Welfare cash cards

There is a way for private tenants to agree to have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord. The tenant might have trouble managing their money or have a record of getting into arrears. Social housing tenants' rent is paid directly to the landlord.

And I right about vampirequeen.

I don't want a card for anything. Although I always pay my rent regardless sometimes I need to borrow from Peter to pay Paul when it comes to other things.

Ceesnan I made the assumption that vampirequeen was a responsible person who would ensure that her housing benefit was used to pay her rent in full on time. Therefore, she would not be in arrears. Not everyone is so responsible or even sufficiently organised or self-disciplined to do so. I still think paying housing benefit directly to landlords is the simplest thing to do. Presumably letting agents and landlords who manage their own properties would have to use some sort of card reader if housing benefit were lumped in with all other benefits on a welfare card. That would put up costs and, therefore, rents.

Absent you said that one of your tenants had kept some of his housing benefit and therefore you ended up out of pocket, but then you later said to vampirequeen that if she was in receipt of housing benefit she wouldn't be in arrears. Doesn't that just illustrate the fact that there is a need for some sort of control? In the past I have received benefits and would certainly not have minded having to use a card. Why should it matter?

I read somewhere Mice that most of the owners in One Hyde Park are not even paying that paltry amount of council tax - some loophole or other.

That should be £135 MILLION

Of course not all landlords are greedy. But some are. And that is why rent controls are needed. There are many good landlords who also need protecting from bad tenants. This has nothing to do with the general principle. Absent clearly knows much more about this whole matter than I do, and her input is valuable. I can't comment on how bureaucratic a national register would be but I do feel that many LAs do not prioritise their prosecutions of those who defy the law in the best way. The revenue that LAs work with could be increased at a stroke if property taxes were imposed. The most expensive flat in One Hyde Park cost £135. The owner pays £1369 in council tax. Multiply that by the all those in a similar position and the revenue would be there in SERCO vans full to prosecute bad landlords and bad tenants.

Riverwalk Benefits paid for what might be called living expenses – food, heating, clothes, fares etc. – need to be flexible and available for whatever is most important to that family at any given time. That might be school uniforms at the end of the summer holidays, but higher heating bills in the winter, for example. Housing benefit is for paying the rent – nothing else – and that is fixed for the tenancy. There is no need for any flexibility. If it is paid directly to the landlord, there will be no threats of or worries about court proceedings, homelessness, etc.

MiceElf I am also in favour of rent control but I am even more in favour of landlords being prevented from renting out sub-standard or even dangerous properties in the first place.

When I was looking for suitable properties to buy (the rental properties are my "pension"), I was shocked by the state of quite a few that I viewed which already had tenants. I actually bought one that was horribly damp (it's since been properly tanked, replastered, redecorated and with a new kitchen fitted) and was shocked to learn that the tenant was paying the "going rate" for a property that size in spite of its condition. However, although I have spent a fair old amount of money getting the property up to a good standard, I still only charge the "going rate" as that's how the market works. Not all landlords are greedy.

Unfortunately, council budgets are being stretched even further than they were and they simply can't afford to inspect and prosecute under perfectly sound existing laws about sub-standard rental properties. There is a suggestion that there should be a national register of landlords but I suspect this would simply turn into an expensive bureaucratic, time-wasting exercise that did nothing to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords or vice versa.

Agree with mice being a claimant on benefits is humiliating even more so when you have worked and paid taxes,and are desperately looking for work.
Problems with parenting can also happen in people that do not claim benefits,and behind every human being and claimant is a story.
People will cheat the system,and that includes the wealthy with tax fiddles,that also mean that honest people pay more,but somehow that seems to be acceptable as a perk,when on benefits unable to get work your self confidence and esteem is non existent any way and there by the grace go I ,I can understand that how easy it would be to slip into the world of alcohol or drugs to ease the every day drudgery that has become yours,it is easy to say go get a job,yes there are jobs,but when you don't fit the criteria for the jobs offered,your already low esteem suffers,we need to break the cycle,but by educating people,how that can be done I am not sure as first they would have to want to be educated,perhaps it should start in school housekeeping and economics and practical courses for the underachieving non academic children,I am going to be ducking behind a big wall because I am probably not stating a clear argument for or against but I am writing from the heart I heartily agree with ariadne about dignity....xxxxxxxnellie

Mice not all landlords are greedy, nor all property sub-standard. There are many people in places like the borough of Kensington & Chelsea living in expensive private properties, fully at public expense. The landlords are paid the going-rate for the area.

The 25,000 benefits cap might have an affect on these rents.

Sel, have you read the article? Maybe not all members of UKIP can be called 'extreme', but this one is. Incidentally this 10-minute rule bill gets its second reading tomorrow. I expect it to be buried thereafter.

I'm in favour of rent control. Then greedy landlords would not be able to charge extortionate rents on sub standard properties.

Are those who are strongly against a card also against rent being paid direct to the landlord? Because the latter is surely a form of patronising - can't trust you to pay the rent so the state will do it for you.

I'm not a strong advocate of a card, just think it's worth exploring.

Ten years ago I claimed JSA for six months - would have been quite happy for it to have been in the form of a card.

Compassion isn't a word one would associate with modern politics though - more is the pity. I agree with everything you say, MiceElf, and especially the point about treating every one with dignity. But again...

Indeed, the premise that benefits should not be spent on alcohol and so on is not right wing.

And, benefits are not always paid to those in need.

And Cheelu did raise perfectly sensible points.

And society does need to be fair. Those who pay tax should be confident that that money will be distributed fairly.

I have no issue with any of those points.

But, in a highly complex society such as ours it is difficult in the extreme to devise a system which is perfectly fair and incapable of being abused. It is also the case that the vast majority of recipients of any of the benefits payable, are now, or have been in the past, taxpayers themselves.

The vast majority of people wish to work and have no desire to be claimants. Being a claimant is unpleasant, humiliating and stressful for the vast majority of people who have found themselves in that situation.

The point about paying benefits in cash or kind or as cards, is one about treating people with dignity and respect. And not infantilising them.

And on a purely pragmatic note I repeat that those few feckless people who are addicted or who themselves come from disfuctional backgrounds, will always find ways to circumvent the system. Shopkeepers will collude and yet more people will be drawn into criminality.

As I said above, the problems of addiction, poor parenting and mental disability need to be addressed in other ways.

A truly compassionate society will fnd ways of doing this.

Anno if the OP was written by a UKIP member how does that make it 'extreme right'?

The premise that benefits should not be spent buying alcohol, cigarettes or for gambling - is that an exreme right sentiment? In no way would I call myself 'extreme right' that's ridiculous but lots of people have the same concerns - benefits are not always paid to those in need. I think *Cheelu has raised perfectly sensible points. Society needs to be fair - we pay tax and hope that the Government redistributes that money fairly. There are people who exist on benefits, who's children do want for basic care with parents who think nothing of spending on booze, fags and gambling. It's a fact of life. The counter argument that this will demonise people on benefits doesn't hold water. That's an admin issue; we've beyond food stamps etc.

there is some truth in that MiceElf

Right on, MiceElf.

Cheelu, I sympathise with your concern, but the reality is that in those severely disfunctional households, the welfare cards would be exchanged for drugs or drink before you could blink.

The problems of poor parenting and addiction need to be addressed in other ways.

absent, it is an idea from the extreme right. If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will find that it was this article that started this hare running. It was written by a UKIP member.

Undoubtedly and sadly there are people who neglect their children. But these are found in all levels of society. In my experience working with parents, the majority want what is best for their children, whatever their background or income. If you give people the cash, they can make decisions about what has to be paid. If you give a prepaid card, they have no way of putting off one payment because another is more important today. Some of us have experience of that kind of juggling not-quite-enough money each week.

MicElf you give that speech to a child that has not eaten in two days because his Dad has spent all the benefits money on Drugs!!!!!!!

It happens tooooooo many times

Four gold stars MiceElf [thumbs up emoticon]

It rather reminds me of the dinner tickets in the 50 s which had FREE stamped on them. Quite disgraceful, and stigmatising and patronising and typical of a certain type of smug self satisfied group of well to do people who feel they have the right to tell those who are not similarly advantaged, how to live their lives and spend their money.