Benefit Caps: Good, bad or indifferent?

[Zoe]

Which surely is an argument for a benefits cap

And leave people homeless?

 

[SS4]

Which surely is an argument for a benefits cap

A cap on what you pay private landlords not overall. For the record I have no objection to a cap as long as suitable exceptions are made

 

[WestCoast]

Next you'll be saying because they don't pay NI they don't deserve the NHS, Free prescriptions, opticians and dentistry along with all the other passported benefits :roll:

Hold on a minute, many people who are paying NI incur charges for dental care, prescriptions and the opticians.

 

[table38]

And leave people homeless?

Not at all, councils would still have a statutory duty.

What it would do is to stop the private sector cashing in by charging whatever they want.

 

[Zoe]

As for the minimum wage, if most of your income ends up going on rent then you are not going to have much left over to pay the bills. In private housing there seems to be more demand than supply so the landlords can get away with charging high rents. If there was a cap on what the private landlords could charge then living on the minimum wage would be easier.

 

[Nym]

It may well have been that in your case you were lucky. I know of people that have applied for many jobs as required to do by the Job Centre but not got an offer from any of them.

Luck. Like it or not your experience is contrary to the prevailing circumstances.

I can tell you for free it wasn't luck, and you're required to apply for two jobs per week, I was applying for about 25 - 30 jobs per week and spending about 3 hours per day job hunting, it wasn't luck at all, it was bloody hard work!

Oh, and as a PS, I have never, ever, gotten a job from an advertisement at the Job Centre... I have been refereed to an employer that got me a job, once, but I wasn't on JSA at the time.

And it's contrary to prevailing circumstances because I work in a way that is contrary to these circumstances, I got an offer on average for every 30th job I applied for...

 

[Zoe]

What it would do is to stop the private sector cashing in by charging whatever they want.

The issue with that is that the private landlords could just stop providing accomodation for the council as they could make my money by renting to private tenants.

 

[Nym]

Hold on a minute, many people who are paying NI incur charges for dental care, prescriptions and the opticians.

I know I bloody well don't...

 

[SS4]

Hold on a minute, many people who are paying NI incur charges for dental care, prescriptions and the opticians.

Really it should be free for all but there is still help for low incomes and those others can afford it. Of course it mightn't work like that.
In general though parliament defines means tested benefits are the minimum amount needed to live on so it needs to be provided. Perhaps a small extra payment on benefits to cover it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can tell you for free it wasn't luck, and you're required to apply for two jobs per week, I was applying for about 25 - 30 jobs per week and spending about 3 hours per day job hunting, it wasn't luck at all, it was bloody hard work!

Oh, and as a PS, I have never, ever, gotten a job from an advertisement at the Job Centre... I have been refereed to an employer that got me a job, once, but I wasn't on JSA at the time.

And it's contrary to prevailing circumstances because I work in a way that is contrary to these circumstances, I got an offer on average for every 30th job I applied for...

Bully for you, it's still luck though. Do you really think you're the only person who's done that?

 

[Nym]

The other people who did where sat in the call centre next to me, the jobs where there, if I could apply for 30 a week, there where plenty out there!

 

[table38]

The issue with that is that the private landlords could just stop providing accomodation for the council as they could make my money by renting to private tenants.

That seems to be rather at odds with your previous assertion that:

If you are on benefits you can't be that selective about where you live. It can be lucky to even find a landlord that will rent to anyone claiming benefits.

 

[WestCoast]

I know I bloody well don't...

Yes, but in England (note this!) many people are effectively paying twice if one considers that the NHS should cover these things through NI.

Mind you, some people in this country are mightily surprised to hear that some people have to pay GP Fees in the Republic of Ireland!

 

[Zoe]

That seems to be rather at odds with your previous assertion that:

I was referring to private landlords refusing to rent to private tenants that were claiming benefits. Not landlords that make private accomodation available as emergency accomodation for the council.

 

[table38]

I was referring to private landlords refusing to rent to private tenants that were claiming benefits. Not landlords that make private accomodation available as emergency accomodation for the council.

I can't see the difference. The emergency accomodation still needs to be paid out of the benefits system.

 

[Zoe]

I can't see the difference. The emergency accomodation still needs to be paid out of the benefits system.

The difference is that these private landlords currently provide emergency accomidation for the council so would I expect have an agreement with the council to do this. In some cases this emergency accomodation is simply Bed and Breakfast accomodation which isn't something that private tenants are usually going to be looking for. Most private landlords however are not in the business of providing emergency accomodation and do not have any agreements with the council to do this and simply refuse to rent to tenants claiming benefits.

 

[SS4]

I can't see the difference. The emergency accomodation still needs to be paid out of the benefits system.

I believe, but I may well be wrong, that emergency accommodation charge more than regular accommodation presumably either because they can or because they need to be on call as it were.

 

[table38]

As I understand it, a lot of emergency accomodation is shared rooms in hostels and B&Bs so might actually be cheaper.

 

[Zoe]

I believe, but I may well be wrong, that emergency accommodation charge more than regular accommodation presumably either because they can or because they need to be on call as it were.

For private tenants, housing benefit or local housing allowance as it is these days is limited to the 30th percentile of the market rent regardless of what the actual rent is. If you are under 35 it is further limited to a single room in a shared house. In many cases the full rent won't be covered by local housing allowance and the landlord won't have a guarantee that they will be getting all their rent.

 

[alanf]

The question here is what the necesseties of life are. Cars, cellphones, televisions and computers would not be considered essential.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course these are essential the chavs need cars to collect there drugs or a mobile to ring a taxi to go to Tesco and back a TV to look for family and friends on Jeremy Kyle and a computer to talk to friends on Facebook incase there mobile isnt a top model

 

[table38]

Most private landlords however are not in the business of providing emergency accomodation and do not have any agreements with the council to do this and simply refuse to rent to tenants claiming benefits.

I disagree, most of the problems are caused by the private landlords who do "rent to tenants claiming benefits", knowing that they can charge what they want because there is no cap.

 

[Zoe]

I disagree, most of the problems are caused by the private landlords who do "rent to tenants claiming benefits", knowing that they can charge what they want because there is no cap.

Landlords that rent to private tenants want all their rent and housing benefit doesn't always cover this. Unless you are going to cap the rent charged by all private landlords regardless of if the tenants are on benefits or not, this will not change. Why should a landlord rent to someone on benefits when they can make more money by only renting to working tenants?

 

[SS4]

I disagree, most of the problems are caused by the private landlords who do "rent to tenants claiming benefits", knowing that they can charge what they want because there is no cap.

Agreed but I'm not sure exactly how putting a cap on the claimant's entitlement will force these rents down. A cap on how much private landlords could charge for a given property (say no more than the median for a property in that area) would surely be more sensible.


A computer and a mobile are essentials when looking for a job now. Online-only tariffs are becoming increasingly common with a penalty for not using them and a mobile for making calls for jobs, whether to an employer or to family.

What is perverse is that those with prepaid electricity (and gas?) end up paying more for the privilege of not running up bills they cannot afford.

 

[Zoe]

Agreed but I'm not sure exactly how putting a cap on the claimant's entitlement will force these rents down. A cap on how much private landlords could charge for a given property (say no more than the median for a property in that area) would surely be more sensible.

But if housing beneift is only going to cover the 30th percentile of market rents and for under 35s is restricted to a single room in a shared house then it will most likely always be better for landlords to rent to working tenants.

 

[SS4]

But if housing beneift is only going to cover the 30th percentile of market rents and for under 35s is restricted to a single room in a shared house then it will most likely always be better for landlords to rent to working tenants.

Yep. Ageism in the benefits system is here to stay unfortunately.

 

[Nym]

It's under 25 for LHA as apposed to Housing Benifit...

And you have a 12 week gaurentee period regardless of your rent...

But cheap housing is damn near impossible to come by nowadays, thanks to a shortage of affordable housing, it's now cheaper to get a 2 bed house than a 1 bed flat!

See what you can get as a 23 year old for benifits, trust me, it isn't much!

 

[Zoe]

It's under 25 for LHA as apposed to Housing Benifit...

Not now, it changed to 35 this month and yes it is Local Housing Allowance, not quite sure why I said Housing Benefit.

 

[Nym]

Oh joy, so now under 35s can't have houses, or families...

 

[table38]

I didn't say this was not the problem. What I am saying is that most private landlords are not in the business of providing emergency accomodation for the councils. Landlords the rent to private tenants want all their rent and housing benefit doesn't always cover this. Unless you are going to cap the rent charged by all private landlords regardless of if the tenants are on benefits or not, this will not change. Why should a landlord rent to someone on benefits when they can make more money by only renting to working tenants?

No, you aren't making sense at all now (although it doesn't help that you keep going back and editing your posts while I am trying to reply ).

If housing benefit doesn't always cover this and they can make more money by only renting to working tenants then why is anyone renting to people on benefits at all?

The answer is, that they can make a killing because they can pretty much charge what they want because there is no benefits cap.

 

[Zoe]

Oh joy, so now under 35s can't have houses, or families...

You can, the shared accomodation rate only applies if you are single.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The answer is, that they can make a killing because they can pretty much charge what they want because there is no benefits cap.

Not correct, there is a benefits cap for private tenants. It's the 30th percentile of the market rent or the shared accomodation rate if you are under 35 and single. Landlords can make more money by only renting to working tenants and so many won't rent to tenants claiming benefits. Further restricting benefits is not going to help here, all it will do is make landlords even less likely to rent to anyone on benefits as they are less likely to get all of their rent.

 

[SS4]

You can, the shared accomodation rate only applies if you are single.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not correct, there is a benefits cap for private tenants. It's the 30th percentile of the market rent or the shared accomodation rate if you are under 35 and single.

Not really, means tested benefits are the minimum you need to live on (as defined by Parliament no less) and it follows if you get shared rate then you can't have a house since you'd be unable to afford it.