Tenants urged to bank on landlord to help pay rent as benefits changes loom

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: David Wilford of Holme Wood Christian Community David Wilford of Holme Wood Christian Community

Bradford’s biggest social housing group is offering thousands of tenants a cash incentive to join a credit union to try to safeguard their benefit payments after the introduction of controversial Universal Credit in October.

The move comes amid fears the new single-payment will lead to a spike in homelessness through rent defaults among people who have difficulty managing their budgets and put them at risk of loan sharks.

Incommunities has contacted more than 4,000 tenants to offer them advice about the controversial changes and promote membership of the Bradford District Credit Union with a free £10 savings start on new accounts.

Universal Credit, which replaces Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and income-related Employment and Support Allowance is part of the Government’s welfare reforms.

It means claimants will receive any support for their housing costs directly on a monthy basis, rather than having benefit paid direct to their landlord.

David Wilford, chief executive of Holme Christian Community in Holme Wood, said a task force involving Incommunities, the NHS, Bradford Council, West Yorkshire Police and voluntary groups had been set up to look at what the “worst effects” of the changes will be.

He also claimed loan sharks could have a “field day” targeting people who are used to getting money every two weeks rather than once a month.

“In theory it’s a good idea for people to take control of their own financial affairs, but a lot of these people are not in the position to manage their finances that well,” he said.

“People will spend their money on what is the priority at the time and it may not be their rent.

“It could spiral downwards and cause an increase in homelessness.”

A report to Bradford Council’s regeneration and economy overview and scrutiny committee, which meets on Thursday, highlights the importance of making sure social housing tenants are ready to accept direct payments.

But it warned: “While most tenants will prioritise the payment of their rent, fully understanding that non-payment would result in eviction, there is a perception that vulnerable and chaotic tenants will not be able to manage their money and others could use the payments to cover unexpected expenses.”

Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts.

The social housing landlord said it has employed staff to meet tenants and offer them individual support.

Mr Dickens said: “In 2013 we will be stepping up this proactive work to help fully prepare our customers.”

Rob Warm, Yorkshire manager of the National Housing Federation, said he had “concerns” about whether tenants would be able to manage their finances if they received their benefit in a single payment.

“Research we have done shows that 30 per cent – that’s 1.9m people – believe they will struggle. The question is how do we help them so they can manage their money better..

“We need to stop debts getting unmanageable.”

Mr Warm also expressed concerns that doorstep lenders could take advantage. He said: “They may visit them at the start of the week before they get the credit offering them money to tide them over. We have got to encourage responsible credit unions to make sure that unscrupulous lenders don’t take advantage.”

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:54am Mon 7 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

8:08am Mon 7 Jan 13

badford says...

Most of the monday bookeers are skint by dinner time .What a disaster this will be
Most of the monday bookeers are skint by dinner time .What a disaster this will be badford
  • Score: 0

8:30am Mon 7 Jan 13

Avro says...

Those on housing benefit currently opt to have rent paid to themselves or direct to the landlord, therefore for many it won't be any change
Those on housing benefit currently opt to have rent paid to themselves or direct to the landlord, therefore for many it won't be any change Avro
  • Score: 0

8:36am Mon 7 Jan 13

angry bradfordian says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same. angry bradfordian
  • Score: 0

8:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

10:38am Mon 7 Jan 13

cookie_brighton says...

Avro.........at the moment claiments have the choice of having their housing benefits paid directly to their landlords or receiving it into their bank accounts.
When the Universal Credit comes in, starting later this year, all benefits will be put into one, this will then be paid directly into the claimants bank account.
Avro.........at the moment claiments have the choice of having their housing benefits paid directly to their landlords or receiving it into their bank accounts. When the Universal Credit comes in, starting later this year, all benefits will be put into one, this will then be paid directly into the claimants bank account. cookie_brighton
  • Score: 0

10:59am Mon 7 Jan 13

thingybob68 says...

I dont think it will be long before the standard of living in Bradford is back to that of the middle ages, if its not their already.
I dont think it will be long before the standard of living in Bradford is back to that of the middle ages, if its not their already. thingybob68
  • Score: 0

11:04am Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem Andy2010
  • Score: 0

11:32am Mon 7 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay

Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to.

1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this

2) The internet...yes its out there

3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS

So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to. 1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this 2) The internet...yes its out there 3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack Andy2010
  • Score: 0

11:46am Mon 7 Jan 13

Parz says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
What about the people not on benefits who work full time but have to pay rent? They have to find the time to sort their affairs out, why shouldn’t benefit claimants?

As for the argument about the disabled, without knowing personal circumstances of individual cases, nobody can make any valid comment on the matter. Each individual is going to have different abilities and needs. Some, for example, may be able to set up internet banking to be able to manage their rent payments from home whereas others may no, but without the information, neither I, you, or anyone else could offer a concrete argument about it.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]What about the people not on benefits who work full time but have to pay rent? They have to find the time to sort their affairs out, why shouldn’t benefit claimants? As for the argument about the disabled, without knowing personal circumstances of individual cases, nobody can make any valid comment on the matter. Each individual is going to have different abilities and needs. Some, for example, may be able to set up internet banking to be able to manage their rent payments from home whereas others may no, but without the information, neither I, you, or anyone else could offer a concrete argument about it. Parz
  • Score: 0

11:58am Mon 7 Jan 13

angry bradfordian says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
I wouldn't use the Daily Mail to dry my muddy boots on, but I fully agree with Andy2010.

This is a story about benefit being paid once a month rather than twice and people who can't manage to keep their money 'til the end of the month.
I fail to see how this change is going to affect how much time it takes to pay bills and rent. People who work 60 hours a week manage to keep their finances in shape so there isn't an excuse for anybody not to.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]I wouldn't use the Daily Mail to dry my muddy boots on, but I fully agree with Andy2010. This is a story about benefit being paid once a month rather than twice and people who can't manage to keep their money 'til the end of the month. I fail to see how this change is going to affect how much time it takes to pay bills and rent. People who work 60 hours a week manage to keep their finances in shape so there isn't an excuse for anybody not to. angry bradfordian
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay

Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to.

1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this

2) The internet...yes its out there

3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS

So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack
You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to. 1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this 2) The internet...yes its out there 3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack[/p][/quote]You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Parz says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to. 1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this 2) The internet...yes its out there 3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack
You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious.
So if what you're saying is that there are people who are completly incapable of managing thier finances (which I'm sure there are), then how do these people currently survive? Presumably there is some form of support network for them, be it state or privately provided, otherwise they would have died of starvation from no food shopping being done, dyhydration for having no running water with it being cut off due to lack of payment, or cold for thier heating being cut off for not paying thier utilities. Presumably there is some form of support if they are completely incpable fo doing it themselves, so why can't this support be used for paying the rent as well?

I really don't see your issue here. People who are not on benefits, despite how long they work or thier health/disability status need to sort thier own finances out. Being on benefits does not render you incapable of doing so.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to. 1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this 2) The internet...yes its out there 3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack[/p][/quote]You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious.[/p][/quote]So if what you're saying is that there are people who are completly incapable of managing thier finances (which I'm sure there are), then how do these people currently survive? Presumably there is some form of support network for them, be it state or privately provided, otherwise they would have died of starvation from no food shopping being done, dyhydration for having no running water with it being cut off due to lack of payment, or cold for thier heating being cut off for not paying thier utilities. Presumably there is some form of support if they are completely incpable fo doing it themselves, so why can't this support be used for paying the rent as well? I really don't see your issue here. People who are not on benefits, despite how long they work or thier health/disability status need to sort thier own finances out. Being on benefits does not render you incapable of doing so. Parz
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.
I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once.

Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.
Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?
Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives?

Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it

Whats so complicated about that?

If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place.

This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem
Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?
Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay

Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to.

1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this

2) The internet...yes its out there

3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS

So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack
You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious.
For those that "cant" make payments regularly like you state such as people with mental health problems there are numerous support organisations that will assist them. I'm not disputing a very very very small number "cant" make these payments but this constitutes a percentage so small and assistance is available I fail to see the problem

The story actually relates to the feckless and not the in-firmed. You are basically arguing for arguing sake with no grounds. All that is happening is one payment is made rather than 2 each month and people in receipt of this payment need to budget albeit in a slightly different manner each month. You seem to think this will be a major problem for them for some reason and have now tried to change the subject to non existent jobs and benefit cuts.

Sorry but if you don't like the cuts get one of these non-existent jobs you seem to think exist. I attended a meeting last week with various recruitment professionals and contrary to belief there are plenty of jobs out there to cover the unemployed and the only reason the figures look so bad is because of the under 25's figure which distorts the overall figures. The reason this is so high is because of numerous factors.

A quick look above on the right hand side of this page lists scrolling jobs and which I counted 20. On the DWP site there are countless roles and indeed agencies are crying out for people who want to work. The problem here is the word "want". Indeed most don't see the point in getting out of bed and going to work when the only benefit is an extra £30 a week or something in comparison to benefits. This is why I approve of the cuts as this will at least make this gap bigger and make it more attractive to some to work

Back on topic though I'm glad you finally agree that actually paying the rent is the claimants responsibility and there really is no barrier to stop this (although you claim they don't have a bank !!..eh...what do their existing benefits get paid into?...also even basic of basic cash bank accounts now accept DD payments so your point is?)
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The potential for tenants to get themselves into trouble is obvious. The question therefore is why this isn't obvious to the policy makers? I would suggest that they are fully aware that people will get into debt, that's why they're going down this road. Keep people walking the tightrope of balancing a budget so slim that any wobble will see them falling into debt and reap the taxes from the legal loan sharks. These are not accountants, they are people struggling to keep their heads above water. Housing benefits should go straight to the landlords as they used to or the government will find they are accused once again of being responsible for creating the circumstances leading to someones suicide.[/p][/quote]I know it's fashionable to blame this government for absolutely everything, but I fail to see why we should be spending more public money on administering a system that allows people to have 2 payments rather than 1 just because they aren't responsible enough not to spend it all at once. Most people in work have to manage with 1 payment a month so I can't see why people being paid benefits shouldn't do the same.[/p][/quote]Why does a change in the frequency of payments mean that the payments are no longer paid directly to the landlord thereby ensuring that the money is spent in the manner it is designated for?[/p][/quote]Whats wrong with these people taking some responsibility for their own lives? Why should the state hold the hands of the people. Its simple really...get one payment a month..pay your rent out of it...if you dont on your head be it Whats so complicated about that? If they cant even manage that with all the time they have on their hands then they dont deserve it paying in the first place. This story is just another example of a certain element of society expecting everything done and paid for for them so they dont have to get off their backsides and do it. If they choose to spend their rent money on fags, booze or whatever else thats their problem and if ultimately leads to them being homeless again their problem[/p][/quote]Ignorant and prejudiced as usual. I'm sure the Daily Mail has a comments section for blinkered muppets like yourself. Time on their hands you say? What about the many housing benefit claimants who are working full time and don't even have the time to post venomous garbage on news websites let alone get down to the bank to sort their rent out? What about the disabled who may well be house bound. Your not a thinking man are you Andy?[/p][/quote]Yes time on their hands. If you have time to CLAIM you have time to pay Working full time? I work full time and manage to pay my mortgage on time...There are a few marvelous inventions to help I can introduce you to. 1) Something called Direct Debit...I'd explain but sure you can are aware of this 2) The internet...yes its out there 3) The phone...might be difficult to comprehend but picking up a piece of plastic and ringing your bank and telling them to pay your landlord actually WORKS So c'mon then "thinking" man please explain how some people on housing benefit still dont have the time or the means to pay? Bet they manage to get their gas, water and electric paid so how is this different. The difference is responsibility of which some lack[/p][/quote]You mean you arn't going to moan that these people are spending their money on having an internet connection or a phone line like you usually do? Apparently "Dave Dickens, director of income management at Incommunities, said it has been working with its customers to make sure they are aware of the reforms and had been offering drop-in sessions to encourage more people to open basic bank accounts". I presume therefore that there are people for whom direct debit wont be an option. The government in their wisdom is trying to blackmail people into non existent jobs by cutting their benefits as much as they can. If people are unable to get through from one payment to the next or an emergency comes up where they need cash do you think they will go to the payday lenders first when there is rent money sitting there? There are also those who due to mental health problems ect will be unable to take responsibility for their finances, at least as things stand their rent will automatically be sorted. You bet they manage to get their gas, electric and water paid? Just goes to show how little you know. Please spare me your further bile from your ivory tower, you're making me nausious.[/p][/quote]For those that "cant" make payments regularly like you state such as people with mental health problems there are numerous support organisations that will assist them. I'm not disputing a very very very small number "cant" make these payments but this constitutes a percentage so small and assistance is available I fail to see the problem The story actually relates to the feckless and not the in-firmed. You are basically arguing for arguing sake with no grounds. All that is happening is one payment is made rather than 2 each month and people in receipt of this payment need to budget albeit in a slightly different manner each month. You seem to think this will be a major problem for them for some reason and have now tried to change the subject to non existent jobs and benefit cuts. Sorry but if you don't like the cuts get one of these non-existent jobs you seem to think exist. I attended a meeting last week with various recruitment professionals and contrary to belief there are plenty of jobs out there to cover the unemployed and the only reason the figures look so bad is because of the under 25's figure which distorts the overall figures. The reason this is so high is because of numerous factors. A quick look above on the right hand side of this page lists scrolling jobs and which I counted 20. On the DWP site there are countless roles and indeed agencies are crying out for people who want to work. The problem here is the word "want". Indeed most don't see the point in getting out of bed and going to work when the only benefit is an extra £30 a week or something in comparison to benefits. This is why I approve of the cuts as this will at least make this gap bigger and make it more attractive to some to work Back on topic though I'm glad you finally agree that actually paying the rent is the claimants responsibility and there really is no barrier to stop this (although you claim they don't have a bank !!..eh...what do their existing benefits get paid into?...also even basic of basic cash bank accounts now accept DD payments so your point is?) Andy2010
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Mon 7 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?
Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Parz says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?
Because it's not the Government's responsibility to ensure these people budget properly. I agree that in some cases these people are going to get it wrong and that under the current system this is harder for them to do with money being paid direct to landlords. However what needs to be considered is the enourmous amounts of administration which will be saved on the governments end by paying direct to the claimant (considering how many people this change will effect). As a result of this administration dissapearing, the people who were doing so can be moved to perform different work. This means that thier wages, (along with any other costs involved), paid for by the Taxpayer, are being used more efficiently.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?[/p][/quote]Because it's not the Government's responsibility to ensure these people budget properly. I agree that in some cases these people are going to get it wrong and that under the current system this is harder for them to do with money being paid direct to landlords. However what needs to be considered is the enourmous amounts of administration which will be saved on the governments end by paying direct to the claimant (considering how many people this change will effect). As a result of this administration dissapearing, the people who were doing so can be moved to perform different work. This means that thier wages, (along with any other costs involved), paid for by the Taxpayer, are being used more efficiently. Parz
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?
The government aren't to blame...the recipients are.

They aren't intentionally doing this to mess people up financially they are doing this to fall in line with more or less any other regular payment people receive in their lives (monthly) and save money on admin.

Sure you could say these people are "tempted" but at end of the day that's their problem no-one elses

And anyway I'm sure there are a lot more families and individuals out there that don't claim anything that have to "juggle" their finances each month with no help from no-one.

They will learn and if they don't well sorry but that's their problem no-one elses
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?[/p][/quote]The government aren't to blame...the recipients are. They aren't intentionally doing this to mess people up financially they are doing this to fall in line with more or less any other regular payment people receive in their lives (monthly) and save money on admin. Sure you could say these people are "tempted" but at end of the day that's their problem no-one elses And anyway I'm sure there are a lot more families and individuals out there that don't claim anything that have to "juggle" their finances each month with no help from no-one. They will learn and if they don't well sorry but that's their problem no-one elses Andy2010
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?
True,
Has much is said about the wealth of payments made to people who aren't working, this is'nt true.
There is no wealth in not working. The only plus side of whats going to happen is that the landlords aren't going to get payed if the repairs don't get done.
The landlords are finally going to get a boot up there arse.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, my concern is that when people who are living on next to nothing are handed a large chunk of money every 4 weeks the temptation will be there to juggle this money to get them through. You have all mentioned responsibility and I agree there are many who are irresponsible. Why therefore is the government giving them this temptation and setting them up to fail?[/p][/quote]True, Has much is said about the wealth of payments made to people who aren't working, this is'nt true. There is no wealth in not working. The only plus side of whats going to happen is that the landlords aren't going to get payed if the repairs don't get done. The landlords are finally going to get a boot up there arse. ANY WHERE BUT HERE
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Mon 7 Jan 13

istanbull-bantam says...

Ladies/Gentlemen, I am aware my post doesn't pertain to the article, but that's not my point in posting.

Our city has been attacked in an article on Yahoo, "12 pcs of wages spent on work expenses", and is even said to be in the North East, by some ignoramus.

Please raise your voices against this bigoted fool whoever he/she may be.

Happy New Year to all.

A Bradfordian in China.
Ladies/Gentlemen, I am aware my post doesn't pertain to the article, but that's not my point in posting. Our city has been attacked in an article on Yahoo, "12 pcs of wages spent on work expenses", and is even said to be in the North East, by some ignoramus. Please raise your voices against this bigoted fool whoever he/she may be. Happy New Year to all. A Bradfordian in China. istanbull-bantam
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

istanbull-bantam says...

Ladies/Gentlemen, I am aware my post doesn't pertain to the article, but that's not my point in posting.

Our city has been attacked in an article on Yahoo, "12 pcs of wages spent on work expenses", and is even said to be in the North East, by some ignoramus.

Please raise your voices against this bigoted fool whoever he/she may be.

Happy New Year to all.

A Bradfordian in China.
Ladies/Gentlemen, I am aware my post doesn't pertain to the article, but that's not my point in posting. Our city has been attacked in an article on Yahoo, "12 pcs of wages spent on work expenses", and is even said to be in the North East, by some ignoramus. Please raise your voices against this bigoted fool whoever he/she may be. Happy New Year to all. A Bradfordian in China. istanbull-bantam
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Mon 7 Jan 13

eccythump says...

Has anyone thought of this:- The Universal credit will be paid to the head of the household, in many cases a man. Now what if this head of the household is a drunk, a druggie, a gambler,a philanderer, or just a plain control freak? As things stand now, the wife and kids can be at least be sure of the roof being kept over their heads. What happens if the man/head of the house gets the monthly wad and heads straight for the bookies? Or if he decides a family member needs to be punished and denies them a share? There are many more flaws in this policy that need to be looked at. Yes people should be responsible enough to manage a monthly payment. But just the responsibility of managing it, is not the whole picture.
Has anyone thought of this:- The Universal credit will be paid to the head of the household, in many cases a man. Now what if this head of the household is a drunk, a druggie, a gambler,a philanderer, or just a plain control freak? As things stand now, the wife and kids can be at least be sure of the roof being kept over their heads. What happens if the man/head of the house gets the monthly wad and heads straight for the bookies? Or if he decides a family member needs to be punished and denies them a share? There are many more flaws in this policy that need to be looked at. Yes people should be responsible enough to manage a monthly payment. But just the responsibility of managing it, is not the whole picture. eccythump
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Mon 7 Jan 13

lanzaman says...

If the chancellor of the exchequer can't get it right, what chance have we poor mortals?!
If the chancellor of the exchequer can't get it right, what chance have we poor mortals?! lanzaman
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Mon 7 Jan 13

lanzaman says...

eccythump wrote:
Has anyone thought of this:- The Universal credit will be paid to the head of the household, in many cases a man. Now what if this head of the household is a drunk, a druggie, a gambler,a philanderer, or just a plain control freak? As things stand now, the wife and kids can be at least be sure of the roof being kept over their heads. What happens if the man/head of the house gets the monthly wad and heads straight for the bookies? Or if he decides a family member needs to be punished and denies them a share? There are many more flaws in this policy that need to be looked at. Yes people should be responsible enough to manage a monthly payment. But just the responsibility of managing it, is not the whole picture.
well said, you're assuming someone higher up has actually though this through!! lol
[quote][p][bold]eccythump[/bold] wrote: Has anyone thought of this:- The Universal credit will be paid to the head of the household, in many cases a man. Now what if this head of the household is a drunk, a druggie, a gambler,a philanderer, or just a plain control freak? As things stand now, the wife and kids can be at least be sure of the roof being kept over their heads. What happens if the man/head of the house gets the monthly wad and heads straight for the bookies? Or if he decides a family member needs to be punished and denies them a share? There are many more flaws in this policy that need to be looked at. Yes people should be responsible enough to manage a monthly payment. But just the responsibility of managing it, is not the whole picture.[/p][/quote]well said, you're assuming someone higher up has actually though this through!! lol lanzaman
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Mon 7 Jan 13

damraf says...

as a tennant i would love the oppurtunity to participate in this but i have not heard about it before this article good work incommunities
as a tennant i would love the oppurtunity to participate in this but i have not heard about it before this article good work incommunities damraf
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Mon 7 Jan 13

cooper88 says...

Agree with RollandSmoke why can't people take responsibility for their own households if they are unfortunate enough to be on housing benefit for what ever reason why does the government have to make sure its paid to the landlord for them.

Any working household is treated the same ONE payment a month or which ever and YOU are responsible for paying your rent I couldnt see my employer taking out my rent and paying incommunities for me same for council tax, water etc its about time some people learned to stand on their own two feet.
Agree with RollandSmoke why can't people take responsibility for their own households if they are unfortunate enough to be on housing benefit for what ever reason why does the government have to make sure its paid to the landlord for them. Any working household is treated the same ONE payment a month or which ever and YOU are responsible for paying your rent I couldnt see my employer taking out my rent and paying incommunities for me same for council tax, water etc its about time some people learned to stand on their own two feet. cooper88
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13

cooper88 says...

sorry i agree with andy theres that many quotes
sorry i agree with andy theres that many quotes cooper88
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

alfucham says...

lanzaman wrote:
If the chancellor of the exchequer can't get it right, what chance have we poor mortals?!
You got it spot on.

The government(and the last one)have made those noises about the poor on benefits having to learn to manage their money which is why the landlord is bipassed.

Currently after 13 weeks of non rent payment, where the recipient blows it a landlord can apply to the local authority for the rent to be paid direct to them.

So here we have the blind leading the blind.

A country that through our governments extraordinary financial mismanagement has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy.

Trillions of pounds of

1.Banks debt (much written off)
2.Corporate debt
3 Personal debt We all know several with 5 credit cards maxed up from the decade of decadence
4.Government debt (we are still borrowing to spend far more than we reap)
5.MP"s debt through false expenses claims.
6.Rent arrears (by the bucketfull)

The great experiment will undoubtedly fail.

Because the last ten years has proved that people are incompetent at all levels of life in managing money.Very well.

Human Nature.

Spend Spend Spend
Here today gone tommorow.

people do not think.or they think its free money.

You would have expected better of the Eton educated.

But they can be some of the worst.

How many lottery millionaires are now bankrupt.

One in Bradford I know of for sure.
Never give a fool temptation.

If I were ten years younger and two miss worlds were tied to the bed and I was told I could not jump on i think I would still succumb to temptation.

And then I"d be spent
[quote][p][bold]lanzaman[/bold] wrote: If the chancellor of the exchequer can't get it right, what chance have we poor mortals?![/p][/quote]You got it spot on. The government(and the last one)have made those noises about the poor on benefits having to learn to manage their money which is why the landlord is bipassed. Currently after 13 weeks of non rent payment, where the recipient blows it a landlord can apply to the local authority for the rent to be paid direct to them. So here we have the blind leading the blind. A country that through our governments extraordinary financial mismanagement has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. Trillions of pounds of 1.Banks debt (much written off) 2.Corporate debt 3 Personal debt We all know several with 5 credit cards maxed up from the decade of decadence 4.Government debt (we are still borrowing to spend far more than we reap) 5.MP"s debt through false expenses claims. 6.Rent arrears (by the bucketfull) The great experiment will undoubtedly fail. Because the last ten years has proved that people are incompetent at all levels of life in managing money.Very well. Human Nature. Spend Spend Spend Here today gone tommorow. people do not think.or they think its free money. You would have expected better of the Eton educated. But they can be some of the worst. How many lottery millionaires are now bankrupt. One in Bradford I know of for sure. Never give a fool temptation. If I were ten years younger and two miss worlds were tied to the bed and I was told I could not jump on i think I would still succumb to temptation. And then I"d be spent alfucham
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Mon 7 Jan 13

johnhem says...

i don't do direct debits because of too many (3) overpayments when not due or double payments when they were. i don't use telephone banking because i don't trust it, and same for internet banking.
so if i worked 9-5 i could'nt even get anywhere to see anyone to arrange or pay if i needed to.
i don't do direct debits because of too many (3) overpayments when not due or double payments when they were. i don't use telephone banking because i don't trust it, and same for internet banking. so if i worked 9-5 i could'nt even get anywhere to see anyone to arrange or pay if i needed to. johnhem
  • Score: 0

8:24am Tue 8 Jan 13

Avro says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
Avro.........at the moment claiments have the choice of having their housing benefits paid directly to their landlords or receiving it into their bank accounts.
When the Universal Credit comes in, starting later this year, all benefits will be put into one, this will then be paid directly into the claimants bank account.
Which is why I said that for many it won't be any change!!
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: Avro.........at the moment claiments have the choice of having their housing benefits paid directly to their landlords or receiving it into their bank accounts. When the Universal Credit comes in, starting later this year, all benefits will be put into one, this will then be paid directly into the claimants bank account.[/p][/quote]Which is why I said that for many it won't be any change!! Avro
  • Score: 0

8:25am Tue 8 Jan 13

Avro says...

As they will continue to receive the rent money directly as per their choice
As they will continue to receive the rent money directly as per their choice Avro
  • Score: 0

8:56am Tue 8 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.
The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

10:28am Tue 8 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.
Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.[/p][/quote]Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage Andy2010
  • Score: 0

11:20am Tue 8 Jan 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.
Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage
Explain why workers are having to manage, I thought we were "making work pay"
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.[/p][/quote]Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage[/p][/quote]Explain why workers are having to manage, I thought we were "making work pay" RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.
Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage
Explain why workers are having to manage, I thought we were "making work pay"
I mean managing to pay their bills. If they arent then thats their problem isnt it?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: The problem with direct debits when dealing with people living on the bare minimum is that there is little room for error and little chance of getting yourself a bit in front to give yourself a cushion. Any miss-calculations will result in bank charges pushing people further into debt.[/p][/quote]Presumably anyone living on bare minumum will only have a standard account so the only charge that can be incurred will be DD Rejection charge but this just goes back to the original point that its what the rest of the UK have to manage so why shouldnt those in receipt of benefit payments also manage[/p][/quote]Explain why workers are having to manage, I thought we were "making work pay"[/p][/quote]I mean managing to pay their bills. If they arent then thats their problem isnt it? Andy2010
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 8 Jan 13

YubYub says...

Why not just bring back the workhouses?

Won't have to worry about a shortage of housing as can just cram them in.

The inmates won't need benefits as they'll have no bills to pay.

Convert all the empty/derelict warehouses over and won't have them standing empty either.

To stop them all getting bored give them something to do like, oh I don't know, make clothing.

All the problems sorted in one go.
Why not just bring back the workhouses? Won't have to worry about a shortage of housing as can just cram them in. The inmates won't need benefits as they'll have no bills to pay. Convert all the empty/derelict warehouses over and won't have them standing empty either. To stop them all getting bored give them something to do like, oh I don't know, make clothing. All the problems sorted in one go. YubYub
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Andy2010 says...

YubYub wrote:
Why not just bring back the workhouses?

Won't have to worry about a shortage of housing as can just cram them in.

The inmates won't need benefits as they'll have no bills to pay.

Convert all the empty/derelict warehouses over and won't have them standing empty either.

To stop them all getting bored give them something to do like, oh I don't know, make clothing.

All the problems sorted in one go.
Whilst sounds ideal I doubt the EU would allow it
[quote][p][bold]YubYub[/bold] wrote: Why not just bring back the workhouses? Won't have to worry about a shortage of housing as can just cram them in. The inmates won't need benefits as they'll have no bills to pay. Convert all the empty/derelict warehouses over and won't have them standing empty either. To stop them all getting bored give them something to do like, oh I don't know, make clothing. All the problems sorted in one go.[/p][/quote]Whilst sounds ideal I doubt the EU would allow it Andy2010
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke.

The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase.

The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones.

Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups.

More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent.

If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again.

Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots
Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke. The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase. The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones. Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups. More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent. If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again. Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots The obvious
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

SinnerSaint says...

The obvious wrote:
Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke.

The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase.

The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones.

Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups.

More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent.

If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again.

Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots
What are you saying Mr Obvious? That all social housing tenants are idiots who can't manage their own finances?

I know you generally do talk alot of rubbish but surely this time that's not the case?

By the way, our first shooting of the year in Girlington happened before the first week of the year was out!

You also might like to read today's article on the Bradford drug gang being jailed for 24 years - I think it will be educational for you.

Happy to be of service again!
[quote][p][bold]The obvious[/bold] wrote: Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke. The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase. The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones. Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups. More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent. If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again. Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots[/p][/quote]What are you saying Mr Obvious? That all social housing tenants are idiots who can't manage their own finances? I know you generally do talk alot of rubbish but surely this time that's not the case? By the way, our first shooting of the year in Girlington happened before the first week of the year was out! You also might like to read today's article on the Bradford drug gang being jailed for 24 years - I think it will be educational for you. Happy to be of service again! SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
The obvious wrote:
Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke.

The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase.

The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones.

Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups.

More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent.

If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again.

Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots
What are you saying Mr Obvious? That all social housing tenants are idiots who can't manage their own finances?

I know you generally do talk alot of rubbish but surely this time that's not the case?

By the way, our first shooting of the year in Girlington happened before the first week of the year was out!

You also might like to read today's article on the Bradford drug gang being jailed for 24 years - I think it will be educational for you.

Happy to be of service again!
Sinnersaint? You either cannot read or are just a paranoid blinkered bradfordian who needs to get out and speak to those wandering housing officers....or another tenant! Lol

Some tenants are bad and have issues. Some tenants are good and have fewer issues.

Those with issues are in the majority and I speak with authority as I have glanced at various housing officers arrears on their patch of a couple of hundred properties. The vast majority were in arrears. One housing officer" she had over 50 letters to deliver to remind people to pay their rent, she did this every week!. She also advised that she serves a dozen or so notices of seeking possession....that's per month, sometimes more. She also has difficulty in evicting these non payers as housing benefit withhold rent and the courts are reluctant to evict....take a visit to the crown court during the morning and you will see loads of tenants in court who just don't pay their rent.

Some of these are drug addicts, alcoholics or just plain stupid as they cannot manage to brush their teeth let alone sort out their finances.

This rent arrears issue is huge with all the housing associations. The amount of debt they carry and right off is serious and cannot be ignored.

Don't take my obvious word for it; get in touch with your local housing association and speak to some of the idiotic housing officers about their jobs etc and how much rent is owed per housing patch...you'll be shocked that some tenants are in arrears by thousands of pounds. You will also hear how dirty and scruffy some tenants are and how much damage they cause to the properties with their lifestyles.

Why I call the housing staff idiots and useless is because I have experience of dealings with these bums and can say, confidentiality that they as a collective are useless bums scrounging the wages for their retirements.

The management and directors of such housing associations are much worse....these are the bums who promote each other and are sh!tting away at the people of bradfordfrom whom they have stolen, yes stolen their housing stock.

Stolen? Yes the housing stock of over 26000 properties belonged to ALL bradfordians....did all the bradfordians vote to give away their social housing to a private company? No. No one voted except for a handful of tenants. This is theft and fraud in my book...a book which you will never be able to understand as you're too busy blogging away to do your own research.

Of course you won't check as that'll mean you'll have to finally take off your bradfordian blinkers and awake to the real situation.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The obvious[/bold] wrote: Incommunities aka Bcht aka ex Bradford council housing stock which was stolen by the private company from the people of Bradford has and always will be a joke. The company is poorly run and already has huge rent arrears as it cannot achieve 100% rent collection. Now with the buggered universal credit thy will fail to collect more rent and the rent arrears will increase. The moronic govt policies are just a joke and always target the vulnerable ones. Most of these credit unions are run by good people and some do not get paid as they are volunteering their time etc. the new universal credit system will have a systematic dismantling and extra bureaucratic tier to cost more...some of this will be passed onto the volunteer groups. More onus should be placed on the social landlord to use its so called blundering housing officers, tenancy support officers, housing advisors and management all the way to the chief exec to ensure they do more to collect rent. If the landlord cannot collect the rent then it will go bust, get sold to another greedy housing association, or the council will bail them out and the poor tax payrs of the city will carry the can again. Well done to all those who ruined our social housing on Bradford. Idiots[/p][/quote]What are you saying Mr Obvious? That all social housing tenants are idiots who can't manage their own finances? I know you generally do talk alot of rubbish but surely this time that's not the case? By the way, our first shooting of the year in Girlington happened before the first week of the year was out! You also might like to read today's article on the Bradford drug gang being jailed for 24 years - I think it will be educational for you. Happy to be of service again![/p][/quote]Sinnersaint? You either cannot read or are just a paranoid blinkered bradfordian who needs to get out and speak to those wandering housing officers....or another tenant! Lol Some tenants are bad and have issues. Some tenants are good and have fewer issues. Those with issues are in the majority and I speak with authority as I have glanced at various housing officers arrears on their patch of a couple of hundred properties. The vast majority were in arrears. One housing officer" she had over 50 letters to deliver to remind people to pay their rent, she did this every week!. She also advised that she serves a dozen or so notices of seeking possession....that's per month, sometimes more. She also has difficulty in evicting these non payers as housing benefit withhold rent and the courts are reluctant to evict....take a visit to the crown court during the morning and you will see loads of tenants in court who just don't pay their rent. Some of these are drug addicts, alcoholics or just plain stupid as they cannot manage to brush their teeth let alone sort out their finances. This rent arrears issue is huge with all the housing associations. The amount of debt they carry and right off is serious and cannot be ignored. Don't take my obvious word for it; get in touch with your local housing association and speak to some of the idiotic housing officers about their jobs etc and how much rent is owed per housing patch...you'll be shocked that some tenants are in arrears by thousands of pounds. You will also hear how dirty and scruffy some tenants are and how much damage they cause to the properties with their lifestyles. Why I call the housing staff idiots and useless is because I have experience of dealings with these bums and can say, confidentiality that they as a collective are useless bums scrounging the wages for their retirements. The management and directors of such housing associations are much worse....these are the bums who promote each other and are sh!tting away at the people of bradfordfrom whom they have stolen, yes stolen their housing stock. Stolen? Yes the housing stock of over 26000 properties belonged to ALL bradfordians....did all the bradfordians vote to give away their social housing to a private company? No. No one voted except for a handful of tenants. This is theft and fraud in my book...a book which you will never be able to understand as you're too busy blogging away to do your own research. Of course you won't check as that'll mean you'll have to finally take off your bradfordian blinkers and awake to the real situation. The obvious
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

SinnerSaint says...

LOL. What a load of sh1te!

I prefer to base my opinions on facts. Some great arrests and convictions today don't you think?

#delusion
#indenial
#ostrich
LOL. What a load of sh1te! I prefer to base my opinions on facts. Some great arrests and convictions today don't you think? #delusion #indenial #ostrich SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
LOL!

I love your incest comments, so funny! Do you know what recessive generic disorders are? Look it up, I think you'll find it an interesting read particularly the massively disproportionate number of a certain community who are affected by it due to their penchant for cousin to cousin marriage.

And yes, I was disgusted by that article too. But this was an isolated case of a lone deviant pervert rather than one of many groups of like minded predators from a certain community preying on vulnerable underage girls because of
their race.

Glad to be able to continue your education. Counselling to overcome your delusions would be expensive.
Wonder if jimmy Saville ever fixed it for you? Of course he did

Wonder no more as you seem as twisted as that dick.

Incest? Go ask your choir boy mates about how you all enjoyed incest ridden Sunday school in your closed/gated EDL community....you need help...why don't you help yourself to some rope and find a lamppost...

The entire world is from Adam and eve...you are from savilles monkey that he kept in his butt
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: LOL! I love your incest comments, so funny! Do you know what recessive generic disorders are? Look it up, I think you'll find it an interesting read particularly the massively disproportionate number of a certain community who are affected by it due to their penchant for cousin to cousin marriage. And yes, I was disgusted by that article too. But this was an isolated case of a lone deviant pervert rather than one of many groups of like minded predators from a certain community preying on vulnerable underage girls because of their race. Glad to be able to continue your education. Counselling to overcome your delusions would be expensive.[/p][/quote]Wonder if jimmy Saville ever fixed it for you? Of course he did Wonder no more as you seem as twisted as that dick. Incest? Go ask your choir boy mates about how you all enjoyed incest ridden Sunday school in your closed/gated EDL community....you need help...why don't you help yourself to some rope and find a lamppost... The entire world is from Adam and eve...you are from savilles monkey that he kept in his butt The obvious
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

Still evolving in to a complete tit...w@nk away you racist pig. No offence to any pigs
Still evolving in to a complete tit...w@nk away you racist pig. No offence to any pigs The obvious
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

SinnerSaint says...

LOL! The truth hurts my friend, doesn't it?

It's so hard to continue to be in denial when someone is shoving the truth right down your delusional throat, isn't it petal?
LOL! The truth hurts my friend, doesn't it? It's so hard to continue to be in denial when someone is shoving the truth right down your delusional throat, isn't it petal? SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
LOL! The truth hurts my friend, doesn't it?

It's so hard to continue to be in denial when someone is shoving the truth right down your delusional throat, isn't it petal?
Lol Truth hurts...you should know, seriously now who is your daddy? Your uncle or your brother....ring relate to council your bone idle bum of a life or just follow your mates back into the abortion bucket.

Get back in to your hole and wait for your giro as you'll need the cash to buy your pawned belongings back. Good job you can't afford to buy your council flat...you'd be the most successful person in your family as the rest died from blood disorders due to inbreeding with the holmewood stray horses...now who is your daddy little boy horse inbred thingy that you are

Sick little man with fascist tendencies...hand back your passport or don't you have one
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: LOL! The truth hurts my friend, doesn't it? It's so hard to continue to be in denial when someone is shoving the truth right down your delusional throat, isn't it petal?[/p][/quote]Lol Truth hurts...you should know, seriously now who is your daddy? Your uncle or your brother....ring relate to council your bone idle bum of a life or just follow your mates back into the abortion bucket. Get back in to your hole and wait for your giro as you'll need the cash to buy your pawned belongings back. Good job you can't afford to buy your council flat...you'd be the most successful person in your family as the rest died from blood disorders due to inbreeding with the holmewood stray horses...now who is your daddy little boy horse inbred thingy that you are Sick little man with fascist tendencies...hand back your passport or don't you have one The obvious
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The obvious says...

Can you read....read your birth/abort record and tell us who is your daddy?

The point is you just do not know and as such I cannot rule out that it is your uncle or your brother or your grandad...**** you incest led fatherless butt monkeys. Wonder what Jesus/God would call you...hmmm I reckon he'd call you one "dumb inbred &astard"...or is that your real name...it is.

Now who is your daddy little boy
Can you read....read your birth/abort record and tell us who is your daddy? The point is you just do not know and as such I cannot rule out that it is your uncle or your brother or your grandad...**** you incest led fatherless butt monkeys. Wonder what Jesus/God would call you...hmmm I reckon he'd call you one "dumb inbred &astard"...or is that your real name...it is. Now who is your daddy little boy The obvious
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

SinnerSaint says...

All I have ever done is provide you with factual information in the form of newspaper articles and Google searches that demonstrate the huge extent of your delusion. I understand that you find this upsetting but facts are facts.

Council housing, giros and pawn shops fortunately aren't something I've ever required but it's enlightening that you are showing your contempt for people that do and that your true colours are shining through.

There is no inbreeding in my family. I'm married to a beautiful Indian girl and I live a very blessed life but thanks for your comments, they've given me much amusement this evening.

Goodnight and God bless petal.
All I have ever done is provide you with factual information in the form of newspaper articles and Google searches that demonstrate the huge extent of your delusion. I understand that you find this upsetting but facts are facts. Council housing, giros and pawn shops fortunately aren't something I've ever required but it's enlightening that you are showing your contempt for people that do and that your true colours are shining through. There is no inbreeding in my family. I'm married to a beautiful Indian girl and I live a very blessed life but thanks for your comments, they've given me much amusement this evening. Goodnight and God bless petal. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree