Rent arrears with householders from a government pilot scheme that makes payments of housing benefit straight to recipients have seen a huge rise. One area is predicting a £14 million loss if the brand-new scheme is executed for all its householders. Paying housing benefit straight to recipients, rather than their landlords, will shape a key part of the devised new Universal Credit. The government states lessons will be ascertained from the pilot schemes.
It wants to make payment to recipients directly as they believe it will expand their understanding of dependability over their own lives and make them better able to cope should they move into a job. Does the government not believe that people are accountable for their own lives, or do they think that people require direction on all things that they do? What it does give the government is the authority to condition people, wearing away at their self-respect, and disparaging them.
Help is what people require, not punishments that will make people feel like they are no longer worthy, and sanctions that end up labelling claimants as scroungers. People are not cattle that the government think they can brand or classify as something that they’re not, but people will go along with what the government says is going to happen, and they will consent to be treated like they are beasts of burden, like they are animals in a cage.
If we accept, consent to and comply, our independence will disappear, and we will continue to be the beasts of burden. We will become a diminishing race, and we will become the casualties of war because the only thing that the government is occupied in is making an economic gain. We are farming fodder, and we are more beneficial working because if we are working, it gives the government profits. If you find this article offensive, then good, you should because everything the government is doing to us is monstrous, and they are meddling on our freedoms.
The Department for Work and Pensions has run pilot schemes in six areas since last June to see how well householders would cope with having their housing benefit paid straight to them, but we are adults, not children, and we do know how to run our everyday lives, but what the government does not tell you, is how once this scheme is up and running, that people will end up in arrears because Housing Benefit is rewarded in arrears, which denotes that by the time it is paid into your bank account, a person will be roughly 8 weeks in arrears, and if not paid, a person will be liable to removal from their home.
Figures obtained show that arrears among tenants of Wakefield and District Housing in West Yorkshire have expanded from a percentage of 2% to 11% on the pilot schemes. It is stated that they were hopeful that the level of arrears would yield as they made endeavors to assist householders better to manage their finances, but what they actually mean is that they will offer people long term loans with colossal interest rates, which people will not be capable of paying back, which will mean they will become in more debt.
Paying funds straight to claimants will create temptation to use the funds for other things, and people will clock up arrears that they were not in arrears prior to this governments antics, and the problem is there will be mob hysteria, and they will stop paying, they will feel they’ve lost control and end up being evicted.
Some householders on the direct payments scheme have required help to cope with the new scheme, all with mental health difficulties. The truth is that the most defenseless people in society clearly cannot cope with the modification, so they are the ones in jeopardy of not understanding what the money in their bank account is for, and going out and wasting it.
As well, there has been an extensive rise in arrears. All the pilot schemes have seen a rise in the costs of getting the rent from the householders. Some schemes have had to double staffing costs as numerous householders have been reluctant to pay by direct debit. Nearly 90% of householders do not pay by direct debit, and direct debits are not a good way of paying if you are on an extremely low income.
If a direct debit is due and there is no money in the bank, it can cost £30-£40 as a penalty.
Government ministers have talked a lot about the importance of transparency and openness in the way the state operates. So it’s not surprising and disappointing that on an issue that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Britain they are being so secretive. I am talking about the schemes to drive social housing tenants to pay their own rent, rather than housing benefit going right to the proprietors, a key part of the government’s flagship welfare reformations.
The alterations that are expected to come in next year, with all benefits rolled into one universal credit (UC) paid straight to the recipient. The government wants claimants to take responsibility for their budgetary figures. However, the schemes are proving far from simple to introduce. Since July, the Department of Work and Pensions has been trying out the modifications in six areas. These pilots, portrayed as demonstration projects by the DWP are covered in seclusion.
Participators have had to agree not to disclose any of the outcomes without direct departmental consent. A website which strives to identify possible problems with the reformations, the Housing Benefit Direct Payments Network is solely obtainable to people vetted by Whitehall. Columnists are not welcome.
Nevertheless, some people have accomplished to obtain admittance to the cryptic site, and it appears transparent that the government has gravely miscalculated the hurdle of getting claimants to begin paying their monthly rent. Even people deemed at low risk of failing to pay their rent on time are not managing as anticipated. Numerous social tenants have little or no skill of monthly budgetary figures. They get their benefit in cash each week, and while they are frequently extremely proficient at accomplishing to function on a low income over seven days, they may not have a bank account or access to the Internet.
It was recently explained how a single mum in a social rented neighborhood was asked if she would have a preference to give up the coin in the slot power meter and pay for her power monthly through the housing association. However, she wouldn’t because, when things got extraordinarily tight, she knew she could do one smaller wash a week and cut down on the heating to save the pound coins going into the meter. It was her way of keeping the restriction on her budget.
The department is now committed to reviewing the help accessible to householders, and there have been surprises in the way housing benefit claimants have coped with paying rent themselves, but they must evaluate the assistance evaluation matrix. The important issue for landlords is whether they will be able to consolidate the rent or not.
When the DWP was asked what sort of rent collection figures the pilots had identified, they stated that it was not about arrears but learning lessons. Well, if the rumours are true, the lesson to be learned is that roughly 20-30% of householders may well strive to pay rent on time when Universal Credit comes in, and such a consequence is a huge problem, not just for the housing providers and social landlords, but for the entire welfare reform scheme.
It has nevertheless been realized that a the few housing benefit recipients may at no time be able to manage their financial affairs, and there is a system for some householders to have their housing benefits taken straight from Universal Credit and paid straight to the landlord in the old way. However, the government doesn’t want this to be exceeding 10% of the total. Very much the exception rather than the rule.
There will without doubt be further cost and complexity in such a trial, and the whole welfare reform package deal is constructed upon simplicity and cost saving, and the Department of Work and Pensions is to introduce a scheme called switchback, where householders whose arrears have reached a certain level will have their housing benefit paid straight to the landlord while they receive help for organising their financial affairs, but as soon as the arrears are paid off, they seemingly go back on the Universal Credit project.
The difficulty is that this concept poses as many questions as answers because it is not understood how many weeks of arrears there will be, and what will trigger for switchback. Too few and it will capture a wide number of householders, too many and the debts will be much more laborious to repay. How will their IT system cope with people moving on and off Universal Credit because there are already concerns that the IT database is not going to be able to cope with the complexity that is required?
Will landlords survive if their income stream is disrupted by the welfare changes, as it is already understood some housing providers are already reining back on home improvement and maintenance programmes to create a financial cushion, others may well go under.
Time is required for a decent evaluation of the pilots which the Government is running on direct payments to householders, which should be followed by a phased implementation of direct payments, after which suitable safety net methods need to be put in place for defenseless people that has been developed and examined before being put into practice.
The question is, how are some of Britain’s most impoverished people going to cope with the welfare reform, it’s a significant inquiry, and it’s critical there is a knowledgeable public argumentation about the difficulties and the dangers of the reformation, or is this government setting people up to fail by intention. Once there is an infinite hodgepodge in the scheme, what will the government do, offer vouchers claiming that this is the only approach, and they will get the backing for it because of the job they have done in dividing and ruling people.