Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Welshie View Post
    You probably think homelessness in the UK is a myth or the person is just lazy.
    a) Clearly you have not considered what I wrote.
    b) I am about as far from being "Far Right" as you can imagine. In fact I have spent most of my life dealing with problems of fascist extremism (much of which is exhibited by the "far left"). But you can define words to mean what you want them to mean, and make as many assumptions as you like. The fact remains that 99% of the world's poor would be disgusted by your assertion that your example is of someone in "poverty" stricken or otherwise -- and it is a disgusting word to apply to your example given actual poverty.

    Comment


      #62
      Again, didn't use that as an example of extreme poverty. But keep on with your rhetoric if it makes you happy. That example, had everything to do with the fact that Housing Benefit can be paid to full time working people and nothing to do with poverty. The fact that someone would need to claim with that, just goes to show the issues in this country.

      Most of the world (me included) would be disgusted to think that you think someone with 30k in cash is considered extreme poverty.

      I did consider what you wrote and your attitude that people shouldn't be claiming housing benefit, they should get a job and stop being lazy just goes to show the attitude you have.

      1.6m people using a food bank last year and there is probably a lot more people in poverty that haven't used them. Your daily mail attitude that these people are just lazy doesn't help. There are people in this country, in many country's, struggling to earn a living wage, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to feed themselves and their kids. And no, my example given in addition to your 2 examples is not one of them.

      I think I understand the problem though. I was discussing 2 separate issues in one post, quoting 2 of your posts in the same post. You weren't able to distinguish between 2 separate talking points. Next time, I'll do 2 separate posts so you can grasp the concept of what I'm trying to get across.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Welshie View Post
        Most of the world (me included) would be disgusted to think that you think someone with 30k in cash is considered extreme poverty.
        Eh... Now this is just getting silly (and unintelligible).

        Comment


          #64
          Seems to me that if nurses and other 'lowly' staffers in the NHS have to rely on HB to pay their rent because their wages are too low, it's a daft thing! After all, both their wages, and the HB they claim, come from the taxpayer. So why not just pay them sufficiently to be able to afford their housing costs without HB...

          I know the answer of course - 'not my budget' will claim the various state-paid entities involved....

          But to the ultimate payer - ie, the taxpayer - it really doesn't matter whether the money such employees need comes from their wages, or their HB. The bill is the same to us.

          Comment


            #65
            it's an interesting point about why all the 'new unemployed' aren't rushing to the fruit and veg farms to pick the crops that are unpicked right now. I did read various reports that farms are now 'over-subscribed' by such eager recruits, and, conversely, that they aren't - and that crop picking is an arduous and exhausting job (which I'm sure it is).

            Surely the only reason foreigners come to pick them is that (a) they are grateful for any job at all however hard or badly paid, because 'at home' their prospects are worse and (b) it's actually NOT as badly paid for foreigners as it would be for UK citizens because of labour arbitrage - ie, that wages here, however low, stretch further in low cost countries where they live (lots of tails about Polish cleaners building up portfolios of property back home where it's nice and cheap, etc)

            Whether (a) is 'justifiable' I'm not sure, but I guess (b) is justifiable. In reverse, Brits do this when they become expats in the Gulf or whatever, earning pots of money they then bring back to the UK to have a better quality of life than they could on British salaries.

            If (a) IS justifiable, then I guess using the new unemployed to replace foreign fruit/veg pickers is OK ,even if it's hard work and poor wages??????

            Or, of course, one could just let market forces adjust wages, and pay them more to recruit them more eagerly, and then we pay more for fruit and veg. (But, ironically, considering obesity is one of the key factors in Covid mortality, maybe expensive food is no bad thing??!) (sadly, the fruit and veg are probably the healthiest of our intake.)

            Comment


              #66
              Because the cost of living varies across global economies, can we ever put pound/dollar signs around 'absolute poverty'?/

              I do agree that most of the western world is 'spoilt', and that we, however 'poor' enjoy a standard of living, a state safety net, that even our own ancestors would envy us for, let alone the 'global poor'.....

              It also raises the ever-thorny 'Victorian' issue of the 'deserving and non-deserving' poor! Plus, and I'm sure economists have a name for this, but I don't know what it is, when 'the poor' spend their scarce money on things they 'shouldn't. In Victorian times it was booze (tsk tsk tsk) and maybe these days its Sky Telly or whatever. Both are 'unnecessary', but condemnation fails to take into account the principle that we spend any 'surplus' on ways that bring most pleasure, and are most attainable.

              I sometimes think that, if the same principle were applied to the middle classes, we would be berated for wasting out money on things like holidays, haircuts and buying stuff from John Lewis, when we should be practising assiduous capital accumulation so as - eventually! - to be able to afford, say, a light aircraft, or a yacht. These things are SO unattainable to us, that we'd rather 'squander' our surplus on 'rubbish goodies' etc etc.

              Comment


                #67
                The fruit picking discussion is complicated by accommodation.

                If you are prepared to move to a different (and possibly unwelcome) country to earn money to pick fruit and veg, living collectively in a hostel for several months has plusses as well as minuses.
                And it's part of the overall package.

                Moreover, these jobs move about - the fruit and veg pickers are something else somewhere else for different times of the year, so it's normal.

                If you're moving from elsewhere in the UK, you get all the negatives of living in a hostel and there are fewer positives.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                  I sometimes think that, if the same principle were applied to the middle classes, we would be berated for wasting out money on things like holidays, haircuts and buying stuff from John Lewis, when we should be practising assiduous capital accumulation so as - eventually! - to be able to afford, say, a light aircraft, or a yacht. These things are SO unattainable to us, that we'd rather 'squander' our surplus on 'rubbish goodies' etc etc.
                  I don't get this point. A light aircraft or a yacht (unless used for investment, which I don't think was intended here) is an non-essential luxury item. I don't see why people would be criticised for buying consumer goods / services and foregoing the opportunity to potentially buy luxury big-ticket items at some point in the future.
                  There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    I was trying to find a way of showing how, for the middle classes (however they're defined!), the aim of, one day, owning their own home is regarded as 'achievable', and that to achieve it, some sacrifice of indulging in 'goodies' like holidays or haircuts or meals out, etc, is considered 'worth it'.

                    Whereas for the working class (again, however they are defined), the whole idea of 'one fine day' owning their own home is seen as SO unachievable, it would be like the middle classes aspiring hopelessly to own a luxury yacht..

                    I, as a middle class person (!) wouldn't 'waste' my life scraping money to buy a yacht - it's just too 'far off', and I can understand, in that respect, why a 'working class' person could feel the same way about aiming to own their own home.

                    I'm sure economists have a term for it (and probably an equation!)....the point at which something becomes SO expensive relative to income that one just doesn't both trying to accumulate the necessary capital, and just blows it on 'goodies' instead.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                      Seems to me that if nurses and other 'lowly' staffers in the NHS have to rely on HB to pay their rent because their wages are too low, it's a daft thing! After all, both their wages, and the HB they claim, come from the taxpayer. So why not just pay them sufficiently to be able to afford their housing costs without HB...

                      I know the answer of course - 'not my budget' will claim the various state-paid entities involved....

                      But to the ultimate payer - ie, the taxpayer - it really doesn't matter whether the money such employees need comes from their wages, or their HB. The bill is the same to us.
                      These same NHS staff, and other low paid staff, who receive housing benefit are also the same people who many landlords won’t rent to because they receive housing benefit. Many people who care for society, which includes people who have studied for years to provide that care, earn a low wage, and therefore receive housing benefit and can’t find a landlord willing to rent to them. My daughter is one of these people. She paid for her university education for 5 years to care for society, but the housing benefit she needs to claim in order to meet the market rates in rent cause her to be turned away.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Unless there is a remarkable, probably unenforceable, clause in tenancy, the tenant does not have agree to any viewing for the benefit of someone wanting to buy. It is tenant's home, tenant's property....

                        Or did I misunderstand?

                        Cheers all!
                        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                          Isn't yet another negative against DSS tenants a point raised in another thread about evicting a DSS tenant for non-payment of rent, and the comment was that the Housing Officer specifically told the landlord that he'd have to go all the way to bailiffs before his tenants were rehoused.
                          Local authorities advise all tenants wishing to get social housing to hang on to the bitter end, not just those in receipt of benefits, because there is a chronic shortage of social housing. Thankfully Scotland and Wales have stopped Right to Buy whereas England is ramping up its sell off of social housing as those in Housing Association properties now have the Right to Acquire.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post

                            Several contributors make some good points. But I am asking why each DSS claimant cannot be looked at individually rather than having a blanket refusal to take anyone claiming benefits. If a prospective tenant has excellent references, is willing to pay more than one month rent in advance, has a part time job where the wage earned is only lower than their true earning potential because they have young kids, therefore is entitled to benefits, and has a reputable guarantor, what would be the reason to reject this prospective tenant?
                            DSS is not something could be claimed, it was not a type of benefit, it was a government department that has not existed for over 20 years. Your daughter is in receipt of universal credit. I could look at her as an individual although I suspect she would not pass affordability as the Local Housing Allowance is quite a bit less than what I can let the property for.

                            Futhermore, the terms of some mortgages and landlord insurance prohibit the letting of property to those in receipt of certain types of benefits.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Zeebie View Post
                              We are viewing a flat next week. Currently tenant is mother and child who is in receipt of UC and not working. She has a guarantor. Flat has been on market 20 months. Couple of offers that fell through. The current owner took her on then put flat on market and felt guilty by doing so. She is not good at responding to estate agents calls and taken 2 weeks to get a viewing ( tied in with inspection that is due)
                              I should add her child has medical condition but I do not know what this is. Question is..should I walk away -no experience with benefit tenants. My other 3 properties are employed families.
                              I would walk away purely on the basis that I would prefer to buy a property with no tenant versus any tenant. It is all too easy for the current landlord to have fluffed up the paperwork or not protected the deposit correctly/on time which would then become your problem. A lot of landlords seem to fluff up setting up a legally binding guarantee too so when it comes to the crunch the “guarantor” can tell you to swivel.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Lizbeth,

                                Do the “new unemployed” live near these fruit farms? Would they have to give up their current homes to try and move closer to the fruit farms? How easy would that be for them to do given some of what has been discussed on this thread? Would the money received from fruit picking be more or less than what is received in unemployment benefits? What happens when the fruit picking season is over?

                                To give a real life example, my brother lost his job. Put in a claim for universal benefit whilst looking for a new job. The claim took ages and thankfully my brother has family who can help him pay his rent whilst he was waiting for the UC tap to be turned on. After a couple of months without work he applied for a seasonal Christmas job. UC tap was very quickly turned off. Once the seasonal work was over it took a very long time for the UC tap to be turned back on. Again my brother, thankfully has family who can help him out so that he doesn’t fall into arrears and can still eat. Not everyone has the luxury of having family who can help out so I can understand why people aren’t rushing out to do seasonal work. I’m interested in the Universal Basic Income schemes that have been ran in countries like Finland and the Netherlands that would make it easier and less risky for people to pick up seasonal work.

                                As for your comments about obesity, making nutritional food more expensive is not going to help fight obesity. No one is getting obese from eating too many strawberries. The poverty-obesity paradox is more to do with the easy availability and low cost of highly processed foods containing 'empty calories' and no nutritional value. If any foods should become more expensive it is those.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X