Things you want to share with P&B

[Aufc]

Housing costs aren't paid automatically to Landlord unless the UC claimant enables that option in their online account btw. 

Surely landlord can specify this is a requirement before renting said house?

[Sweet Pete]

12 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

Where there’s muck there’s brass...

 

These are all the one gaff;

Before:

 

After:

[Sweet Pete]

6 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

Surely landlord can specify this is a requirement before renting said house?

No, there's a Human Rights issue. You need to allow the tenant the responsibility to pay their own rent. Only if they agree to send it direct from UC to landlord to save hassle or to remove the possibility of spending it elsewhere can it go direct to the owner.

edit: that's why there's loads of signs plastered across Glasgow Housing Association works vans saying "put rent first". Not that I necessarily agree with the style of the message.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Sweet Pete

[Shandon Par]

22 minutes ago, Sweet Pete said:

These are all the one gaff;

Before:

 

After:

This one took a wee bit of clearing up.

 

[ICTChris]

I was on a Wikipedia click fest and found the follow bizarre snippet.  Without looking it up, can you guess which song this refers to?

[Sweet Pete]

7 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

This one took a wee bit of clearing up.

 

I'll bet.

We went to one recently that had been nailed shut from outside and the front door plastered with loads of hand scrawled notes rambling about religious stuff and anti christs. Inside was like that one. It's very sad as well as disgusting.

My colleague who worked at a council maintenance department before working with us has some truly eye popping, mind boggling, horrifying stories about the states some people live in. Think broken toilets unreported for years and massive mental health issues.

[Aufc]

No, there's a Human Rights issue. You need to allow the tenant the responsibility to pay their own rent. Only if they agree to send it direct from UC to landlord to save hassle or to remove the possibility of spending it elsewhere can it go direct to the owner.
edit: that's why there's loads of signs plastered across Glasgow Housing Association works vans saying "put rent first". Not that I necessarily agree with the style of the message.

Then it is fairly understandable why there is a hesitation for landlords to rent to UC receivers. I realise that not everyone will be the same but seems daft to have that as a human rights issue. It is a human right to have a roof over your head but hard to find sympathy if someone is getting their rent paid for but is choosing to spend said amount on something other than paying their rent.

[Sweet Pete]

7 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

Then it is fairly understandable why there is a hesitation for landlords to rent to UC receivers. I realise that not everyone will be the same but seems daft to have that as a human rights issue. It is a human right to have a roof over your head but hard to find sympathy if someone is getting their rent paid for but is choosing to spend said amount on something other than paying their rent.

Well, like everything in life there are nuances. It could be that they're very hard up financially and needed to use that money to buy food or keep the lights on. It's not always as simple as they were just tempted to spend it elsewhere.

[Aufc]

Well, like everything in life there are nuances. It could be that they're very hard up financially and needed to use that money to buy food or keep the lights on. It's not always as simple as they were just tempted to spend it elsewhere.

I genuinely dont know how that works tbh i.e. is the housing benefit the only support they get? It would seem bizarre that someone in that position would get support to pay for their rent but get nothing else. As you highlight, if that is the case then it would be no surprise that they would choose to spend the money on food etc.

[Sweet Pete]

11 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

I genuinely dont know how that works tbh i.e. is the housing benefit the only support they get? It would seem bizarre that someone in that position would get support to pay for their rent but get nothing else. As you highlight, if that is the case then it would be no surprise that they would choose to spend the money on food etc.

If you qualify for housing benefit, you're getting other benefits also.

[Aufc]

If you qualify for housing benefit, you're getting other benefits also.

So you would hope that the other benefits cover the cost of living. I really dont know. It is a shite way to live though and, sadly, the way of life for a lot of people.

[Sweet Pete]

3 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

So you would hope that the other benefits cover the cost of living. I really dont know. It is a shite way to live though and, sadly, the way of life for a lot of people.

Yeah you always hope that folk have enough to get by, but life is expensive.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

8 minutes ago, Aufc said:

So you would hope that the other benefits cover the cost of living

 

Often not. 

For example, UC - when you claim any existing income-related benefits you were on effectively stop dead, you don't get UC for 5 weeks. Now the government have decided that £411.51 per month for a single adult over 25 y/o is the minimum amount of money a person can be reasonably expected to live on re food, gas, leccy etc. Because UC has that lag of 5 weeks where the claimant is getting f**k all, they're almost always going to have to get a UC advance which is basically a loan up the usual value of their monthly UC repayable over the max of their next 12 assessment periods. 

As an example, a single adult on UC in a flat with £360 a month rent would be entitled to UC of £761.51 per month. However they've had to take an advance because obvs they need to pay rent for that 5 week period and eat etc so they take the full advance. This means that despite the government stating the minimum this person requires to live on plus rent is £761.51, they're actually going to have 12 months getting £63 less than that. That may well be just about doable, but all it takes is one moderate unexpected expense and you can easily see how things can go tits up for folk. Throw in a harsh sanctions regime and the fact that UC is often administered by clowns who don't know the regulations themselves, it's no wonder folk get into trouble so easily.

That said, the vast majority of folk on UC i deal with have automatic payments of Housing Costs enabled, just because it's easier. 

[G51]

How on earth are we still debating whether or not landlords are a good thing?

We’ll never get round to executing them at this rate.

[RH33]

2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Often not. 

For example, UC - when you claim any existing income-related benefits you were on effectively stop dead, you don't get UC for 5 weeks. Now the government have decided that £411.51 per month for a single adult over 25 y/o is the minimum amount of money a person can be reasonably expected to live on re food, gas, leccy etc. Because UC has that lag of 5 weeks where the claimant is getting f**k all, they're almost always going to have to get a UC advance which is basically a loan up the usual value of their monthly UC repayable over the max of their next 12 assessment periods. 

As an example, a single adult on UC in a flat with £360 a month rent would be entitled to UC of £761.51 per month. However they've had to take an advance because obvs they need to pay rent for that 5 week period and eat etc so they take the full advance. This means that despite the government stating the minimum this person requires to live on plus rent is £761.51, they're actually going to have 12 months getting £63 less than that. That may well be just about doable, but all it takes is one moderate unexpected expense and you can easily see how things can go tits up for folk. Throw in a harsh sanctions regime and the fact that UC is often administered by clowns who don't know the regulations themselves, it's no wonder folk get into trouble so easily.

That said, the vast majority of folk on UC i deal with have automatic payments of Housing Costs enabled, just because it's easier. 

I've managed to not have to shift over to universal credit yet. A change of bank details call lead to them realising they'd listed my son as a non dependant adult when he was 9......

[vikingTON]

On 28/04/2021 at 12:16, Aufc said:

If you have spare cash throughout your life then property is a decent investment. Plus you can then take money out etc and leverage against others etc. Depends on your wants and desires.

I just dont really understand the view point of people who have no interest in doing something but will happily slate people who wish to do said something without being an arsehole

[Melanius Mullarkey]

The wife used to work for SAMH before she opted for a full time career on the fags so can confirm a number of these stories. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I've managed to not have to shift over to universal credit yet. A change of bank details call lead to them realising they'd listed my son as a non dependant adult when he was 9......

That's above and beyond their standard level of uselessness tbh. I hate dealing with their advisors because they are generally rubbish and don't understand their own explicit consent rules. I'm currently trying to get them to understand why an advance should be written off in a bankruptcy and it is akin to teaching a Labrador mandarin [emoji23]

[NotThePars]

5 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

A country (such as ours) in which middle class people are incentivised to invest in rental property as opposed to actually productive sectors of the economy has got something badly wrong even before you get to the morality of profiting off of others' need for shelter in a power dynamic that exists purely because one of you has capital and the other does not. 

It is not acceptable for the ~15% of this country that lives in the private rented sector to be dependent for housing on at best well meaning amateur investors, and at worst outright shysters.

The absolute best experience I've had with a landlord has been that nothing's went wrong so they were a non-existent factor. Letting agents, if anything, are even worse. Primed to take money off of you and will do as much as they can to hold out on providing repairs but will appear at the drop of a hat if they require something. It's at the point where if anyone asks for me for advice on who to let with I tell them to go for the incompetent letting agencies because at least they will f**k up and you can get what you're due back. My ex rented with someone for example who charged bogus fees for things like references but they were dumb enough to take a card payment so the paper trail was there.

The best thing I can say is that these agencies are unaware there's a human being that they're fucking over but I know they know that. They just don't care.

It was great tho when my crap letting agent from when I lived in the city centre appeared in my last job for not paying a speeding fine and was being hauled to the court. Turns out he doesn't respond to the fuzz either!

Edited April 29, 2021 by NotThePars

[NotThePars]

There was a really good thread on Twitter thread a while back where someone asked "how often have you got your deposit back and have you ever moved into a flat which was fully clean?"

Just really illuminating.