Most do, though. Certainly, when I was doing this kind of lark, it was a case of the local authority processing the payments and just paying the landlords each week.
Actually, I’ve been giving this a lot of thought - it forms part of a longer tactic I have observed in the benefits system, and I have been wondering whether my thoughts should form a separate post, or whether it will belong here. Here will do, I think given the way this thread is going.
First off, I’ll remind you that I’ll be drawing from my experience whilst working for the DHSS in the 1980s to 1990s. I was one of those people who calculated and paid out means tested benefits. I started off in Supplementary Benefit, and continued through the move to Income Support and into 1990/91 just at the time when computers were being installed. Over that time, I encountered pretty much everyone you can imagine - unemployed, single parents, pensioners, etc. in every stripe you can imagine. Some were genuine, some were not (where there is free money, you’ll always get shysters).
So, point one - not everyone can budget successfully. It‘s not a case of “oh, you should learn”, it’s a case of if you give someone a tenner to spend on food for the week, they’ll spend a tenner (for sake of argument). If you give them a tenner and tell them to put a couple of quid aside for a rainy day, they’ll more often than not spend the tenner. Some may do this out of necessity (£10 may be the minimum), some may because they will spend what they have, and some will manage to put a couple of quid aside.
Now, if you took the two groups who failed to save, and only give them £8 and tell them that you’ll hold back the remainder until they ask for it, they’ll adjust their spending . You may get called names, but they’ll cope.
Supplementary Benefit had such a system - it was known as voluntary savings, and your claimant could request a small sum put aside each week. This seemed to be very popular with single parents who, for example, may need to buy clothes for their children. Getting us to hold back a small sum each week meant that the temptation to spend it because she* had it was not there. When the need for the clothes arose, then we’d pay back what was kept.
There was also similar setup for gas and electricity - we could deduct a certain amount each week and pay it direct to the energy supplier (the supplier had to agree to this, but generally that was a formality). This would happen automatically if someone fell into arrears.
When Income Support came in, the whole voluptuary savings system was abolished. We had to pay out any money held back, and call it a day. I do remember that caused some people to complain as it formed part of their budgeting tactics. The electricity and gas system was also tightened up. You could not ask to go on that system until you were in arrears, and the criteria for staying on it was quite narrow once the arrears had been paid off. Again, it required the supplier to agree, but by then they were fitting key meters to anyone not in a vulnerable person group. Result: more people fell into arrears.
So I am not really surprised that people will be held responsible for paying their rent - it’s the trend in how the benefits system is being adjusted to make people get used to being paid in the work place and looking after their own finances. FWIW, Supplementary Benefit was paid in advance, Income Support was paid in arrears - another adjustment that took some careful explaining at the time, as well as various adjustment payments to ensure people didn’t loose out.
I agree to the principle of getting people used to work place payment arrangements, but I’d also want to point out that there are people out there who will find it hard to cope. I’ve seen it with the utilities. Money meant for rent won’t end up with the landlord, with the inevitable consequences.
(*Most single parents I came across were women. Some were men, but they were few and far between.)