- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
why arent the British public offering to take them in?
Nearly 100,000 children in England 'homeless'.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Absolutely, there are plenty of decent high rise accommodation, only they are called apartments when they are nice to live in and luxury apartments when they are really nice and sold for shed loads of money. There is no reason high rises can't be made into nice places to live in, just don't build those ugly grey things with cramped rooms. If you ever visit Edinburgh, you can see dozens of flats being put up all over the place using modern techniques which doesn't look very expensive at all, the problem I guess is the acquisition of the land in the first place.
Last edited:
I totally agree about building upwards in cities; we simply need to. But I don't like this commonly-accepted argument that Britain is in danger of being concreted over. It's nowhere nearly in danger, you only have to sit on a fast train out of London for more than 15mins and you'll be in lovely countryside in almost any direction.
Six reasons why we should build on the green belt
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So Landlords who rent primarily to people on housing benefit should be able to charge whatever they want, knowing the Government will be forced to pay it otherwise face emotional blackmail from homeless charities.
Funny they can't see how rent rises are partially due to the last Government's policy of meeting any rises with a rise in benefits.
The last government's solution made the problem worse for the taxpayer. The current government's solution, on the other hand, is making it worse for the tenant. Neither seem(ed) interested in tackling the housing crisis.
While house prices are certainly a delicate matter, taking action on second homes and working to reign in the BTL monster should be happening as a bare minimum response to the current market conditions. In my personal situation, the LL is talking about a rent rise that will see me faced with a choice between moving to a cheap, damp, run down terrace, applying for a Housing Association property (couple, no kids, not much chance of that happening) or moving back in with mum & dad for a while. She needs the money to fund more purchases to increase her portfolio (I've never met the woman - she now lives in France, retired at 55 thanks to the rampant property market. Her son deals with her collection of properties). I need the money to eat.
Last edited:
I don't understand what people's problem is with buy to let. Landlords have always existed and provide a service.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,068
- Location
- France, Alsace
Build a wall! Keep those kids out! Oh, wrong ones. Brown people, killing our kids! Making them homeless while we feed them and house them! Shocking!
I love it. You guys are like the poster children for BS media publications. It's fantastic.
Especially as, you know, you're all immigrants anyway. I'd be extremely surprised if any of you didn't have a background dating maybe back to the 17th century etc. from foreign lands, but you know. What is dangled in front of your face like a rag to a **** eating red bull, you're all over it.
I love it. You guys are like the poster children for BS media publications. It's fantastic.
Especially as, you know, you're all immigrants anyway. I'd be extremely surprised if any of you didn't have a background dating maybe back to the 17th century etc. from foreign lands, but you know. What is dangled in front of your face like a rag to a **** eating red bull, you're all over it.
that could solve a lot of problems... but then you get bleeting about 'social cleansing'
the fact that we've even got council accommodation these days in, for example, Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea just seems bonkers - the cost of a single flat there could build several homes further out
as far as local authority accommodation is concerned we should means test people regularly and remove the ability to pass on flats + consider relocating people
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,068
- Location
- France, Alsace
I agree. We're looking to buy and rent out over here, but were considering the UK. It's an investment. You only get people crapping on about it when they can't afford one for themselves, which is stupid. If they could, I'm sure they'd offer a rent of 50quid though, that'd be nice.
There is a problem in that the housing market is driving people who can't afford certain areas, away from that area that they may have always lived in, due to "lack of jobs" or whatever. But landlords aren't to blame for that.
But should the state be paying the rent?
But they are to blame for bringing an influx of cash to the housing market which has a dramatic impact on prices - I don't see how you can deny that? I had my house valued by an estate agent last week who basically said the exact same thing, which while it's working in my favour I can still see the inherent unfairness of it all - tenants who would normally be first time buyers are paying off their landlord's mortgages instead of having a mortgage of their own. You say it's an investment, I say it's more important than that - it's someone's home!
Unless you're going to do something to suddenly make jobs appear in these areas (e.g. a lot of the reason why these communities emptied out in the first place) then you're just going to create a ghetto of unemployed social housing tenants.
Tory government gonna Tory!
I work for a local authority, there is no council housing left, we are paying ££££££ for b&b for homeless families with children, it's utter madness, just build houses instead, but no let's give the money to private landlords and b&b's, Tory council logic!
I work for a local authority, there is no council housing left, we are paying ££££££ for b&b for homeless families with children, it's utter madness, just build houses instead, but no let's give the money to private landlords and b&b's, Tory council logic!
The existence of landlords isn't a problem. The current 'BTL is the holy grail of investments' craze is. People buying up property left, right and centre, pushing up prices at the bottom of the market, then being unrealistic in their expectations of returns and of the costs associated with owning and maintaining property.
The result is a market that's increasingly stacked against people who don't own property. Rents are rising faster than wages, house prices are rising faster than wages, and the government has decided to force Housing Associations to sell off their housing stock. A frustrating situation is being engineered where non-homeowners have nowhere to turn.
It's not like this situation is a result of people's hard work. It's a result of broken market mechanics. Rather than take action to correct the situation, the government gives landlords a tax break.
And the 'move to a different area' solution isn't a solution. It's a temporary fix. This is a national problem that will only get worse the longer it's left without action. Can't afford to live in London? Fine, move. In 20 years time will we be telling people who can't afford to live in 90% of the country to move to rural Lancashire/the Scottish Highlands?
Housing shouldn't be an investment. It should be a right. People should have a right to a secure home, be that one they own or one that's owned by a private landlord, council or housing association. There's no reason why this can't be a reality now. The longer we leave it, the worse it's going to get.
Last edited:
How many of these made "homeless" are families who's kids have moved into the next age bracket? A couple with a young boy and girl can be housed in a 2 bedroom property but as soon as one of them hits 10 they need another room and go onto the homeless list, even though they are able to manage. Husband runs off and a new fella is on the scene, has a 16 year old his mother couldn't cope with, a 4 bed house is now required as someone over 16 can't share a room and they're back on the homeless list. As a new couple she gets pregnant again, the previous youngest is now over 10 but can't share with his/her sibling, new baby needs a room... 5 bed house required because none of the 4 kids are allowed to share, back on the homeless list.
Statistics for homeless: http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/statutory-homelessness
You can also be defined as homeless if you don't look after your own property, a risk to health or unsafe living conditions. Boiler broken? Leaking roof? Severe damp in your bathroom? You can be on the homeless list! Source: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_a...health_and_safety_assessments_of_rented_homes
I understand there is a need to look after vulnerable members of society, but it's so easy to be categorised as homeless by not planning your own future or looking after the property you're in. Last quarter nearly 28k applied as homeless, only 50% were accepted, of which less than 1/3 were considered vulnerable.
Over occupation shouldn't be considered homeless, only 25% of those approved homeless end up in short term temporary accommodation so 15,000 new housing association houses a year would fix the issue. The problem is people don't want to move far and trying to build them or re-develop in city centres is too expensive, so in to temporary accommodation they go.
Statistics for homeless: http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/statutory-homelessness
You can also be defined as homeless if you don't look after your own property, a risk to health or unsafe living conditions. Boiler broken? Leaking roof? Severe damp in your bathroom? You can be on the homeless list! Source: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_a...health_and_safety_assessments_of_rented_homes
I understand there is a need to look after vulnerable members of society, but it's so easy to be categorised as homeless by not planning your own future or looking after the property you're in. Last quarter nearly 28k applied as homeless, only 50% were accepted, of which less than 1/3 were considered vulnerable.
Over occupation shouldn't be considered homeless, only 25% of those approved homeless end up in short term temporary accommodation so 15,000 new housing association houses a year would fix the issue. The problem is people don't want to move far and trying to build them or re-develop in city centres is too expensive, so in to temporary accommodation they go.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,394
- Location
- Over There
Surprised it took 5 posts to be honest.
It's quite clear that you were a previous username and subscribed to this forum long before Sep 15.