Open letter to council finance chiefs:

I WOULD like to take this opportunity to make it known that I am not attacking you or your colleagues or anybody for that matter.

I am simply questioning the logic behind the rules and how they are applied.

I believe that the rules have fallen behind, i.e.

society, people and business' practices have changed and the rules should therefore catch up.

Everything is moving quicker these days and while I acknowledge that help is available, it is simply too slow in coming.

Mortgage companies are re-possessing houses and landlords are evicting tenants before the help arrives, because the process involved in getting that help is too complicated.

It is a hollow victory to find you are entitled to help three weeks after you have been evicted or lost your home.

In my case, for example, I am not entitled to help with the interest on my mortgage until 39 weeks and one day after the day I first made a claim.

This rule applies to most people who took out their mortgage after October 1995, however if my mortgage protection

insurance will not pay because of a pre-existing medical condition I will be eligible for help after eight weeks and one day, so on the surface it seems I would be ok, except that by the time I have got the insurance forms, been through the medicals, had the x-rays, got the doctor to fill out the forms, sent them back and got a decision from the insurance company, it's too late, the house is re-possessed and I would be applying for Housing Benefit.

Which brings me to the point of my last letter.

The interest on a mortgage is generally less than renting in the private sector, so why not work together with the benefits agency in a circumstance where it is cheaper to keep someone where they are.

If the insurance then pays out, get your money back.

If not then at least you have saved some money and people are not homeless, regardless of what department pays what benefit.

It is all funded by the public and someone somewhere has a duty to look after that money, and saving money in one area only to spend more in a

nother seems to be foolish.

In conclusion, I am simply questioning the rules as I would question any rule which caused people unnecessary distress.

After all, it is only by listening to what people have to say that you can become aware of what is wrong and therefore take steps to correct the situation.

G McLelland

Balmoral Rd Morecambe