Otta

This could get interesting / messy http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27062091?SThisEM

Is this a public or state school?

Yeah I don't know that either.

While the baby is small would a sling for the little one not be easier, and hopefully by the time baby is too big for that your older child may have grown out of his mac love... I'd stop the watching telly from the buggy though.

Bale is great, Ronaldo and Messi are greater. Can we change the subject now?

How exactly do people propose that this tax on people's "windfalls" should work? Should properties be valued yearly and home owners sent a tax bill based on any increase? You are aware that the value of a property is meaningless unless it's actually sold aren't you?

That's what I don't get too Jeremy.

Cool SJ PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The increase of the last 20 years has only > replaced the decrease of the 10 years before that! And again I'm not checking figures, but perhaps we have a lot more older people now than 20 years ago. Either way we're running out of homes.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are you on about quids? > > I post a graph just to give some background to > otta saying london has never been this full > > Which seems fair enough > > And you barge in with "but one we can't mention in > your world SJ? it's a non mentionable??? For fear > we are nazis?? or is it a lie?" > > I literally have no idea where you are coming from > today You took me literally which is fair enough. I shouldn't have said that, I just meant in recentish years. Okay? This is getting shitty and I'm clearly not clued up enough to play with the big boys so I'll shut up. But that particular post was actually just meant as a calming thang, I wasn't thinking too much about the numbers. Regarding immigration, the numbers aren't as huge as some would have us all believe for sure, but they're significant.

London may well have ALWAYS had immigration, but it's never been this full and had this kind of continuous influx. Talking sensibly about that doesn't make you a Daily Mail reading oaf PokerTime. Quids and I don't always agree, but don't try to dismiss him as something he definitely isn't if you know the history of his posts.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Imposing a ?1500 per month max on rents would be > about the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. I > bet that the average for every rental property > inside the M25 would be more than that. Just wait > for the black market to explode not to mention > sky-high rates of illegal subletting. Yeah okay, so not particularly well thought out on my part, but my general point was that doing something to regulate the private rental market would be useful. I don't know enough to really have the solutions neither do I pretend to. Unlike several on here. Edit to change a do to a don't.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on > about THAT. If we look back at when we had that > before (rent control) from before= no investement > in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike > horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties love > it though as the assumption is always that private > BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't care > about their property etc et c etc > > If we bring back rent controls without a massive > investment in social housing as an alternative, > we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting > stock increasingly in the hands of a new > generation of Racchmans > > ..brilliant solution! I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch, but surely it could be done... well... a bit differently? And of course not every private landlord is a greedy scumbag, but plenty of them are quite frankly. And to be honest, if I had a spare house I'd get as much as I could for it. That doesn't make it right, and perhaps someone needs to say "actually, this is what is fair for that prop[erty, and this is what you can have". It's not like I'm suggesting rents go down really low, but frankly people shouldn't be paying more than ?1500 rent a month for a 3 bed house whatever area it's in.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before (can't be doing with reading every post anymore) but surely national rent regulations (with a London / big city premium) would go a long way to helping. If landlords couldn't be toi greedy it would reduce BTL, and if rents weren't higher than mortgages people wouldn't be so desperate to buy.

And DC, you're seriously better off not being invited back to those dinner parties! I think I'd share your ideology on this one, but we're too far down a bad road for us to ever get there I think.

I think a lot of people (well me anyway) buy because they don't want to be paying rent after they retire. So yeah I guess that's an investment in my future, but not an investment in the way that (I think) SJ is getting at.

Legally they were supposed to provide you with details of the scheme within x number of days from receiving your deposit, so if you don't know whether i's in a scheme or not, they've already broken rules. I see Jeremy's point, but I lose sympathy for landlords when they take the piss. Our issue was over a sofa which we admitted had gotten very grubby (kids and spillages). I was willing to contribute for a new one, but the landlord asked for ?500 (it was a 1970s/80s sofa worth nothing) and wouldn't negotiate, so we had to get serious. Asking for ?750 is taking the piss.

I'm more surprised to see Arsenal at number 11.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if house prices decreased you would be able to > buy cheaper no? I'm not that clued up but surely not If I end up with a load of negative equity?

When you moved in did the landlord provide you with details of what scheme they had put your deposit in to? We recently had similar issues with the landlords, but because they'd failed to do this (and basically had just held on to the money) they didn't have a leg to stand on. If your landlord has put your money in a scheme, then an independent arbitrator can decide what is fair. If they failed to do this then you can take them to court and they can be told to pay you 4 times your original deposit. Once our landlords twigged to this they couldn't give us our money fast enough. Lots of these people assume tenants won't know their rights and just bully people.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why would you be in trouble if it did Otta - you > planning to move? At some point, hopefully, yes.

I'm the penge one these days. And I dare say living in closer proximity to a greater number of people that may have done time! That said, the house opposite me in Sydenham turned out to be a drug factory.

True dat. I don't mind if the price of my place stays where it is, I just don't want it to fall because I'll be fucked.

This weekend was one of those rare ones when a couple of things come up at once, had a 40th to go to on Saturday night, then band rehearsal last night, so didn't really have a leg to stand on when she told me I was going to a birthday lunch. Next time I shall make sure the diary is clear!

Exactly. Only space is the police station, but I think a school might just be preferable. Or you could pave over Goose Green...

No my wife says he's single. No idea if there is an ex. He just said that simply he couldn't afford to buy a place even on his wages. I guess even if you're earning ?80k, if you've not saved a deposit you're still buggered.