To think being able to use housing benefits as a mortgage is unfair?

[blahloney]

I’m actually feeling quite annoyed. I currently work full time, don’t receive benefits but cannot afford to buy a house despite my rent being more than a mortgage. How is this fair?

😂

It really was the wild west before the FCA. My boss was one of the leaders in the field and kept trying to convince me to do the new exams for the FCA. They were mind numbingly boring and I was 18 and stupidly didn't do them, lost opportunities. 😀

I they haven't admitted they are wrong. They are trying to detract from the various scandals and shore up votes amongst people who wouldn't usually vote Tory.

I'll have to ask my mum later but I'm sure when I was a teen, so 1984 or there abouts, this is how she bought our house. I'm sure if you were unemployed your housing benefit paid the mortgage. I'll have to check with her when I speak to her next.

And again they worked out well for some people I remember cashing in my access endowment policy and it was about 30 grand he hadn’t added a penny to it from 2004 onwards but the point was it was only ever meant to clear the mortgage that he took out in 1992 for 33 grand so he might of been a little bit short but bloody hell we could’ve pulled that out of the bag in a matter of weeks.

They really were lax, even in the UK. In the early 90's I worked for a Financial Advisor who arranged mortgages, life insurance etc.

You could get 110% plus mortgages, you just had to say the excess was going towards improvements in the property.

If only I was born earlier! Some of my older colleagues had 110% mortgages, 95% interest only mortgages etc on very low salaries.

I don't understand why I, as a HA tenant, would want to buy it? This isn't meant to be goady at all.

I pay £520 a month for something on the private market would be approx £1200 a month. That shows the extent of the issue with private rents.

I have a life long secure tenancy, private rentals are at the mercy of the landlord.

I largely save and fund my own repairs/upgrades as a rule of thumb the repairs/replacements by the HA are pretty shocking but I have the flexibility to do so as I wish and can fall back on the HA for major things.

Having a fair, sensible, rent has meant that I could spend 3 years studying to get my degree which has massively improved my long term prospects. I've just been offered a 30k a year job. I wouldn't have achieved that if I didn't have an affordable rent that allowed me the time to study and build some experience.

I love my home, I love what it has done for my family more. I don't want to buy my home, I want someone else to have the benefits that it has provided me. Reality is I could not afford a private rental and I have a disabled child who very much needs security so we will remain here long term but once we are done it will be available for someone else.

I wouldn't want a mortgage reliant on benefits, benefits are too liable to go wrong. I'd be surprised if lenders are agreeable either.

Build more HA homes to provide more families the opportunity mine was given, don't get rid of them.

The reason that Endowment Mortgages were so popular at the time was because the agents were paid the most commission for them up front. In the 90's it was at least £2,000 per endowment sold.

So they would lie and sell them to people, telling them that at the end of their mortgage, the Endowment would pay off the initial amount of mortgage borrowed, and they would also get a lump sum. The mortgages would be interest only.

Unfortunately the Endowments did not increase in value as predicted and people got to the end of their mortgage term and didn't have enough to pay off the initial lump sum. They were knowingly mis sold.

You'd still need the deposit and anything over a certain amount of savings means you get benefits reduced pro rata.
Housing minister says that ATM, only about 1000 people would qualify and there are no funds to make this happen. It's all really pie in the sky and baloney.

The whole policy is a nonsense as if you had in savings even a fraction of what you'd need to put down a house deposit (especially if you're on a low income, which you'd have to be to be getting the benefits) in most of the country, you'd lose all your benefits.

It could only be thought of by someone with no clue whatsoever about how their own system works

This is exactly what my mum did in the 90’s. Paid for her mortgage using income support. It meant we had a safe secure home and she had more choice in where we lived (near her parents).

Social mobility in this country is not great. Surely it’s better to allow people a chance to own their own homes than money just be doled out to private landlords.

Thanks to my mum being able to have a mortgage she was able to help all her children to buy their homes when we were older. We received a lot of benefits when I was a kid. My whole family is now working professionals paying loads more in taxes than we ever took in benefits. Any opportunities for people to achieve a better quality of life should be praised.

Why is that then? The vast majority have tenants on 6 or 12m AS tenancies, and failing that, rent arrears is grounds for possession, so the LL will just evict and re let. The costs incurred should be factored in to their business planning. No business is without risk and if a LL wants to enjoy the profits they should be prepared to accept the costs, and insure or budget accordingly.
The only people I will worry about is those without the basic right of a secure home.

Many people in UC work full time and a lot of housing benefit is already paying the mortgages of second home owners
I agree. I’ve got a friend who is privately renting, using housing benefit. The landlord is making a Huge profit from the tax payer and it makes me so cross! Friend can’t afford to save a deposit because she’s on benefits and will be stuck in the private rental market forever (she is one of 4 and her one living parent lives in a council flat, so there won’t be any inheritance). I’d much rather tax payers money pay for her to own her own home rather than a landlord to own several.

there is a massive problem with the amount of social housing in this country (in that there isn’t enough of it) and that’s where the government should be putting its money.

People may be allowed savings of £16k but beyond £6k do they not start to take money away from benefit entitlement? That would make saving for a deposit very difficult- who can afford to save even £6k on benefits? Even working people relying on UC/HB will struggle to save.

I don’t really understand why people are outraged that people in receipt of benefits might get mortgages which are always lower repayments than private renting yet they’re more than content to pay well over the odds to landlords in HB or UC rent to help them pay off their second, third, hundredth mortgages often as part of large portfolios. The hypocrisy is astounding.

yes the answer is more and better social housing but the tories are obsessed with private ownership.

Get everyone into a mortgage (deathgrip) where their home is directly tied to their income.

Make living unaffordable and thus mortgage repayments unaffordable.

Legitimately repossess all homes and get back under bank control.

Rent the homes out under conditions (digital identity with enough social credit)

Hunt the homeless for sport.

Reduce the population/only ones left are in smart cities linked to a grid based on social credit and digital identity.

Freedom gone. Total control achieved.

It’s never going to happen but if it did the discount is the deposit.

So, we have a major public housing crisis with people waiting years, and a lack of affordable housing. So lets sell some social housing off? WTF, you may wonder if these things are made up when they are all drunk. I could see why Thatcher went there, but there was not the housing crisis then.

How much is the deposit?

The other part that I heard was the change in LTV - so creeping up to around 98%

That’s why default seems concerning to me

We had buffers put in after 2008

The other part that I heard was the change in LTV - so creeping up to around 98%

this seems odd considering interest rates. You certainly won't be able to get a good deal at 98%

I see it as better than paying landlords mortgages!

But yes it's basically Johnson shit stirring to distract - don't fall for it!

Why exactly do you think those on benefits are less worth of a secure home?

The discount is the deposit. So if the discount was 40%, the LTV would be 60%. And you’re all assuming applications would be assessed in the same way and using the same criteria as commercial mortgages. They wouldn’t.

I didn’t think it would be the same but I wasn’t really listening re discount part

Can you say more - who pays the 40%? How does that part work

Can you say more - who pays the 40%? How does that part work

Nobody pays the 40%, it’s the equity in the house effectively. Obviously 40% isn’t the actual figure, I’ve used it for illustrative purposes. The amount varies depending on length of tenancy.

YABU. How would it be fair that someone would only be able to claim the cost of housing themselves if they rent? The housing element of the benefit only covers interest, and is quite limited.

It is another desperate attempt at deflection and smoke and mirrors.

The stock isnt the government to sell. Banks will not loan against benefits. Banks are reducing what they will loan to people with jobs. People on benefits do have a deposi and in alot of cases may not have an employment history.

That's before they sort out a system without staff of how this could possibly work.

I think every tax payer, housing association and homeless group will be up in arms.

I think it's a fantastic idea. We are heading towards a massive recession and many people will lose their jobs. Many self-employed will struggle to find work as people don't have money to spare. The rising costs of everything will also push many small businesses over the VAT threshold, which may mean even more going out of business.

If this new policy means that those who lose their jobs don't automatically lose their homes, then I'm all for it. If someone is out of work for say, 6 months, why should they have to sell their house, fall off the property ladder and rent somewhere that is likely double the price? It doesn't make sense.

Look at the bigger picture