UNIVERSAL CREDIT IS NOT A CREDIT TO THE UNIVERSE

Yes, it is logical but… WHO IS BENEFITTING?

I have a tenant application from a mum, on benefits, with a baby.

The allocated rate for her accommodation is £1,346pcm. However, because she isn’t working up to 16 hours a week, Universal Credit will only pay £1,173 towards her accommodation. Putting her far below market rate.

If she works 16 hours each week she will be entitled to the full £1,346…

The LOGIC is this will motivate her to work 16 hours to have a nicer place to live. Therefore, fulfilling the Universal Credit agenda of getting people back to work.

Just parking the enormous ‘elephant’ of a solo mum with a young baby finding 16 hours work a week – sounds like a big ask for her, her possibly non-existent support network (she cannot afford childcare in London (who can!)) and, frankly, an employer.

The LHA rate, worked out to be below average market rates, now becomes even lower through Universal Credit ‘helping’ her back to financial independence… and therefore, this mum and baby do not find a place that offers a space of her own (by that I mean a front door, bedroom, lounge, bathroom, kitchen etc.) on an AST; a stable base to live and grow from.

Who is winning here?

1.       Is it Universal Credit not having to pay the accommodation element? Probably not as alternatives are more expensive (but who pays these – is it the LHA? If so, a typical central government ruse).

2.       Her or the baby? Just can’t see how (please enlighten).

3.       The landlord? Property prioritised to professional tenants.

4.       The taxpayer (see 1)

5.       The Government being able to say ‘Universal Credit is Working’ (or, see 1, possibly passing the financial burden to local government)?

Please share your thoughts, I’d truly like to help her, but at whose cost… mine and mine alone; i.e. my rental income way below market rate (sounds like an opportunity for another landlord ‘me me me’ bashing story).