How to watch the Superbowl 2016 online in the UK: Broncos vs Panthers live plus Coldplay halftime…
This pilot scheme, introduced by the government over the last few months, has led to some recipients getting into arrears with their rental payments. Paying the benefit this way has seen a higher percentage rise in several areas where the scheme is being trialled.
Having the money in their own hands has led to some using it for other purposes, which in turn has seen a dramatic rise in arrears of rent.
What are your views on this - should the government revert to the status quo quickly or continue on with this scheme? TC.
In theory the new scheme puts responsibility and dignity to the recipient. In practise, as you say, some succumb to the temptation to spend it on other things, leading to landlords losing out, and at the extreme, more evictions. Maybe the scheme could be flexible such that if payments are made regularly it goes as planned, but if there were a default, it would revert to the payment going straight to the landlord.
Obviously, getting into arrears can cause lots of problems but the point is that, those of us not living on benefits, have to manage our money.
If you don't try and get people into the real world then it seems to me you are encouraging them to become more and more reliant on the state.
Of course, you could argue that the government doesn't rely on us to pay our income tax by letting us have our wages.
The answer may be to let people opt to have their housing costs paid directly if they don't think they can cope or encourage them to set up a direct debit so the housing is paid the instant the benefit arrives.
Carry on - it would be easier and less costly to pay all benefits into a bank account belonging to a individual and let them decide who to spend it. For the ones who cannot cope then the bank account should be administered by the local council or other body under a deed of trust.
wiz-king, "For the ones who cannot cope then the bank account should be administered by the local council or other body under a deed of trust"
how would that make sense? surely cheaper to pay it straight to landlord - if landlord is willing to have tenants that can't cope or are irresponsible....
Wouldn't have taken much in the way of brains to predict this would be the likely outcome - oh wait - civil servants - that explains it!
Fourm members idea wont work, they will still spend on other things and the direct debits won't be paid.
Maybe a fast track eviction would have been the answer.
Well what a surprise, who could foresee that people who do not have enough money to live would use a little bit extra to pay for things like gas or electric or even food.
It's no good saying that they should learn to manage their money, they don't have enough in the first place.
The best part is the people who think up these stupid ideas wouldn't know how to survive on the money a lot of these people get every week.
You do realise that some of these people do not even have bank accounts in the first place
You're taking a very limited view of a limited group of people.
There are a great many people who don't have enough money but don't get any benefits. Those people have to manage their own limited resources.
fourm member, Oh right, that's why PayDay loans are so popular then.
One might say that the taxpayer provides the benefit in the first place and then the taxpayer picks up the bill when the money is mis-used and eviction eventually follows, then bed and breakfast homeless provision will be paid for by....yes you've guessed!
If a system of direct payment overcomes this, then it's a no-brainer for me.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.