anyone else’s so I don’t think this should be part of your argument.

Why should tax payer money be used to give your children stability when mothers & children in private rentals can be given notice & asked to vacate no matter how difficult a time they’re having?

I don't think benefits should pay towards debts (which a mortgage is) or towards paying for an expensive asset (which is what home ownership is).

Many, many tax payers are not fortunate enough to own a property. To expect them to fund someone else to own their own property is wrong.

Rental help is available, as it should be.

@Foslady - interest on a mortgage was paid not so long ago.

@Kamma89 - well for me as a taxpayer I would say because it is the right thing to do. It is cheaper so costs the tax payer less and why make children homeless which will then cost a large amount of money when you can keep them in their own home for much less money. Financially and morally it makes sense to me. The children have a better life as the parent has retained the asset - that isn't wrong to me.

You have to be punished for being poorer Cedar it isn't about saving money.

I get what you're saying........six weeks after we bought our house my partner lost his job. We had a toddler and a newborn. We clung onto it, paying our mortgage out of the benefits we received (( early 2000s thank God )) at the time it pissed me off, having friends in the same position moaning about lack of money but who had their full rent paid it houses that had actual heating and hot water (( we couldn't afford repairs )) . If we'd just said fuckit and let the house go then gone into rented we'd have been in the pattern of housing benefit and top ups for years. But we'd have been better housed and financially better off. We'd have Cost the state thousands. Luckily as our mortgage was so low we were able to scrape by and it's now paid off. That just wouldn't be possible these days. And I feel so sorry for homeowners who end up in our position now and will realistically end up in a worse position because they'd tried to do the right thing and support themselves.