Sign in to follow this  
Ride_on

Housing Benefit Cut

Recommended Posts

The only point I was making was that official statistical rents may hide the greed of landlords who ask for more than HB (or the official 'going rate'). An increased interest in renting allows them to exploit the most vulnerable, by definition.

whether they deserve benefits or not or can live comfortably on them is an argument for another day and which is thrashed ad nauseum on the main board and the letter pages of the daily mail and telegraph.

Not disagreeing with anything you are saying. I get it big time.

and the minister is putting it up to landlords - in effect love it or shove it.

Asking for extra when engaging with HB tennants is how LLs may try to bend this, but it should be made illegal (IMO) as a condition of receiving HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will never change my views on this matter based on what I have seen".

No point in challenging any point your making then.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in challenging any point your making then.

Good luck.

No point I suppose if your sole objective of posting is to change my views ... however I doubt that would be the case. Debate is always welcome on a public forum.

My memory is not the best but I vaguely remember posts in the past on a similar issue that boasted about the rental yields on Housing Benefit properties in Ballymena, perhaps you can recall them yourself. I'm sure that in these cases the landlord doesnt charge the maximum they can achieve under the housing benefit scheme ... and maybe some on top. ;)

From the LL's perspective ... and a business perspective who wouldn't charge the maximum they can. That issue itself doesnt bother me ... its the side effect it causes to those who are not entitled to claim it in regards to the high rents they have to pay for similar properties and higher house prices. It appears to be the case that HB entitlement (£'s) increased with higher house prices/rents during the boom but has not decreased with the decline in both.

If and when HB gets reduced, the knock on effect will be reduced rents, possible firesales of invesment properties/portfolios and lower house prices ... IMO of course. These points have been made time and time again on the forum so there is nothing new here ... however it does surprise me how some appear to be blind to this issue. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HB underpinning capital value was exactly the point I was making, my evidence is the non-linear relationship of rents to prices as the price increase, not whether more money is paid to private sector or not. I am assuming that most HB (private and public) goes to houses in the bottom end of the market.

As to Tinbin rant :) I have also heard how DHSS people know some claimants are 'expert claimants' but there is nothing they can do in the current systems. You need evidence and there is no or little money to do that. The real problem is lack of checks during the claims process, which does cost money, but if you don't do it gradually more and more people will learn how to extract every benefit available.

At the end of the day it is more expensive to use public money for something that isn't subject to competition, paid to the private sector. Prices will adjust to the available money, benefits in this case.

HB only increased to encourage the private sector, so LL could buy and have someone pay the mortgage. In the old days you would have to wait 5 years or more before you started making a yield atall, hence most LL were long established ones. I think it would have been fairer to take longer over the introduction.

In case anyone thinks benefits are not really a big cost... pretty much all of our personal taxes goes on paying it, and that's across the UK, probably more negative in NI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point I was making was that official statistical rents may hide the greed of landlords who ask for more than HB (or the official 'going rate'). An increased interest in renting allows them to exploit the most vulnerable, by definition.

whether they deserve benefits or not or can live comfortably on them is an argument for another day and which is thrashed ad nauseum on the main board and the letter pages of the daily mail and telegraph.

Not disagreeing with anything you are saying. I get it big time.

and the minister is putting it up to landlords - in effect love it or shove it.

Asking for extra when engaging with HB tennants is how LLs may try to bend this, but it should be made illegal (IMO) as a condition of receiving HB.

I think you are missing the point.

A LL puts a property for rent and asks, say £500 per month because thats what similar houses are getting in the area. Rent may have went up over the years but only a small amount so there is a goon chance that's what, or slightly above what it has been for the last four or five years.

Someone approaches and offers to take the house. They are in receipt of benefits and the LL agrees to take them on (usually on the condition they have this paid directly to the LL)the rest has to be made up by the tenant. This is quite common. I don’t see why this should be considered or could be considered illegal. If that person works part time, or has a partner that works they may only be in receipt of partial benefits.

The HA themselves often charge a rate that is in excess of the benefits.

The question is what will happen if the benefits is cut by say £40 and the amount the tenant is expected to make up increases by £40. I can imagine this being quite impossible for some and, as the minister states will have to be swallowed by the LL, the HA and the HE itself (although the HE charge a lower rent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point.

A LL puts a property for rent and asks, say £500 per month because thats what similar houses are getting in the area. Rent may have went up over the years but only a small amount so there is a goon chance that's what, or slightly above what it has been for the last four or five years.

Someone approaches and offers to take the house. They are in receipt of benefits and the LL agrees to take them on (usually on the condition they have this paid directly to the LL)the rest has to be made up by the tenant. This is quite common. I don’t see why this should be considered or could be considered illegal. If that person works part time, or has a partner that works they may only be in receipt of partial benefits.

The HA themselves often charge a rate that is in excess of the benefits.

The question is what will happen if the benefits is cut by say £40 and the amount the tenant is expected to make up increases by £40. I can imagine this being quite impossible for some and, as the minister states will have to be swallowed by the LL, the HA and the HE itself (although the HE charge a lower rent)

I can't work out the point you're trying to make here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.