if you are on any benefit and have a mortgage the DWP are stopping paying your mortgage interest

98
Found 23rd Dec 2017
Had a tough day today, 4 days before Christmas a woman got a letter from the DWP telling her that from April the DWP will no longer pay £80 per month towards the interest on her mortgage (interest is £115 per month)

If you are in rented accommodation you are fine they will pay your rent, so if she sells her home, rents a room she can claim up to £400 per month in rent!!!
Community Updates
MiscFinance & Utilities
Top comments
Yet the uk sends child benefit for 34000 children living abroad at a cost of £30m , and 12000 children are being supported abroad by tax credit . In 2015 we paid £17m in compensation to criminals booted out of the UK , delayed because of admin errors and if they were entitled to benefits while here , delays causing back payments had to be sent to them back home, after we had paid on average £9000 to deport them also of course. The U.K. Spends over £1m a week on deporting criminals.
But £80 a month to support a sick 59 year old woman is not acceptable .. It's totally unacceptable .
SMI is being replaced by a loan system - you can still get the same amount of help towards your mortgage, but you'll have to pay it back if the property is sold. Personally, I don't think the change is that bad - the scheme is intended to help you keep your home during a period of hardship, not buy your house for you.
And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the benefits too. And you can't get a council house because they have sold all of those. Surely it makes more sense to pay her £80 a month than to pay £400 in rent.
I'm affraid this is what you get when you vote Tory, SMI has been quietly dismantled, its not just her the whole thing is gone in April 2018 replaced by a "loan" service, you don't have to pay anything the government just very slowly owns more and more of your house the longer you are on benefits.

debtcamel.co.uk/smi…ge/
98 Comments
the woman is 59 and has health issues
They should pay all of your mortgage interest, to me that's just like paying someones rent.
Is it because she had extra bedrooms? For example if you are an underoccupier (a single person in a two or more bedrooms house) they will only pay rent on a one bedroom house. If you are paying £30 a week extra over a one bed house, they will penalise you up to that £30 (usually much less).
This is to try and free up social housing for larger families.
It may be something to do with that, even though she owns the house, if it is being paid for by benefits it would make sense.
That doesn't mean I don't sympathise, I do, but I can see the logic in that.
I just can not work out their thinking on this one, is the next step to do the same with rent? they will lend you the rent and charge interest?

I have not heard anything about it till today, I thought she must have it wrong but have seen the letter

The DWP did give some "helpful advice"

1 sell your home

2 use your savings to pay the mortgage

3 liquidate your assets / investments

4 ask your family and friends to pay your mortgage

pmsl has anyone in this govenment even met a poor person
And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the benefits too. And you can't get a council house because they have sold all of those. Surely it makes more sense to pay her £80 a month than to pay £400 in rent.
miles1361 h, 12 m ago

I just can not work out their thinking on this one, is the next step to do …I just can not work out their thinking on this one, is the next step to do the same with rent? they will lend you the rent and charge interest?I have not heard anything about it till today, I thought she must have it wrong but have seen the letterThe DWP did give some "helpful advice"1 sell your home2 use your savings to pay the mortgage3 liquidate your assets / investments4 ask your family and friends to pay your mortgage pmsl has anyone in this govenment even met a poor person


In the following the meaning of "you" means the entire population.

I suspect the difference is who gains from the asset. If you rent, the asset is owned by the landlord. If you mortgage, you own the asset. But this reason does not explain for the bizarre twist which I shall explain.

A bizarre situation is buy-to-let which makes it even more unfair. If you rent, the benefit pays your rent which goes to pay landlord's mortgage and s/he gains from the asset.

The true bizarre twist is then what does the government do with all the paid civil servants, infrastructure, system for you if they don't take the risks in mortgage as well as rent for the entire population in case they fall on bad times since you pay taxes collectively to them to spread your unemployment risk in the population? They may as well close that part of government and not collect your taxes.

Suppose there is no government, in both rent or mortgage scenario, with you in the population of people which may fall into hard times, and you are chipping in taxes to support a giant government apparatus, instead of this you pay into an insurance company to insure for hard times. Then for the insurance premiums that you pay in, they spread the risks and then pay you during your hard times. So on this analysis, if the government doesn't "insure" your risk, be may it rent or mortgage, then they may as well close down and not collect your taxes as the notional element of insurance premiums.

A part of government exists to spread risks for the people, if they didn't want to do this, they should terminate this entire service so that we insure for our own risks. Otherwise we employ government types people or equivalent agencies for no purpose in the reduction of our own risks.

A further bizarre twist is if I ran an insurance company, with a percentage of risk of paying out , then if I found out by business profit calculation that I could house people fallen on hard times cheaper by provision of my own housing stock instead of paying out to landlords, then I buy assets or build houses to increase my profits. This part of my insurance business is then called social housing. Does this sound familiar ?! But of course a government doing this is supposed to be cheaper because it makes no profit.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
psychobitchfromhell39 m ago

And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the …And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the benefits too. And you can't get a council house because they have sold all of those. Surely it makes more sense to pay her £80 a month than to pay £400 in rent.


Your explanation is sound, please read my long comment above to see why this scenario leads to a bizarre twist.
I'm affraid this is what you get when you vote Tory, SMI has been quietly dismantled, its not just her the whole thing is gone in April 2018 replaced by a "loan" service, you don't have to pay anything the government just very slowly owns more and more of your house the longer you are on benefits.

debtcamel.co.uk/smi…ge/
splender21 m ago

Your explanation is sound, please read my long comment above to see why …Your explanation is sound, please read my long comment above to see why this scenario leads to a bizarre twist.


I read it. Seems there aren't people any more, there are risk factors
psychobitchfromhell1 h, 13 m ago

And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the …And if she sells the house and there is equity, they will curtail the benefits too. And you can't get a council house because they have sold all of those. Surely it makes more sense to pay her £80 a month than to pay £400 in rent.


Selling her home will make her intentionally homeless, you can't get on a council housing list or HA list if you've made yourself intentionally homeless, if she had no money selling she would have to be put into emergency accommodation by the council for the amount of time that the banning wears out, in my borough its 3 years. If she gets money from tne sale she will have to rent, in my borough to get housing benefit you can't have more then 16k in savings, for other benefits the threshold is less.

So they really want her to sell her home because she is no longer a productive worker unit, live in a private rental until the money dries up then go cap in hand to see if by then theres even a benefits system to help her. On the plus side shes 59 now and councils have to prioritise providing a roof over the heads of those under 16 and over 65 if they are homeless on the streets.

As she is sick and 59 I'm sure the expectation is that people like that will just die before they have to present themselves at the benefits offices
Edited by: "Segata-Sanshiro" 23rd Dec 2017
Seems common sense is out of the window .
This is why so many people are homeless costs more in the long run to put people into hostels .
It is a crime to get sick now .
Last year I found out one of my friends was living on water and toast because she wanted to keep a roof over her head .
MPS don't think twice about spending £80 on expenses for one breakfast
splender3 h, 49 m ago

In the following the meaning of "you" means the entire population. I …In the following the meaning of "you" means the entire population. I suspect the difference is who gains from the asset. If you rent, the asset is owned by the landlord. If you mortgage, you own the asset. But this reason does not explain for the bizarre twist which I shall explain.A bizarre situation is buy-to-let which makes it even more unfair. If you rent, the benefit pays your rent which goes to pay landlord's mortgage and s/he gains from the asset.The true bizarre twist is then what does the government do with all the paid civil servants, infrastructure, system for you if they don't take the risks in mortgage as well as rent for the entire population in case they fall on bad times since you pay taxes collectively to them to spread your unemployment risk in the population? They may as well close that part of government and not collect your taxes.Suppose there is no government, in both rent or mortgage scenario, with you in the population of people which may fall into hard times, and you are chipping in taxes to support a giant government apparatus, instead of this you pay into an insurance company to insure for hard times. Then for the insurance premiums that you pay in, they spread the risks and then pay you during your hard times. So on this analysis, if the government doesn't "insure" your risk, be may it rent or mortgage, then they may as well close down and not collect your taxes as the notional element of insurance premiums. A part of government exists to spread risks for the people, if they didn't want to do this, they should terminate this entire service so that we insure for our own risks. Otherwise we employ government types people or equivalent agencies for no purpose in the reduction of our own risks.A further bizarre twist is if I ran an insurance company, with a percentage of risk of paying out , then if I found out by business profit calculation that I could house people fallen on hard times cheaper by provision of my own housing stock instead of paying out to landlords, then I buy assets or build houses to increase my profits. This part of my insurance business is then called social housing. Does this sound familiar ?! But of course a government doing this is supposed to be cheaper because it makes no profit.


Agree to a point but that theory seems to be based on the social housing only being used while someone is going through hard times. The reality has always been with social housing that once people are in them they are not expected to move on when circumstances change. If we moved people out when they found they had extra money for whatever reason the model would be a lot more cost effective?
Yet the uk sends child benefit for 34000 children living abroad at a cost of £30m , and 12000 children are being supported abroad by tax credit . In 2015 we paid £17m in compensation to criminals booted out of the UK , delayed because of admin errors and if they were entitled to benefits while here , delays causing back payments had to be sent to them back home, after we had paid on average £9000 to deport them also of course. The U.K. Spends over £1m a week on deporting criminals.
But £80 a month to support a sick 59 year old woman is not acceptable .. It's totally unacceptable .
SMI is being replaced by a loan system - you can still get the same amount of help towards your mortgage, but you'll have to pay it back if the property is sold. Personally, I don't think the change is that bad - the scheme is intended to help you keep your home during a period of hardship, not buy your house for you.
ljshooter57 m ago

Agree to a point but that theory seems to be based on the social housing …Agree to a point but that theory seems to be based on the social housing only being used while someone is going through hard times. The reality has always been with social housing that once people are in them they are not expected to move on when circumstances change. If we moved people out when they found they had extra money for whatever reason the model would be a lot more cost effective?


I have two points in my long note , one is payment of rent and mortgage, one is buffer housing as a longer term structural solution. Both points are founded that if you collected incomes, be it tax or insurance premium, you have to perform irrespective of whether person who paid is renter or mortgagor as everyone is a contributor to a pot of risks relief. In my latter point I do agree with you as my proposal is a buffer stock of properties. Tenants move out when they are better off.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
fivegoldstars40 m ago

SMI is being replaced by a loan system - you can still get the same amount …SMI is being replaced by a loan system - you can still get the same amount of help towards your mortgage, but you'll have to pay it back if the property is sold. Personally, I don't think the change is that bad - the scheme is intended to help you keep your home during a period of hardship, not buy your house for you.


So to be fair, if you own your own home, then you contribute less relative to a renter into the national pot as taxes?
anthea1 h, 49 m ago

Seems common sense is out of the window .This is why so many people are …Seems common sense is out of the window .This is why so many people are homeless costs more in the long run to put people into hostels .It is a crime to get sick now .Last year I found out one of my friends was living on water and toast because she wanted to keep a roof over her head .MPS don't think twice about spending £80 on expenses for one breakfast


Maybe too late, if anyone is short of money , eat beans as well as toasts(wheat), both complement each other for all the essential proteins.
All part of the governments plan to make people homeless so they've got room to house immigrants and refugees who have far more priority of housing and benefits etc..
They don't really pay your rent either though. Where I live rent is about £425-475 minimum, but if you are under 30 they base it on someone in a house share so you get about £300 a month.
There is worse yet to come. Tax credits will dissapear into oblivion when everyone is transferred to Universal Credit.

You will see working people with multiple jobs sign on. Get sanctions for not attending interviews because they have to work. Self employed people will not get any tax credits the way they have designed the system with the minimum income floor.
People are sleepwalking into all this, too busy earning meagre wages and paying record housing costs to even realise what will happen.

But as long as the voting pensioners are on their triple lock, **** anyone else.

Never thought I'd see my own dad tell me he voted Tory after what he's been through in his life, but he has seen his pension rise £25 a week since 2010 while families with kids income frozen.

On the plus side the Tory grip slipped at the last election, I don't rate Corbyn at all but anything would be better than that limp idiot in
plodging1 h, 26 m ago

Yet the uk sends child benefit for 34000 children living abroad at a cost …Yet the uk sends child benefit for 34000 children living abroad at a cost of £30m , and 12000 children are being supported abroad by tax credit . In 2015 we paid £17m in compensation to criminals booted out of the UK , delayed because of admin errors and if they were entitled to benefits while here , delays causing back payments had to be sent to them back home, after we had paid on average £9000 to deport them also of course. The U.K. Spends over £1m a week on deporting criminals. But £80 a month to support a sick 59 year old woman is not acceptable .. It's totally unacceptable .


All your examples are indepedent services, as such they have different rules governing how they are paid out in law. You cannot lump all the rules from different services , dismiss them at your wish or command, and channel a back-hander to this 59 old lady.

Say, for example, child benefit, if the rule is you pay into a child benefit pot, you get child benefit like everyone else working in England, because you chip in to the same tax rules like everyone else. Then you cannot be serious to say it is fair, @plodging , let us give less child bebefit to those who chip into the pot as much as everyone else and labour as much as everyone else. If you like this then you are asking for discrimination against these contributor by country or by national identify. In effect you are asking for discrmination in our society. Where does this stop? A Welsh resident gets less than a Londoner? A one room flat owner gets less than a 10 bed mansion owner?

Lastly there is no law to allow any civil servant to take money from child benefit budget and put this into the 59 year old dedicated pot.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
The EU Housing Regulations make it law that local housing authorities prioritise a 21 year old male refugee above that of a 59 year old destitute British born woman.

Your first thoughts are that what I've just written is nonsense. Do your own research, that is the law and is enforced.

The wording is clear and not negotiable.
Dilithium8 m ago

The EU Housing Regulations make it law that local housing authorities …The EU Housing Regulations make it law that local housing authorities prioritise a 21 year old male refugee above that of a 59 year old destitute British born woman.Your first thoughts are that what I've just written is nonsense. Do your own research, that is the law and is enforced. The wording is clear and not negotiable.


Where are these wordings in the Housing Regulations and applied by local housing authorities? I am most furious about this if it were true in what you alleged.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
splender2 m ago

Where are these wordings in the Housing Regulations and applied by local …Where are these wordings in the Housing Regulations and applied by local housing authorities? I am most furious about this if it were true in what you alleged.


It's not true. It's poppycock.
Edited by: "fivegoldstars" 23rd Dec 2017
fivegoldstars2 m ago

It's not true. It's poppycock.


Your knowledge is incorrect.

It is true.

But, as it is so unbelievably disgusting I forgive you for your disbelief.

I look forward to further debate once you've read up on the subject.
Oh no how awful, what will she do? If she can’t work how can she afford to pay it? I can’t bwgin to imagine what she is going through.
It would be so nice to live in a more caring society.
Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent and get around it that way
Dilithium7 m ago

Your knowledge is incorrect.It is true.But, as it is so unbelievably …Your knowledge is incorrect.It is true.But, as it is so unbelievably disgusting I forgive you for your disbelief.I look forward to further debate once you've read up on the subject.



Yes, let us assume it is true for now. Would you mind finding for us where are your alleged housing regulations and its application by local housing authorities?
fivegoldstars11 m ago

It's not true. It's poppycock.



It's probably just an ad-hoc shoe-in goodwill policy that filters down to local councils to give priority to make the numbers up. I doubt there was any legislation other than TV Promises "ministers committed to taking in 20,000 Syrians driven from the war-torn country by 2020"
skintgirl63 m ago

Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent …Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent and get around it that way


Yours is perhaps the nearest to a practical solution on this thread so far.
Dilithium9 m ago

Your knowledge is incorrect.It is true.But, as it is so unbelievably …Your knowledge is incorrect.It is true.But, as it is so unbelievably disgusting I forgive you for your disbelief.I look forward to further debate once you've read up on the subject.




What are a refugee's rights to housing and benefits? Even though you may have limited leave to remain in the UK, you have the right to apply for an allocation of housing from the council or from a housing association, to get help if you are homeless and to claim housing benefit to help pay your rent.
You should be offered a tenancy on the same terms as any other applicant

At one time of day, I thought your misinformation was due to a misunderstanding of Daily Mail soundbites. Now, I'm more inclined to believe it's an intentional attempt at rabble-rousing.
Trust me, I've an in depth knowledge of the benefits system, and have a lot of dealings with housing allocation, and I'm confident that the statement you made is false.
skintgirl64 m ago

Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent …Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent and get around it that way




The govt are changing the payments into loans which will need to be paid back when the house is sold.
splender5 m ago

Yours is perhaps the nearest to a practical solution on this thread so far.


I hope not, imagine giving ownership of your home to someone else.

People never get taken advantage of in these situations!
splatsplatsplat6 m ago

It's probably just an ad-hoc shoe-in goodwill policy that filters down to …It's probably just an ad-hoc shoe-in goodwill policy that filters down to local councils to give priority to make the numbers up. I doubt there was any legislation other than TV Promises "ministers committed to taking in 20,000 Syrians driven from the war-torn country by 2020"


Promises?! Do you folks remember there was a thread in MISC here in the wake of Grenfell, London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea promised to buy some properties in South Ken in a posh area to house the victims. There were a lot of comments on this thread. Does anyone know if this promise was carried out?
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
splatsplatsplat1 m ago

I hope not, imagine giving ownership of your home to someone else. People …I hope not, imagine giving ownership of your home to someone else. People never get taken advantage of in these situations!


I did say "nearest", this says a lot about the other solutions put forward here.
fivegoldstars9 m ago

What are a refugee's rights to housing and benefits? Even though you may …What are a refugee's rights to housing and benefits? Even though you may have limited leave to remain in the UK, you have the right to apply for an allocation of housing from the council or from a housing association, to get help if you are homeless and to claim housing benefit to help pay your rent. You should be offered a tenancy on the same terms as any other applicantAt one time of day, I thought your misinformation was due to a misunderstanding of Daily Mail soundbites. Now, I'm more inclined to believe it's an intentional attempt at rabble-rousing.Trust me, I've an in depth knowledge of the benefits system, and have a lot of dealings with housing allocation, and I'm confident that the statement you made is false.


I think his approach is best remembered by his name, a fictional universe.
The priorities housing authorities must follow are clear and legally binding.

Refugees are classified as a priority need. That includes a 21 year old male non UK/EU national of good health.

A 59 year old UK woman of good health with nowhere to live is classified as low priority. She would be expected to have friends to "sofa surf" with.

I'm not in the least bit surprised at the naievity of the responses and the shear disbelief in those challenging this.

Once those who doubt it have done their own research, they'll understand a little better the reason to Brexit.
skintgirl625 m ago

Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent …Could someone buy it from her for a token amount and then charge her rent and get around it that way


No. Amongst other things, she wouldn't be able to claim housing benefit for a property she'd previously owned.
splatsplatsplat24 m ago

The govt are changing the payments into loans which will need to be paid …The govt are changing the payments into loans which will need to be paid back when the house is sold.


Therefore the government should announce and reduce the taxable amount for all home owners since they get less from the pot by this change.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Dec 2017
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants