PokerTime

Numbers, I can't be expected to know that ????s or anybody writes in a particular way. It's a forum. I found his challenge to my view on lobbying dismissive and sarcastic (and that's what actually started it). And if I were sarcastic and dismissive of a post in that way (knowing that person knows nothing about me) I would expect to be called out on it. Surely there's not a clique here. It's a public forum. no? People have to take responsibility for the way in which they express themselves.

A paragraph you started with a patrinising tone 'Now to be absolutely crystal clear for one dimensional political thinkers'.......It's ok to say I disagree and this is what I think. It's doesn't have to be embellished with digs and accusations of leftism, niaivity and whatever other label you want to put on someone with a different view. That just winds people up. I don't know what I did or said to offend originally but it's not my intent to offend anyone. I thought I was just participating in an interesting debate.

I have backed my opinions with facts...that's very different to stating opinion as fact. All the figures are out there and easily researched. What I take exception to is the kind of playground digs of ????. He's clearly not interested in having a sensible discussion to explore anything he thinks is not based in fact. For example, he described social housing developments as failing because he had a view that the poorly built/ designed estates of the 60s are typical of social housing. If he knew anything about the history of the subject he would know that's not true. I can't help it if anyone writes something that is demonstrably not true. That's not my problem. What I do know is that when people resort to insulting tones, it's because they are losing the debate and know it.

Jesus, you seem to have a real issue with sensible debate ????, but the issue is all yours. You don't know anything about my level of experience on the subject or anything else. But continue to make yourself look a bit irrational by all means. London has ALWAYS had immigration. Similarly most newcomers are internal migrants. And the overwhleming majority of migrants work and are a whopping third less likely to be on benefits than British nationals according to the DWPs own records. They are not the drain that the Daily Mail likes to protray them as. It's a red herring.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When you see an overly complex system where everyone has had a go at "fixing" it by taking > drastic action, surely the common sense approach is to stop taking drastic actions, sure it up and > start fixing small, measurable, reversible things around the edges? For example, remove the most > recent drastic action (help to buy) from the mix. This is absolutely my view too. Workable solutions are going to be longer term - a gradual reduction of the 'heat' in the market. Obviously that won't solve anything overnight, but there is no way to solve anything overnight without doing great harm to those heavily invested in it all. Even house building is not a quick fix. That in itself takes time. We have to be completely sensible and fair in finding workable solutions.

Where to start in answering that motorbird......I could write a whole thesis! Your question is specifically about lack of new homes, but I think that has to be considered in two ways. Lack of available housing stock for those who want to by (so demand outstripping supply) and lack of affordable housing (which also is subject to a demand/supply factor) and the problems that lead from that. The most significant factor imo is the lack of foresight by planners and regulators and government in keeping up with London's ever evolving economy. It's a sign of the success of the city that it's population has grown century upon century. Good town planning understands that vibrant economies need good infrastructure, and a labour force that is within easy reach. Housing of course is a major requirement for finding that labour force. So what has happened in London specifically over the last 30 years to bring us here? Foreign investment and super bonuses have fuelled a luxury appartment construction boom. A high percentage of new property built in London has been to serve this market. This has been at the expense of family residential homes and social housing. In order to pursuade contruction companies to build family homes sucessive governments have had to offer sweeteners to incentivise those types of development, but they haven't built enough. Right to buy has depleted affordable social housing stock, which has not been replaced at all. And the demographics of people have changed. More people are single, live alone, and we all live longer. Construction hasn't taken any of that into account. Planning issues are a whole other kettle of fish. Planning is decided borough by borough. Central funding for housing development has been dimished, especially by this coalition. And funding out there is aimed primarily at housing associations over LAs, but they can't build anything like the number of homes needed. Huge redevelopments likes Heygate take a decade or more to happen, and that development almost collapsed too. The only organisations that could actually build the number and type of homes needed are private construction companies. Being businesses they are in operation to make profit. Government and LAs can (and do) write percentages of affordable housing into planning deals, but it's a long process of negotiation, and not one that is every going to see the number of, or right type of affordable homes being build for example. We have a super hot, free market, with plenty of buyers willing to pay top of the range property prices. That's where it starts, and everything follows from there.

Those figures bloonoo seem pretty normal for that size dwelling and occupancy. It definitely can pay to shop around and also consider using a smart meter, whereby you can see which appliances are most energy hungry. It definitely pays to have low energy rated appliances where possible.

Wow, looking at that stain, there is no way it requires an entire new carpet. Here is what the law says Amy about deposits; Within 14 days of paying your deposit, your landlord is required to give you details about how your deposit is protected, including: contact details of the tenancy deposit scheme; contact details of the landlord or agent; how to apply for the release of the deposit; information explaining the purpose of the deposit; and what to do if there is a dispute about the deposit. Did they do this? Also the check in report should be checked and signed by you on the day you move in. Three months down the line (and only after you ask) I think will play heavily in your favour. You have no way of knowing if the stain was there ir not when you moved in, because youe landlord didn't provide you with the condition details for you to agree and sign.

That's wny rent caps have to about limiting annual rates of increase, not put a ceiling on a one size fits all rent. ????, you keep banging on about leftism! What are you talking about? This has been a very good, interesting and eloquent debate about some very real issues, with a variety of viewpoints (all valid) and a general consensus on the difficulties of finding workable solutions. All you seem to have contributed is some rage driven dismissal of any criticism of the market as leftist nonsense! Incredible....

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did someone just suggest that the sort of actions > taken by British governments throughout the 20th > century (post war housing programme for example) > is somehow comparable to the extreme > States of China and Korea? > > I think someone just did I chose to ignore that comparison SJ.....it's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read about housing.

Lots of points? In reply to Penguin's issue with mansion tax, there could be exemptions in certain cases, or any tax could be linked to a range of things. There are as I argued other alternatives to liquidation. Assets can be used to raise cash in many ways. But for the record, I am not a huge supporter of ?mansion tax?. I think it is fraught with complications. I would be more persuaded by an empty property tax, or second property tax. I do though also have support for the idea of CGT on sale profit. The key there would be in getting the percentage right. I also agree with the sentiment that many people (even those just looking to buy a home) are obsessed with investment. That?s why we have terms like property ?ladder?. It?s also why people will buy anything to just get on it. I wholeheartedly agree Zebedee, that a form of land tax would raise healthy amounts of tax and it is looking likely to be one of the major conclusions of the project I?m researching for. There is a problem though in that there are sizeable chunks of the land where the owner is unknown or not registered. Researching the fine detail of who owns what (to arrive at a place of reliable hard data) has been the most challenging area to research. Balckcurrant is spot on with the consequences in this post? ?? there has been a massive transfer of wealth to older generations via the house price boom and subsequent measures taken to arrest and reverse the correction that began in 2007/8. People who own property, especially in London, have received a vast unearned windfall, and the younger generation now has to pay for it by borrowing large amounts and working for life time to pay down debt.?..? The argument is often made about the baby boom generation, and how they?ve had the best of everything. There is great merit in that argument. One persons wealth can only happen at the expense of many others. That?s how capitalism works. Dave C has made some excellent points imo? ?Market solutions? Is that not what's got us into this mess? ?..? Whilst all of this is true, we have had precedents where private housing appreciates over the long term at sensible rates, parallel to plentiful affordable rents and accommodation. What was different then? Regulation and a direct will by government and social planners to make sure things were balanced as far as possible for the greater good of all society. It?s not necessary to destroy a private market to achieve this. It never has been. Just to come full circle DaveR?.there is plenty of land suitable for development, if that?s the route we want to take. The problem is that most of it is privately owned. The Crown owns around a third of it alone!!! It?s not necessary to build on municipal land or green belts. We just need to look at sensible ways of land reform.

That is all true Loz but there are some things that can be taxed, like land and empty properties for example. These are things that can be leased or brought into use to pay for it. Liquidation is not the only option. Land and homes can't be moved offshore either. As the article link I post states, we are all crammed into a tiny fraction of UK land. Most of the land is owned by people who have never worked for it. And we in turn subsidise the owners of that land. Either we want a fair society, were effort and work is rewarded equally, or we continue as we are.

Anyone else think the landlord will have trouble justifying a cost of ?750? http://londoncarpetrepairs.com/index4.html Let us know how you get on Amy.

The land tax debate is an interesting one and is where I think we should go. Of course it has some detail that needs to be worked out but has always made more sense to me (in terms of equality) than taxing labour for example. This article pretty much illustrates the point.... http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership

Interesting post Dunraven. I think we all need to be able to see some plans online. I have the impression that the adventure playground is well used and a success. The childrens play area always seems to be well used as well. I also have the imperssion that young people are well served by the current facilities at the park. Can't see why any of that needs to change? I can though understand the 1.0 clock club wanting a better building or the football changing rooms needing to be in a better location (although given that they currently sit in the middle of pitches that are positioned at opposite ends of the park and common who knows?). 2.2 million though.....and how many educational and essential services have been cut back exactly?

LOL...you are not thick Alex, I'm sure of that. We are talking about two different things. Cash buying Landlords are different to the person buying a second home for rent, and very different to buy-to-let investors. Cash buying Landlords have always been around, and they are less concerned with short term value increase. They expect to own the property for a very long time. If you rent regulate, they won't suddenly sell up. They won't won't be making any loss either. They make the most money from property because they always have a return on the original capital investment in addition to rental income. They often buy at auctions too and snap up bargains. 80% of private rental accomodation falls into this group. Comapare that to a buy-to-let investment, where the landlord is servicing a mortage. The only real value in that investment, is the appreciation in value of the property. There may be some return on rental income but it won't be much. 20% of private rental accomodation falls into that bracket. So a rent control could work by limiting the rate of increase, and locking it to an annual formula (which is how social hosuing works). This would make renting a sensible alternative to ownership again. There are many other benefits too. 'Inequality has been replaced by debt servitude'. I agree blackcurrant. But I would also say that cheap borrowing has been part of the problem too.

Here are some more useful links Amy. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/tenancy_deposits/getting_your_deposit_back/deductions_from_tenancy_deposits http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/a-guide-to-tenancy-deposits-disputes-and-damages.pdf What is clear is that the Landlord can only keep that ?750 if he/ she can demonstrate that the stain results in that level of financial loss to him. If he's not seeking to replce the entire carpet, what is he seeking to do? An arbitrator would consider if his valuation is reasonable or not, vs your offer of alternate solutions and costs. You are under no obligation to agree with him and he has no automatic right to keep your money. that is for an impartial third party to decide. Is there any way you can post a pic of the stain to give us an idea of what we are talking about, i.e. size, colour etc. Might help any carpet experts out there too to offer advice.

That's right Otta. The deposit has to be paid into a TDP.... https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/overview Ask for proof of this and follow the legal channels for challenging what seems to be an excessive charge. The landlord will not have the final say, but an independent arbitrator. If the landlord didn't use a TDP then you have things in you favour and can use several means to get the money back. As for the carpet...depending on the stain, there are other ways to clean when steaming isn't enough. Did your cleaners agitate the stained area before cleaning for example? I'd definitely take some expert advice on that first.

I'm very impressed with Japan! Doesn't Lordship Lane have ample parking anyway? I often see empty spaces in the free bays on LL itself and there always seems to be a space a short walk away in one of the side streets, none of which are parking controlled.

And the other thing to add Zebedee, is that in all of these debates, you find homeowners taking part. You also find those looking to buy participating, as well as social tenants and sometimes social landlords. What you never find in any debate are the direct views of private landlords. They are notably silent. It's a silence seen in the media and parliament too. 80% of private rented accomodation is cash bought and/or mortgage free. As much as we talk of the rise in value for a private homeowner over a short time, these are not the poeple benefitting most from the inflation of the last 30 years. The 80% of private landlords with no mortgage overheads are the real beneficiaries. So for me, it makes perfect sense to regulate those rents. I think it would go a long way to improving some things without plunging Landlords into loss making entities.

I think your post is a useful example Sophie. There is one thing you say that I think typifies a major shift in affordability. 30 years ago, just one salary in a family on an average wage could support a mortgage. Many of us will have had fathers or grandfathers that went out to work, whilst mum stayed at home bringing up kids. Those fathers may have worked in factories, or driven buses, but they could do it (with maybe a little overtime here and there). Today it is impossible for a like for like salary to support a mortgage. Increasingly both parents are having to work full time and for what? A retirement funded by downsizing and released equity? I think we've become enslaved to the housing market. Editied to add; I completely agree Zebedee.

That all makes sense now Miga. And yes, the problem is one of growing multiples of salary, not appreciation of value over time per se. I think everyone understands that. Where I take issue is in the defense of that trend, especially with comments like 'things have always been like that'. They haven't always been like that, at all. History tells us a few things about how unregulated landlords work for example, and in every instace it has taken regulation to guarantee fair rents and decent standards of accomodation. Removing regulation was never going to do anything but take us back there. Similarly history tells us a few things about private housing markets too.

But only 33% of proerties in ED are houses Miga. 66% of properties are flats. So your equation doesn't work, because the majority of buyers are looking at flats (that cost less), not houses. My impression is that ED has attracted up and coming professionals (the usual backbone of gentrification) rather than affluent 150k joint salaries. And the lack of available houses compared to flats in turn may have a bearing on house price inflation. The truth is anyway that we have no way of knowing what the average salary of ED is without hard data. Guessing by any parameter is not useful.

Wow, does that really exist Jeremy?

I'd say 70-80k is probably more realistic Zebedee, and that's joint income. I don't know of anyone in ED on a joint income of 150k.