Jump to content

Lightening McQueen
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a joke!

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_274077.html

 

Surely it's against taxpayer's and ratepayer's human rights to have to fund people who've decided they have greater priorities than paying their rent?

 

Depends on the circumstances, if the tenant has been made redundant then they won't be able to pay rent, others things will take priority. However If its someone that's decided drink and drugs take priority over paying their rent than that is obviously wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the priorities and how you place those priorities.

 

in my childhood home the roof came 1st, then food, heat and light. Clothes were hand me downs and make do and mend.

 

The front room was never used by us kids, the back room and the garden was the play area.

 

We had a book by the phone we recorded our calls in (didn't have a phone till I was 10). Christmas was a savings club, Sunday lunch was also Mondays dinner and dads weekly packed lunch for work.

 

Today its new clothes, a blackberry, iPod, a couple of nights out a week, fags, chicken dippers, car, motorhome, sky, broadband, plasma, cd's, dvd's, holidays, child care, loans then roof.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it's not such a joke if you are on not much more than £50 jobseekers, with an electricity or gas bill to pay, and need to eat. Most people complaining about these people, are often those that have never experienced hardship.

 

Stereotyping is rife and stinks on this forum.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the state provides you with subsidised social housing and pays your rent why shouldn't it either pay the rent direct or give rental vouchers. This isn't a proportionate human right, ie being given cash and being allowed to spend on something else, as opposed to the rent being paid direct. It's sloppy civil servant thinking

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is a joke!

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_274077.html

 

Surely it's against taxpayer's and ratepayer's human rights to have to fund people who've decided they have greater priorities than paying their rent?

 

Depends on the circumstances, if the tenant has been made redundant then they won't be able to pay rent, others things will take priority. However If its someone that's decided drink and drugs take priority over paying their rent than that is obviously wrong.

 

On the face of it that could be quite a fair statement but if you think about it someone who has a bad enough drug or drink problem that it takes priority over their housing needs, has made no decision, they cant help it at that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy Link: Re paying rent direct from Social Security: However the idea has been vetoed with the department saying this would be against people’s human rights

 

Says who? What total cobblers. This is the way it is done in the UK and I don't see anyone squealing about human rights in connection with that. They should pay it direct and the balance in none transferable food vouchers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy Link: Re paying rent direct from Social Security: However the idea has been vetoed with the department saying this would be against people’s human rights

 

Says who? What total cobblers. This is the way it is done in the UK and I don't see anyone squealing about human rights in connection with that. They should pay it direct and the balance in none transferable food vouchers.

If the rent is being provided by Social Security directly to the tenant who decides not to pay that rent to the landlord then it's hardly surprising that private landlords are reticent in letting to those on 'benefits'.

 

The chances of recovering rent from a tenant with this mindset are nil.

 

They will inevitably portray themselves as victims (as drug addicts/alcoholics and or "society" is responsible for their present circumstances ).

 

In that event maybe BR will pay their rent biggrin.png

Edited by paswt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be cost effective for the Department of Social Care to have a small team of people who go in and help people get their lives organised as regards budgeting/ managing children/ finding work etc etc.

 

There can't be all that many families who find themselves in difficulty with rent etc.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23027664

Edited by Moghrey Mie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't pay their rent they got to gets the fu@k outta there without passing Go. it is akin to stealing straight from the landlord's pocket.

 

If the tenant doesn't pay rent for 6 months, the landlord will have his house repossessed by the bank therein destroying his credit record and potentially losing any other assets they own. Why should the landlord fund gaps in rent because of the tenants inability to manage their own finances, especially when they are given the money in the first place!

 

Everyone thinks that landlords are there to listen to sob stories and cut the rent to help tenants but it don't work like that. This is real life, your home MUST come before your holiday, fags, flat screen tv, ipad, nights out, new clothes, etc etc. No exceptions.

 

Regrettably, this is why most landlords will not let to social security tenants....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is irresponsible of the Dept of Social Care to continue to hand money intended for rent directly into the hands of tenants who have fallen into arrears. Whether social housing or private sector, it cannot be hard to establish a simple system whereby the landlord alerts the DSC as soon as the problem arises and future rent payments could then be made direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be cost effective for the Department of Social Care to have a small team of people who go in and help people get their lives organised as regards budgeting/ managing children/ finding work etc etc.

 

There can't be all that many families who find themselves in difficulty with rent etc.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23027664

Why should the government use more money to help people who have already been given the rent money? If the rent is paid direct, it's one less thing for them to have to budget, the landlord is getting paid what is due to them on time, and it would save money, by time no longer being spent by councils/commissioners/landlords having to chase the debt!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...