On 26 Jan 2012 at 9:45pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
DHS: anyone who gets job seekers, income support or ESA is entitled to have their mortgage interest paid after they have been claiming for 13 weeks. The only caveat is that this will not cover mortgages taken out for purposes other than the original purpose, eg to release equity or finance the building of extensions.
Me-Mo: As well as owning a home, you will be able to sell it and move elsewhere if you wish. This mobility is rarely available to social housing tenants unless they are prepared to sacrifice their secure tenancy and go back to private renting.
ASL: leasing your property to the council means that the council pay the rent direct to you whether the property is occupied or not. The council is effectively your tenant, not the person living there. And HB can be paid direct to private landlords if you make it a condition of the tenancy, or if the tenant requests it because they cannot manage their own money effectively.
JRS: I am sorry your friend suffered at the hands of bad tenants, but most landlords take out insurance against that sort of thing.
While there are undoubtedly bad tenants, landlords can insure against the losses they cause and evict them. Good tenants have no such protection against bad landlords, or whom there are plenty.
Only this afternoon I spoke to a tenant with a young baby. The baby suffers from frequent chest infections and breathing difficulties. Environmental health had just confirmed that the mould in the flat is aspergillus, a fungus that thrives in damp conditions and affects the lungs. It has no heating and 2 of the windows are impossible to shut. The landlord has repeatedly failed to do anything about it and the EHO wants to take action against the landlord. The tenant is scared to give permission for them do that for fear of being served notice and becoming homeless. While the council would have a statutory duty to house the family, they would, at least initially, be placed in a very grim B&B a long way from where they live. What a choice, eh?
On 27 Jan 2012 at 8:09am DFL wrote:
Thank you for this information ACT, very informative !
On 27 Jan 2012 at 8:14am bastian wrote:
well done ACT, sense at last.
It is a shame that so many people are unable to debate a simple question without becoming defensive and angry...there is no need for that, someone like yourself who appears to be in control of actual facts are a gem in a wilderness.
On 27 Jan 2012 at 9:28am Selfish landlord wrote:
Note- interest paid only. It will not pay back the full amount.
Mobility is available to council house tenants by swaps. I know of many people who have done this.
Insurance premiums go up as soon as you have to claim and insurers are notorious for wriggling out of paying.
And while we,re being anecdotal, my mother was left a small property by her sister. She rented it out for peanuts - she wasn't a natural businessperson but had no other source of income when my father became ill. The tenants trashed the place and sh@t on the floor.
Still no volunteers for paying for my old age or suggestions of alternatives to my current plan.
Also given that people want to rent- who should own those properties?
On 27 Jan 2012 at 4:31pm brixtonbelle wrote:
No one has mentioned the notion of bringing in rent control which seems to me the obvious way of stopping unscrypulous landlords profiteering from the benefits system. Shame the Tories arn't talking about this in their benefit cap proposals = but of course it does mean they will be able to 'cleanse' all those 'benefit scroungers' from wealthy boroughs like Westminter and move them out to the suburbs (or poor coastal towns).
Also ensuring that HB should go direct to the landlord to prevent it being squandered by (some) tenants.
On 27 Jan 2012 at 6:58pm SHS wrote:
This all started when someone had the bright idea of selling council houses to the tenants and not building enough new council housing. Now the only option is to seek help from the private sector but they have to pay a market rent. I know a local landlord (just a private guy who worked hard and decided to let out his previous home) who had two tenants short-listed but then had a call from a team at a local council (a consultancy I think, hired in specially for the job) desperate to find accommodation for a whole raft of people (on housing benefit) and ready to pay whatever was necessary. Hardly the landlord's fault. Hmmm... if we ALL went on benefits & did sod-all who would we blame & who would pay our benefits? Work it out.
On 28 Jan 2012 at 4:12pm bastian wrote:
work has to pay enough that people can manage by themselves. unfortunately for many it doesn't, there is the problem. it is not a case of benefits are to high for work to be attractive, quite the opposite.
On 28 Jan 2012 at 6:27pm Maxdrum wrote:
House prices will stay high given that other ways of managing money are either risky or return diddly. Spare cash is being put into property. That means people will be looking to rent. You get good landlords and bad ones. Not all of them are going to be comedy top hat capitalists or rachmann. There are plenty of people who've had their pensions filleted by the scumbags in the financial services who are looking for a way to stay afloat. It's either that or a bijou cardboard box.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 7:46am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
"A gem in the wilderness" Bastian? I may have to change my user name that lol.
I'd like to see a property tax on second homes. I find it repeelent that some people have 2 or more homes while plenty of people haven't got one at all.
And yes, rent control is a good idea. And it would create jobs! I'd quite like to be a rent officer.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 2:17pm Selfish landlord wrote:
I'm sure there are quite a lot of jobs you'd like to do act. Why don't you change your username to judge judy?
Unfortunately you seem to be quite typical of many people on the left. All criticism but no solutions. STILL no answer to my query about what else people can do to secure their funds. I'd love to put my feet up and rely on a pension. Been working all weekend.
Are there any jobs you approve of that are outside the public sector? What about booksellers. Are they nasty capitalists selling the printed word which should be freely available.
It must be difficult for you to think outside cariacatures.
As for people with second homes, I bet they have little tails and pointy horns.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 3:57pm bastian wrote:
we have solutions but apparently they are to radical.
It is interesting how angry and rude you get when someone dares to challenge your ideas.
Socialists are open to debate and not happy with the status quo,not reactionary,
you obviously don't understand a thing about socialism unlike most people who can see both points of view.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 7:48pm Selfish lanlord wrote:
Im still not getting any answers.
I dont see any debate here. Just prejudice. If you think socialists are open to debate you've obviously not met many members of the SWP.
Here's what I would do - or one of the many things- I'd regulate the financial services industry so that people would not feel the need for such safeguards as owning property.
You are barking up the wrong tree about me bastian. I'm probably to the left of 90 per cent of the population. One thing I do notice though is that the people I've met on the right are more open to debate.
You think I'm rude. I'm actually just rather direct. I haven't called anyone else 'unethical' for example. Seems to be you guys handing out all the criticism of other people's lifestyles.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 7:58pm Selfish landlord wrote:
However, on thinking about it, who would then own the houses people want to rent? If it's not amateur landlords we have state ownership of all property, or big business and we end up with landlords such as a certain Sussex character I won't mention.
You guys are still quiet on this one. Easier to criticise, isn't it?
On 30 Jan 2012 at 10:38am bastian wrote:
if it is prjudiced to think differently to you then I may have to ask the OED to redefine the term.
No problem with state housing...that is what we want more of and yes, we have common ground on regulation of the financial industry. that brings us back to where things were before it all went crazy..a mangable atate of affairs.fear of your future is what has made your decisn to make a pension of your renting business, why should we be in fear of our futures when we used to have a pension in place that reflected our working past?
who moved the goal posts? and why?
On 30 Jan 2012 at 10:54am bastian wrote:
that is an opening for a discussion...
On 30 Jan 2012 at 6:12pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I agree with SL that making provision for one's old age is a vexing problem. I really think private pensions are a waste of money, by the time you've paid the rip-off fees to the fund managers who take their Danegeld whether they win or lose when they gamble with your money, and then got a paltry 5% return without even retaining your capital. One friend of mine has a pension that has performed so badly, she worked out she'd have been better off paying the money into a high interest account every month. She could still buy an annuity if she wanted to, but she could also put it in gilts or even gold.
I feel intensely uncomfortable about people making money out of something which is such a fundamental human right as housing, especially when they're not even providing housing that is secure or affordable, and often not of a decent standard.
The lack of suitable pension options doesn't make that acceptable imo.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 2:57pm bastian wrote:
it isn't a problem that there are no pension options, but there is a problem with secure pension options. The council runs a very good one, and for that they are damned by every private employee..when surely what should be happening is that the private employee should be demanding that they to have a simmilar option.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 4:03pm Penny Pincher wrote:
Very nice Bastian, and now you are going to tell us where the money to pay for it would come from...?
Tell you what though, perhaps the private sector employees should demand a pension as good as the public sector by all going on strike! There would then be a national outcry amongst public sector workers when they realised that they had to all pay more tax to finance the private sector having a pension as good as theirs.
Now that would be very interesting, I am all for it.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 4:18pm bastian wrote:
perhaps private employers should reopen the pension shemes that used to opperate for their employees...employees paid into them and used to reitre on what they had put in and the difference was made up by the employer....but wait...that will mean less money for the company dirrectors who of course earn that enormous salary with bonuses and company car.
I suppose I am asking for equality..but you are not interested in fighting for that are you..