ok forgive me now asi may go into rant mode...
if you are currently on state benefits, ie income suport, job seekers alowance, incapacity benefit to name a few you can also claim for housing and council tax benefit.
this has typically ben paid direct to the landlord, this ment that the landlord was more likely to accept someone on benefits if they were secured payment direct.
the other side of it is people were less likely to face eviction for non payment of rent.
now the government has decided that this benefit should be paid direct to the claiment and then it is up to them to pay it to their landlord.
now forgve me if i upset anyone, but there are many sistuation where this could be a very bad idea, couples where there is one or even both who decide not to pay their rent, rather buy drugs, drink, gamble.
there by the landlord loses income, the tenent faces eviction etc.
im not for one min saying all those in reciept of benefit will be as above, but i work hard to pay my way and my taxes, and if i am paying taxes to support those who cannot get work then i at least would like to know some ofthat money is going direct to what its intended for.
if its about the right to make the desision on how they spend that money i would lke to argue for the same right and the government trust me and empower me to pay my own taxes and national insurance, and then if i have a problem with teh government i hav ethe right to withholdpayment till its fixed.
sorry this is more a rant for the steam room maybe??
or is thsi just a ploy for the government to sort out its housing crisis by having no duty to all those who are evicted a it was intentional, there by the housing regsters show a big drop in teh long run?
xx fem xx
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
direct payment
As far as I am aware it used to be paid to the claimant via their benefit cheque. Then they changed it as obviously people were spending it.
To give the claimant the money is prone to disaster but....if the money is paid to the claimant and they spend that money, and in turn get evicted, then frankly I really could not give a toss.
I do not know why this has been changed back again but.....if the individual is not adult enough to realise that by spending their rent money, will land them in trouble, then they are the fools and deserve whatever they get.
To give the claimant the money is prone to disaster but....if the money is paid to the claimant and they spend that money, and in turn get evicted, then frankly I really could not give a toss.
I do not know why this has been changed back again but.....if the individual is not adult enough to realise that by spending their rent money, will land them in trouble, then they are the fools and deserve whatever they get.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
As far as I am aware it used to be paid to the claimant via their benefit cheque. Then they changed it as obviously people were spending it.
To give the claimant the money is prone to disaster but....if the money is paid to the claimant and they spend that money, and in turn get evicted, then frankly I really could not give a toss.
I do not know why this has been changed back again but.....if the individual is not adult enough to realise that by spending their rent money, will land them in trouble, then they are the fools and deserve whatever they get.
While I agree to a large extent with your last comment - they often have children to care for. And the poor kids end up in care. Which, from what I've seen on TV - is like slipping into a parallel dimension - invisible, uncared for, hopeless.
I believe that payments meant for paying rent should sensibly go direct for rent. It just makes sense. In that way it's the same as benefits for health-care or even the benefit that pays for cars for the disabled.
That is true.
I really cannot understand why they would pay the claimant directly.
It is madness that can only go one way.....eviction for many.
IF I was a landlord I would much rather the money be paid directly into my account by the council, and not too rely on a benefit person giving me the money.
On that basis I would think twice about taking a benefit clamaint on. Thats not bias, that is just common sense.
I really cannot understand why they would pay the claimant directly.
It is madness that can only go one way.....eviction for many.
IF I was a landlord I would much rather the money be paid directly into my account by the council, and not too rely on a benefit person giving me the money.
On that basis I would think twice about taking a benefit clamaint on. Thats not bias, that is just common sense.
its just another cloked way in which this stupid government is pretending to be a party for the people, but in reality is fucking everyone over.
the landlords who face losing money, the claiments who find it harder to get accommodation and the kids of the vulnerable who wont manage and possibly get evicted.
x fem
the landlords who face losing money, the claiments who find it harder to get accommodation and the kids of the vulnerable who wont manage and possibly get evicted.
x fem
Lets lose our social conscience for a moment,most of us work for a living and pay our dues to the local authority/taxman etc, many out there dont , some due to illness or lack of employment, others because they dont want to work and are more than happy to live off the system!
I have friends who are classed as disabled because they are alcoholics.
They receive extra allowances for this to feed their habit, all have free bus passes and some even get extra money to pay for their taxi home because they tell the social that by the time they have finished drinking theres no buses or they would be incapable of walking to the bus stop-come on?
I KNOW THESE PEOPLE WELL(NEVER LEND THEM A FIVER-YOULL NEVER GET IT BACK) if they recive their rent direcly they will spend it and sod the consequences, -they know social will give them more.!
Time for this goverment to wake up and listern to commen sense from the people they represent-the working man(and woman of course, also including cross dressers trannies etc)
I have friends who are classed as disabled because they are alcoholics.
They receive extra allowances for this to feed their habit, all have free bus passes and some even get extra money to pay for their taxi home because they tell the social that by the time they have finished drinking theres no buses or they would be incapable of walking to the bus stop-come on?
I KNOW THESE PEOPLE WELL(NEVER LEND THEM A FIVER-YOULL NEVER GET IT BACK) if they recive their rent direcly they will spend it and sod the consequences, -they know social will give them more.!
Time for this goverment to wake up and listern to commen sense from the people they represent-the working man(and woman of course, also including cross dressers trannies etc)
Sex God
I would assume its probably a cheaper way to hand over housing benefit to the claiment than to hand it to the landlord. In paying directly to the landlord a whole other group of people are placed into the bureacratic system. Surely it has to be cheaper to deal the money out once than twice?
I were talking about housing benefits then the topic of the day should remain the benefits of 2nd housing to MP's the scavenging money grabbing state robbing bastards
I were talking about housing benefits then the topic of the day should remain the benefits of 2nd housing to MP's the scavenging money grabbing state robbing bastards
Losty.............child benefit is now paid directly into peoples bank accounts. It is easier and cheaper than having people go to the Post Office, and all the money spent on benefit books.
How easy is it for a landlord to give the local council their account details, and the system of paying it straight into a bank account?
It seems straight forward and very cheap to me, but then people always seem to make easy things, far more difficult than they need to be.
If a person spends their rent money and have a family as well, then maybe they should look at their responsibilies as parents, first and foremost above anything else.
How easy is it for a landlord to give the local council their account details, and the system of paying it straight into a bank account?
It seems straight forward and very cheap to me, but then people always seem to make easy things, far more difficult than they need to be.
If a person spends their rent money and have a family as well, then maybe they should look at their responsibilies as parents, first and foremost above anything else.
It should go straight in to the landlords bank account. that way everyone can be sure of a roof above their heads and the landlords are ecure in knowingthey are getting the money.
Landlords properties should also be audited to ensure people aren't be moved into deathtraps but that is another story.
Landlords properties should also be audited to ensure people aren't be moved into deathtraps but that is another story.
I recently helped someone fill one of these forms in for help with rent and council tax and it gave her a choice to choose to have the chq or to pay it direct to her landlord.
She chose to have it paid direct to him as she is hopeless with allocating money to pay bills etc and at least kknows the portion of rent the council are paying will be sorted. But she asked when handing the form in why they asked that and they said it was because many people (like my friend) are working and claiming. They are just in low income band and may not want the landlord knowing they are on low income, also the chqs are sent out on same day each month but not everyone pays landlord at that time or may want to cash the chq and add the extra that the benefit isnt paying and give all to landlord.
I can see both sides to this and agree with the idea of paying it direct to the landlord if the tenant has a history of non payment or substance abuse (the council will know) - but in the case of someone applying for benefit to top up the low income and they are paying a portion of the rent themselves I can see why they would want the chq, if I was in that situation I'd want the money so I could add it to the rest and pay landlord in one go.
She chose to have it paid direct to him as she is hopeless with allocating money to pay bills etc and at least kknows the portion of rent the council are paying will be sorted. But she asked when handing the form in why they asked that and they said it was because many people (like my friend) are working and claiming. They are just in low income band and may not want the landlord knowing they are on low income, also the chqs are sent out on same day each month but not everyone pays landlord at that time or may want to cash the chq and add the extra that the benefit isnt paying and give all to landlord.
I can see both sides to this and agree with the idea of paying it direct to the landlord if the tenant has a history of non payment or substance abuse (the council will know) - but in the case of someone applying for benefit to top up the low income and they are paying a portion of the rent themselves I can see why they would want the chq, if I was in that situation I'd want the money so I could add it to the rest and pay landlord in one go.
I know in Bristol if you live in a bristol city council house then the housing benefit gets paid directly to the council. If you live in any other type of housing you get the choice to have it paid directly to the landlord or to yourself. I know a friend of mine who gets a portion of her rent paid directly to her so she can pay the lanlord does so as he won't accept any DSS payments, if you look in the local lettings pages of your newspaper you will find there are quite a few landlords who won't accept people on benefits, this way they don't have to tell them!.
I think rents should be paid directly to the landlord due to some of the issues raised here but lets not forget, people who are not on benefits can have addictions or social issues aswell that could lead them to spending there worked for income. Resulting in loss of housing or mortgages not being paid it happens in all walks of life.
As somebody else mentioned it's down to the responsible attitude of the tenant thats where the issue is, not the governments policy of letting the tenant decide who the rent is paid to.
It's a difficult subject and quite possibly the only effective answer is payment to landlords for housing benefit claimants.
As somebody else mentioned it's down to the responsible attitude of the tenant thats where the issue is, not the governments policy of letting the tenant decide who the rent is paid to.
It's a difficult subject and quite possibly the only effective answer is payment to landlords for housing benefit claimants.
Well I spose if the person whose home it is can withhold their rent it might stop the appalling quality of rented accommodation in this country. Lest we forget, these people renting the houses are usually poor and usually have no security of tenancy. The houses tend to be shitholes because the landlords are in the business of making money not providing decent housing. The people renting them are faced with little choice given the possibility of eviction at the end of the term and no prospect of raising the capital necessary to move house. If anybody fancies a look at a few I will happily send you the details of the estate agents in my bit of kent that specialise in "affordable housing". Furthermore, I don't know what its like in other bits of the UK but round here housing benefit rarely if ever covers the whole rental cost.
I think councils should cut out the middle man--the landlords--and provide affordable housing directly for those in need. If landlords can make money out of it why cant councils?
I think councils should cut out the middle man--the landlords--and provide affordable housing directly for those in need. If landlords can make money out of it why cant councils?
Sex God
One of the main reasons why local authorities are paying it this way is to reduce costs, however by paying the rent direct to the claimant, it also reduces the stigma for the people who are receiving benefits. How often do you see rented properties saying 'No DSS' or something similar? With the payment being direct, the landlord does not even have to know that the tenant may now be receiving housing benefit.
Housing benefit is now paid directly to claimants (who are more than likely on some other kind of benefits or on low pay) and in turn this reduces costs for the LA and therefore for other customers. The cost of paying direct to a customer is a lot lower than it is paying it to landlords, and this in turn (alegidly) saves money for tax payers (still waiting to see this saving, but I suppose every little helps).
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but these are adults, not children who should be made to take some responsiblity for themselves. People in rented accomodation, just like those with mortgages have a responsibility to pay for their housing. They are getting the money and it is down to them to fulfill their responsibilities and pay it to the landlord. Why should the LA foot the bill!!!
Housing benefit is now paid directly to claimants (who are more than likely on some other kind of benefits or on low pay) and in turn this reduces costs for the LA and therefore for other customers. The cost of paying direct to a customer is a lot lower than it is paying it to landlords, and this in turn (alegidly) saves money for tax payers (still waiting to see this saving, but I suppose every little helps).
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but these are adults, not children who should be made to take some responsiblity for themselves. People in rented accomodation, just like those with mortgages have a responsibility to pay for their housing. They are getting the money and it is down to them to fulfill their responsibilities and pay it to the landlord. Why should the LA foot the bill!!!
Quote by benrums0n
Well I spose if the person whose home it is can withhold their rent it might stop the appalling quality of rented accommodation in this country.
I agree in theory but unscrupulous landlords will just turn up and evict the tenant whether legally or illegally
Quote by benrums0n
Lest we forget, these people renting the houses are usually poor and usually have no security of tenancy.
Some are some are not. Some people want to own their own homes others do not. Some have moved to an area for a short contract and will not want to relocate. To say that people who rent are poor is not very accurate. People rent for a number of reasons.
Quote by benrums0n
The houses tend to be shitholes because the landlords are in the business of making money not providing decent housing.
The law has and is changing regarding decent homes. You will always find unscrupulous landlords but these are getting fewer and fewer. However, to classify all rented accomodation as shitholes is not very accurate.
Quote by benrums0n
The people renting them are faced with little choice given the possibility of eviction at the end of the term and no prospect of raising the capital necessary to move house.
All tenancy agreements have an end date. It doesn't mean they will be evicted though.
Quote by benrums0n
If anybody fancies a look at a few I will happily send you the details of the estate agents in my bit of kent that specialise in "affordable housing".
No thanks. It would be too close to Kent777 for my liking :giggle: In fact, I am in talks with the Scotish Parliament to buy their wall off them and put it up just south of Nottingham so he can't get up here
Quote by benrums0n
Furthermore, I don't know what its like in other bits of the UK but round here housing benefit rarely if ever covers the whole rental cost.
To sound brutal, if it doesn't cover the rent and a person can not afford it, then they are living above their means and they need to find a cheaper area to live in. I could go live in a better place but we wouldn't be able to afford the rent or mortgage, so we are limited by our income. Thats life I am afraid.
Quote by benrums0n
I think councils should cut out the middle man--the landlords--and provide affordable housing directly for those in need. If landlords can make money out of it why cant councils?
I think the "Right to Buy" has made councils not build anymore housing as they have an obligation to sell it to the tenant at a reduced price (I think thats how it works).
Dave_Notts
Ere Davey......I know you fancy me really, and your" rant " is all a front.
Affordable housing eh? Hmmmmmm. There is quite a bit around here, and not all landlords are mean, or rent out " shit holes ".
What happens for example IF that very same person who needs affordable housing, gets a very nice home on the cheap. Then that same person gets a better job with more money. Do they give that home up and if not, why the heck should somebody on good money continue to get his rent cheaper than on the open market?
It is all well and good giving people these cheaper homes when they need them but.....circumstances change. There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet.
Is that not unfair? Or do we just give everybody a cheaper home? Think " home owners " may have a different take on this.
Affordable housing eh? Hmmmmmm. There is quite a bit around here, and not all landlords are mean, or rent out " shit holes ".
What happens for example IF that very same person who needs affordable housing, gets a very nice home on the cheap. Then that same person gets a better job with more money. Do they give that home up and if not, why the heck should somebody on good money continue to get his rent cheaper than on the open market?
It is all well and good giving people these cheaper homes when they need them but.....circumstances change. There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet.
Is that not unfair? Or do we just give everybody a cheaper home? Think " home owners " may have a different take on this.
Dave, thank you for helping me to realise why we no longer have a mainstream political party with a social welfare agenda. I cant help but try to point out how the other half live.
Kent "There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet". I have no idea what you are referring to can you enlighten me as to these schemes work and how folk get on them?
Kent "There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet". I have no idea what you are referring to can you enlighten me as to these schemes work and how folk get on them?
Quote by benrums0n
Dave, thank you for helping me to realise why we no longer have a mainstream political party with a social welfare agenda. I cant help but try to point out how the other half live.
Kent "There are no doubt many people getting cheaper rents through the affordable housing schemes, but earn a packet". I have no idea what you are referring to can you enlighten me as to these schemes work and how folk get on them?
Ben, they are called MP's and they stand for election every few years..
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
That is true.
I really cannot understand why they would pay the claimant directly.
It is madness that can only go one way.....eviction for many.
IF I was a landlord I would much rather the money be paid directly into my account by the council, and not too rely on a benefit person giving me the money.
On that basis I would think twice about taking a benefit clamaint on. Thats not bias, that is just common sense.
Hi Kenty
In answer to the first bit I highlighted....maybe because the claimant has struggled to pay the rent himself whilst the benefit section dealt with their two month backlog due to the increased workload it has due to the credit crunch and more folk needing help. The money then would actually belong to the claimant as he has already paid the landlord.
If you were a landlord and you were recieving the rent straight into your account ...again you would have to wait for your money due to backlogs and would therefore not be in any better position than if the tenant paid it. Your need would in fact not be prioritised the same as a family desperately needing the money to eat etc so therefore you could be forced to wait longer.
It's a sad state of affairs at the moment
Quote by Firelizard
That is true.
I really cannot understand why they would pay the claimant directly.
It is madness that can only go one way.....eviction for many.
IF I was a landlord I would much rather the money be paid directly into my account by the council, and not too rely on a benefit person giving me the money.
On that basis I would think twice about taking a benefit clamaint on. Thats not bias, that is just common sense.
Hi Kenty
In answer to the first bit I highlighted....maybe because the claimant has struggled to pay the rent himself whilst the benefit section dealt with their two month backlog due to the increased workload it has due to the credit crunch and more folk needing help. The money then would actually belong to the claimant as he has already paid the landlord.
If you were a landlord and you were recieving the rent straight into your account ...again you would have to wait for your money due to backlogs and would therefore not be in any better position than if the tenant paid it. Your need would in fact not be prioritised the same as a family desperately needing the money to eat etc so therefore you could be forced to wait longer.
It's a sad state of affairs at the moment
That is assuming of course that they had the money to start with?
A lot of people who are made redundent or lose their jobs, do not have a months rent or even two to pay, out of their own pockets.
Giving some people who have no money, all that rent money could be too much of a temptation.
As a landlord I would still rather the money be paid direct even if I had to wait those two months to start with. I will get it eventually unlike if a tenant failed to pay it themselves, have you any idea how long it takes to evict them, and no chance of any back rent owed to the landlore being paid.
Sex God
That is assuming of course that they had the money to start with?
Of course
Although the usual course of action here would be to inform the landlord/agent of difficulty and then make an arrangement to catch up on the rent when the cashflow eases.
A lot of people who are made redundent or lose their jobs, do not have a months rent or even two to pay, out of their own pockets.
That is true but it's not often in a couple say, that both are made redundant or lose their jobs at the same time. So a contribution at least can often be made to the rent. It's usually food and a roof over your head that take priority.
Giving some people who have no money, all that rent money could be too much of a temptation.
Some yes but by no means people with no money know what their priorities are and stick to them. (I'm not including in this people that are unable to think rationally and sensibly either through substance abuse or are very young and inexperienced. Just the normal run of the mill tenant)
As a landlord I would still rather the money be paid direct even if I had to wait those two months to start with. I will get it eventually unlike if a tenant failed to pay it themselves, have you any idea how long it takes to evict them, and no chance of any back rent owed to the landlore being paid.
Yes :)
I'm answering here for all the folk who may be in receipt of benefit through genuine hardship, that don't smoke, drink and fritter the money away and that are perfectly intelligent and sensible enough to know what their priorities are and stick to them.
These threads always seem to turn into people accusing people on benefits of being lazy, good for nothings who haven't got a brain cell between them. Yes there are folk like that and yes I do object to paying my taxes for those types but there are also thousands of people who have paid taxes all their lives and are entitled to help and don't need to be made to feel small and insignificant because they are accepting help. Oh and I also feel that yes they should be given a choice of how they want to be paid that money.
I'm not saying here Kenty that you have made anyone feel insignificant it's just the general feel I get from this thread and others like it.
Fire x
Of course
Although the usual course of action here would be to inform the landlord/agent of difficulty and then make an arrangement to catch up on the rent when the cashflow eases.A lot of people who are made redundent or lose their jobs, do not have a months rent or even two to pay, out of their own pockets.
That is true but it's not often in a couple say, that both are made redundant or lose their jobs at the same time. So a contribution at least can often be made to the rent. It's usually food and a roof over your head that take priority.
Giving some people who have no money, all that rent money could be too much of a temptation.
Some yes but by no means people with no money know what their priorities are and stick to them. (I'm not including in this people that are unable to think rationally and sensibly either through substance abuse or are very young and inexperienced. Just the normal run of the mill tenant)
As a landlord I would still rather the money be paid direct even if I had to wait those two months to start with. I will get it eventually unlike if a tenant failed to pay it themselves, have you any idea how long it takes to evict them, and no chance of any back rent owed to the landlore being paid.
Yes :)
I'm answering here for all the folk who may be in receipt of benefit through genuine hardship, that don't smoke, drink and fritter the money away and that are perfectly intelligent and sensible enough to know what their priorities are and stick to them.
These threads always seem to turn into people accusing people on benefits of being lazy, good for nothings who haven't got a brain cell between them. Yes there are folk like that and yes I do object to paying my taxes for those types but there are also thousands of people who have paid taxes all their lives and are entitled to help and don't need to be made to feel small and insignificant because they are accepting help. Oh and I also feel that yes they should be given a choice of how they want to be paid that money.
I'm not saying here Kenty that you have made anyone feel insignificant it's just the general feel I get from this thread and others like it.
Fire x
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
I don't have that perception
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
Yes I agree GnV those priorities do and will always take over. Not just for tenants but for anyone at all whether they own property or not. Lets face it, if we don't eat, we die then the rent/mortgage certainly won't get paid :)
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
Yes I agree, landlords are entitled to their rent and I also feel that tenants are entitled to the choice of how their money is paid to them. An awful lot of private landlords will not accept people on benefits. That's their choice. Are they the only ones allowed a choice? and if so..why?
Quote by Firelizard
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
I don't have that perception
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
Yes I agree GnV those priorities do and will always take over. Not just for tenants but for anyone at all whether they own property or not. Lets face it, if we don't eat, we die then the rent/mortgage certainly won't get paid :)
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
Yes I agree, landlords are entitled to their rent and I also feel that tenants are entitled to the choice of how their money is paid to them. An awful lot of private landlords will not accept people on benefits. That's their choice. Are they the only ones allowed a choice? and if so..why?
I also know Landlords who welcome if not prefer tenants on benefits because payment of the rent is more assured when paid direct.
Fire, I hope you don't think my answer to your question is too simplistic or patronising, but might it be that the housing benefit is just that - it's money voted to them from the public purse to pay the rent and not for any other purpose.
There is no choice as to whether to hand it over to the landlord or not. It is the landlord's money by right (determined by the tenant's circumstances) so its correct that it is handed over in the most effective manner possible.
The landlord is faced with no such dichotomy; it is right for the landlord alone to decide who to have as a tenant. Landlords' property is simply that and they are (usually) not in possession of it from funds given over to some other purpose.
Their investment, their choice.
Sex God
I take your point Gnv BUT..until the law comes in that says there is no choice, my preference would be to have that choice thank you. After all where will it stop? Will the child benefit I get go straight to George at Asda, as it is for clothing my children? Of course not...I have a choice
I have managed my own budget now for about 28 years and I am quite capable of continuing it for a while yet :) and I'm sure there are hundreds of folk on benefits who feel the same. Instead of the onus being on the government making sure the landlord is paid why should it not be on the landlord or his letting agent to make sure that they have the type of tenant they want in their house.
If it is paid direct to the landlord then there could be at least 10 people who then know you are on benefits, the landlord and possibly his letting agent and all their staff. When you live in a very small community where news travels ( I know it should'nt do but it does) and you may have a small business or do something that the image that you project is important it could be very damaging to you as peoples perception of benefit receivers is unfortunately usually a negative one.
I have managed my own budget now for about 28 years and I am quite capable of continuing it for a while yet :) and I'm sure there are hundreds of folk on benefits who feel the same. Instead of the onus being on the government making sure the landlord is paid why should it not be on the landlord or his letting agent to make sure that they have the type of tenant they want in their house.
If it is paid direct to the landlord then there could be at least 10 people who then know you are on benefits, the landlord and possibly his letting agent and all their staff. When you live in a very small community where news travels ( I know it should'nt do but it does) and you may have a small business or do something that the image that you project is important it could be very damaging to you as peoples perception of benefit receivers is unfortunately usually a negative one.
Quote by GnV
I'm basically with kent on this.
The real problem lies in the perception that people with property to rent must be "minted" and therefore can stand losing the rent money they are due from the tenants
Tenants' other priorities - like putting food on the table - then take over and once on the slippery slope of being able to get away with it, the landlord no longer features as important in their scheme of things.
But the fact is that landlords do play a very important role in all of this and are entitled to their rent. Removing the temptation by paying it direct is sensible.
So should my rent be paid to my landlord straight from my wages?.
The one thing that makes me wonder here is this....why would a landlord not want a tenant purely because they are on benefits?
If the landlord knows that the tenants money is going to be paid directly into his/her bank account, I as a landlord would much rather that, than someone in the private sector who I have to trust to pay their rent on time.
I would presume though that in the private sector certain things are usually done like....a deposit has to be paid which I have heard can be up to three months rent in advance. At least I suppose the landlord has some kind of comeback financially if that tenant fails to pay.
The guy I work with had a second property up until about four years ago. He rented it out to a tenant who was on benefits. The local council paid the majority of the monet direct to him and the tenant had to pay £12 a week towards his rent, directly to the landlord.
He did that for about 18 months and then stopped. He could not even pay the £12 a week. Now IF the rent money was paid direct to him I wonder how many months he would have missed paying the rent?
Not everyone is in that boat and not all people on benefits are like that either but....the simplest way of making sure that (a) the rent IS paid and (b)the tenant knowing his/her rent is paid, means they will continue to have a home. That situation seems the most simplest and easiest there is.
Why take any sort of gamble with anyone, with regards to spending the rent money, when paying it directlt would stop that from happening....full stop.
I am fully aware that some would feel they are having their freedom of choice taken away but....if it was all paid direct, then nobody would fall behind with their rents, and people would then not be evicted, and families will not suffer from that. Cannot myself see any other way of making sure everyone pays their rent.
If the landlord knows that the tenants money is going to be paid directly into his/her bank account, I as a landlord would much rather that, than someone in the private sector who I have to trust to pay their rent on time.
I would presume though that in the private sector certain things are usually done like....a deposit has to be paid which I have heard can be up to three months rent in advance. At least I suppose the landlord has some kind of comeback financially if that tenant fails to pay.
The guy I work with had a second property up until about four years ago. He rented it out to a tenant who was on benefits. The local council paid the majority of the monet direct to him and the tenant had to pay £12 a week towards his rent, directly to the landlord.
He did that for about 18 months and then stopped. He could not even pay the £12 a week. Now IF the rent money was paid direct to him I wonder how many months he would have missed paying the rent?
Not everyone is in that boat and not all people on benefits are like that either but....the simplest way of making sure that (a) the rent IS paid and (b)the tenant knowing his/her rent is paid, means they will continue to have a home. That situation seems the most simplest and easiest there is.
Why take any sort of gamble with anyone, with regards to spending the rent money, when paying it directlt would stop that from happening....full stop.
I am fully aware that some would feel they are having their freedom of choice taken away but....if it was all paid direct, then nobody would fall behind with their rents, and people would then not be evicted, and families will not suffer from that. Cannot myself see any other way of making sure everyone pays their rent.
Quote by Firelizard
I take your point Gnv BUT..until the law comes in that says there is no choice, my preference would be to have that choice thank you.
Ah, but there's the rub. The law is there that takes your choice away thanks to this Labour Government and it's social policies. All different little parcels of money mainly means tested rather than a lump sum on which you could choose how to spend.
After all where will it stop? Will the child benefit I get go straight to George at Asda, as it is for clothing my children? Of course not...I have a choice
I seem to remember that Child Benefit is now paid to the mother rather than the parents per-se so, yet another choice removed.
I have managed my own budget now for about 28 years and I am quite capable of continuing it for a while yet :) and I'm sure there are hundreds of folk on benefits who feel the same. Instead of the onus being on the government making sure the landlord is paid why should it not be on the landlord or his letting agent to make sure that they have the type of tenant they want in their house.
You'll be voting Conservative at the next election, right?
If it is paid direct to the landlord then there could be at least 10 people who then know you are on benefits, the landlord and possibly his letting agent and all their staff. When you live in a very small community where news travels ( I know it should'nt do but it does) and you may have a small business or do something that the image that you project is important it could be very damaging to you as peoples perception of benefit receivers is unfortunately usually a negative one.
Family Credit, and the whole raft of other benefits is the keystone of Brown's Britain. I really don't think it carries the same stigma as in the past to be honest and other people don't really care a flying f*ck how some people manage to pay the bills, just that they do!
