Jump to content

LondonMix

Member
  • Posts

    3,486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LondonMix

  1. Isn't a nanny an adult? Surely you mean before contacting the child's parents or the police. Your word choice is very demeaning to nannies and really, why is it necessary to criticize the nanny in an incident in which she prevented a potential crime. You don't know all the circumstances around her communication or lack there of with the parents so your comment seems particularly unnecessary and mean spirited. I agree with Otta it might be a misunderstanding but nevertheless, I'm glad I've been made aware and that's really enough said about it. alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I'm reading this right that nanny had poor > knowledge of child safety if she waited several > hours before telling an adult.
  2. The market has many of chain free one beds that are being sold by buy to let investors. Many of these have been sat on the market for ages. Price reductions are common and if you speak to agents they all tell you the sellers are open to offers. Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Mix, > Where do we see evidence of this? I.e. Increased > stock vs recent history?
  3. The local market is flooded with BTL investor flats that are struggling to sell already
  4. People like traditions and doing things because they are done. Every human society has evolved this way creating festivals and ceremonies that happen every year and have attached specific activities etc to them. It makes people feel rooted in tradition which most people around the world find comforting and enjoyable. Decorating your village and home during annual festivals is also a deep rooted human tradition and makes many people feel happy. I find it hard to understand what you don't understand about this behaviour given its kind of fundamental to being a human being as it exists across basically all human history and all human cultures universally. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah yeah I get it I get it OK. > > The point is many people spend crazy money this > time of year and don't know why, they just do it > because "it's done". > They don't "just google it" or have any idea why > their doing it, this is probably one of the only > times I'll ever align, even partially, with grok. > > "seasonal, hospitable, welcoming, represents the > season" - nice slogan but total piffle IMO. > > Anyway Happy Xmaaaaaaas ! > (Oops, used a greeting which should have been a > pre-pagan, mid-dark ages, post-gobbledegook > expression of fuckwittery)
  5. PRS is operated by the private sector not government so I'm not sure what your point is ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are also some rose tinted views about LA > renting back in the day too - there may have been > more housing at cheaper rents but anyone who > actually lived in inner London council housing in > the 80s and 70s will remember how long you had to > wait to get anything fixed, the horrendous > bureaucracy around anything and the general state > of the infrastructure....... but some how statism > and big business are GOOD landlords but small > private landlords EVIL - crappy lefty politics of > envy as per.
  6. This doesn't have anything to do with social housing and shouldn't have any long term impact for higher rents unless you think small BLT landlords charge tenants below market rents for some reason. Rents are a function of supply and demand so increasing supply overtime should actually keep rental increases down. Rents are likely to go up in London anyway simply because enough housing isn't being built at the moment and PRS schemes take time to deliver so in the short term (next few years) rents my spike higher than they otherwise would have but this will correct over time. Once planning permission is in place a large scheme can be delivered in two years since you asked. I still personally think there will be a gap when the value of flats is falling and rents are increasing due to the dislocations in the BLT market. Values won't fall enough to get people who are permanently renting into ownership (it will just be cheaper for people who were always going to own to buy) so the reduction in properties available to rent will push rents up and all the BTL investors exiting the market will suppress price increases. To your point though, yes you could encourage PRS without trying to get rid of small scale BTL investors. Getting rid of small scale BTL investors is part of the goal to professionalise the rental sector more broadly. PRS schemes for instance will be required to have longer term secure tenancies (up to 3 years) with limits on rent increases during those fixed terms. The entire set of policies tie into a broader set of goals. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely that could happen anyway - if this is > all extra development and given demand is so high, > there is no need to push out the smaller players. > And I still think severely lowering competition > will be bad. It usually is. It looks like the > old supermarket story - big player comes in with > money, put the small players out and then jacks up > the prices. Heygate estate, anyone? > > Plus there will almost certainly going to be a gap > between private landlords getting out if the > market and the institutions ramping up all this > hoped-for projected investment. What is the > turnaround time for a large development? 5 to 10 > years? > > So, I still think rents are going to go upwards as > a result of this.
  7. I got one from their Frogley Road shop (same people as the Fresh Flower Company but more plan focused). Mine cost 40 quid and was lovely. If I saw one I wanted for 65 quid, I'd buy it because I can afford to. If you can afford it and you love it why not. The one I got was made out of pinecones so I'll be able to rehang it. I haven't put it up yet but maybe it will go be hung from the inside of my window rather than on the door if people are really stealing them in ED!
  8. Its long, which is why I didn't include it in my original post! Like I said up thread, government get policies wrong but rarely are major policy initiatives totally without thought (except grammar schools). I think supply won't actually increase without significant investment in the construction sector as that's the most intractable issue constraining supply (though there are many). The new mayor is looking to get a special budget regarding skill devolved from central government to tackle the skills shortage issue in London. Others are investing heavily in modular housing solutions. We'll see. This policy has cross party support-- the mayor is very supportive and its one of the key housing focuses of May.
  9. It will increase the overall supply of housing because up until very recently house builders pretty much exclusively developed housing units to sell to individuals. Some of those individuals are owner occupiers but many are small scale investors in London (both national and international) who ultimately put the units into the rental market. House Builders also need to sell between 30 and 50% of their schemes off plan to secure development finance. How many homes a traditional house builder can develop in a given year in the traditional Build to Sell model is restrained in part by the financial capacity of small scale high net worth investors. The new government backed PRS (Private Rental Sector) scheme brings larger institutional money into the market which can deliver much larger schemes because they are designed for long-term rental investment rather than sale. A PRS development doesn't require any off plan sales and a large schemes can be more easily developed because leasing velocities are high. The British Property foundation estimates that a large land plot can deliver twice the PRS units per annum (over a phased development) relative to the more traditional Build to Sell model while achieving a PRS investors target returns. Key to solving the housing crisis is speeding up housing delivery per annum which is why PRS is getting loads of state financial support as well as exemptions from certain requirements so investors in the sector can compete with the offers for land traditional house builders make. The investors looking to invest in and operate PRS are almost exclusively pension funds-- their cost of capital which is lower than housebuilders is what makes the financial model work. In the UK, hardly any housing is run by large institutional landlords / investors. Its got one of the lowest rates in the Western world, so I wouldn't actually say there is much choice at all. Some of the government's new rules don't apply to BTL investors with at least 15 properties. The goal is to kick out the really small scale punters who still have full time jobs and aren't doing this professionally while simultaneously bringing in large scale investors to speed up housing delivery. Anyhow, that's the policy / aim. We'll see if its successful as really the constraints on housing delivery include issues with skill shortages in the construction sector than need to be addressed. Nevertheless, in the last year 2.5 billion of new institutional money has been invested in large scale rental schemes alone across the UK so its having some of its intended impact.
  10. I don't agree at all. I've owned for a long time, but small scale BTL landlords usually have full time jobs and are very unresponsive to sorting issues in a timely manner because the landlord duties come on top of everything else a normal person has to deal with. Also, because they are small scale they often don't have cost effective maintenance and repair contracts in place, which means when something goes wrong the spend ages get quotes and arranging a call in. My friend had her flat broken into and the door broken and the landlord took almost a week to fix a door that provided no security for the flat because she wanted to get quotes which is not only outrageous but immoral. I think professionalising the rental sector can only be a good thing and will increase the overall supply of housing. I could get into why but that is the main goal of the governments policy which is why its not ill thought out at all. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you might just be trolling a bit there, > bawdy-nan, but I'll reply anyway. > > Some people like going to the small-scale > landlord, as the Property pages on this very site > will attest. When it is your only place, you go > that extra mile to make sure you have a happy > renter. Keeping the good tenants is key. > > But I'm sure there a good reasons to go with a > big, faceless entity as well.
  11. Hmm, I can see that actually. I suppose its the difference between a personal investment and a business. To that end, if you hold your BLT investment in a limited liability company, these new rules don't apply and there are a lot of other business related advantages like being able to reinvest proceeds to expand your portfolio etc. However, you can't easily transfer your existing BLT into one as you'd trigger CGT amongst other things. However, going forward I think these will dominate the BTL market even though the cost of financing when using this type of vehicle is far more expensive. It will knock out the small scale unprofessional landlords and only serious small scale investors and large institutional investors will remain. Interesting times! Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Being able to deduct an actual expense you > > incurred from your profit isn't a tax break. > Its > > like saying a shop should pay tax on its gross > > revenue without being able to deduct costs for > its > > rent and employees etc. > > Yeah, I'm not really viewing as a tax break > either, as you'd think your expenses would already > be deducted before calculating tax. > > But it can be (and is being) spun as a tax break.. > one argument I've seen put forward is that if a > private individual wants to borrow money to buy > stocks, you'd still expect them to pay tax on the > full amount of the dividends, regardless of their > interest payments. I'm not convinced it's such a > great analogy, but hey...
  12. Being able to deduct an actual expense you incurred from your profit isn't a tax break. Its like saying a shop should pay tax on its gross revenue without being able to deduct costs for its rent and employees etc. Allowing for costs to be deducted is just how you calculate profit. This proposal basically increases the marginal rate of tax on rental profit for small landlords to above 65%. That's what the government wants to do and its the easiest way they could change the marginal rate specifically for BTL. That's fine. They did it for a specific reason as I outlined before. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The policy to end tax breaks on second (third, > forth...) properties is right imo.
  13. Exactly what Loz said. House prices will go down moderately and rental costs will go up. Buyers and long term renters for the most part are dramatically different populations so in reality, this policy will make it somewhat cheaper for someone who probably was always going to be able to buy a flat but not cheap enough to shift long term renters into ownership. The result is cheaper first time flats but higher rents as rental units will be removed from the market without a significant change in rental demand. The government wants to get rid of small scale landlords and professionalize the sector though so they are strongly encouraging the development of large scale Private Rental Sector developments managed and owned by institutional landlords backed by investors like pension funds etc. This is how rental works in much of Europe and the US where its a professional business and an institutional asset class. The prior and current government are providing billions worth of state backed financing to encourage the development of the sector which ideally will fill the gap left by all the small scale unprofessional BTL investors. I think it was Malumbu who said it, but he was perfectly right about public policy. It may not always benefit everyone and doesn't always work but its hardly as idiotically haphazard as the public think (notable exceptions include education policy IMO) Overall, a professional rental sector is better for tenants that this haphazard system in the UK. It also allows for greater / faster housing delivery, another key issue facing the country. On balance, I'm supportive. If you look on Rightmove, you can see the impact its having already. Lots of one bed flats are for sale 'chain free' and prices are falling. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Katy Tonbridge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > The landlord is testing the market to see if > it > > > will take the necessary rise to make BTL > still > > > work. If not, they will sell the property. > > > > ...they will sell the property...which means > that > > somebody down the chain who would otherwise > rent > > will now buy. So the rental population > reduces. > > So why should this force rents up?! > > There are a few factors, but the main one is that > demand is greater than supply for both rental and > sales. Another is that people often buy a spare > room, but rarely rent a spare room. > > Basically, if there was enough housing to go > around, then there would be little to no effect. > But there is not.
  14. Naty have a terrible reputation for leaking. I considered them but was put off by friends. We are a pampers household. For what its worth, reusable nappies are only better for the environment under very specific circumstances. We looked into this a lot and you'd have air dry them basically year round and reuse them on a second child (without buying more than the amount used in the government study) for it be better than disposables in most places in the country. However, in Southwark, the environmental case for reusables is almost impossible to make because Southwark's Waste Management facility is so advanced it turns everything into bio-fuel and new products used for construction material (including disposable nappies). If you want to use cloth nappies eventually though for other reasons of course go for it! Just know there is no reason to feel guilty if you stick with disposables after the first month as you aren't harming the environment :)
  15. I have one in my lounge and its lovely. Agreed, its not worth heating the whole house. On the weekends, we use it if we are going to be hanging out in the lounge of an evening in place of turning on our central heating. They are very efficient. I can't remember exactly how much ours cost or the fitting costs. We also needed to get the chimney swept and lined. We bought ours from Casa on Bellenden Road back in 2013. If I had to guess, I would say all in it was around 2,500 and heats our two front reception rooms really well
  16. The Palmerston used to be my favourite place Mick Mac. I think not being able to get in without a reservation a few times makes me now think of it as some place I need to plan to go rather than just pop in. Also, the more formal vibe means I tend not to go there for a more relaxed / rowdy meal with friends. The more casual gastropubs seem to be better for hanging out in.
  17. 10,000 people live in ED. If a fraction of them visit most of these places even twice a year that keeps them full. Add in people from the village, Nunhead etc and you can't get in to the most popular options on a weekend
  18. LondonMix

    ..

    I thought it might be a wind-up too but looking at the ad she posted for a cleaner and the rest of her posting history suggests not, which makes this all the worse.
  19. LondonMix

    ..

    What a xenophobic post. Why do you assume your cleaner is an illegal immigrant? Most of the cleaners around here are British or are from the EU and are therefore here legally. I'm not sure if your comment about which economy you are supporting relates to remittances or the black economy but either way you have no idea and immigrants sending money back to support family in their home countries is nothing at all to bash. In general immigrants have higher levels of employment and lower levels of benefit claiming that the native British population so your rant is just another display of your ignorance. As others have said, travel time between jobs effectively reduces the 10-11 quid an hour quite considerably as there is no pay for travel between jobs.
  20. I would say I go out to eat in East Dulwich / Peckham about once a week. 52 meals a year sounds like a lot but given how many restaurants there are, even if you really spread it around, most wouldn't get a look in. The one's I've been to most recently are Spinach (decent) and Mr Bao. Mr Boa I've been to around 3 times this year. I've been to Miss Tapas a couple of times this year, ToastED a few times. The Rye I've been to quite regularly cause I do their pub quiz with friends. I've probably been to the Picture House Cafe and Blue Mountain half a dozen times each. I've been to Burro e Salvia 3 or 4 times this year. Franco Manca the same. We've had Sunday lunch at the revamped Cherry Tree twice. I've been to the Lordship 3 times maybe. Sema Thai, 3 times. The Actress 1 (the Rugby was on), The Bishop 3 times. Pedder 3 times. Bahn Bahn 1. Rosies 1. I don't eat out at the Indian restaurants but order in. I'm expecting at the moment so haven't been to Yama Momo recently but otherwise go a few times a year. Also, haven't been into MeatLicquor as I like medium burgers and can't have them so why bother. I used to go to Franklins and the Palmerston loads but for some reason haven't this year (must put that right). We go to the Brickhouse and Oddonos quite regularly as well but I wouldn't call that eating out.
  21. I know people who regularly lease brand new cars and always trade them in. They aren't loaded either. Their logic is with a new car, you can easily budget how much your transport costs are. With an old car, whatever you think you are saving upfront ends up coming as large unexpected expenses when things start to fail and its much harder to budget that way. I don't have a car yet but when we get one (maybe next year) I think we'll use it so irregularly that an older car with low mileage is the way to go for us.
  22. My dad drives and SUV as its much easier to get in and out of with his back problems.
  23. Here is the link to the video-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql-N3F1FhW4 Watching it again, they make specific reference to it not being an SUV, so that tells you everything...
  24. Yes--I know many people who need a minivan but don't want a minivan and end up getting an enormous off road vehicle instead that serves almost the same purpose. Toyota tried to acknowledge and make fun of the uncool image of the minivan by launching an ad campaign in the US referring to their new model as 'Swagger Wagon'. It may come up on youtube if you google it. It highlighted the extra functionality of minivans for kids that most SUVs don't come with. I'm not sure how many people it convinced though!
  25. In the US, MPV's are called minivans which, at least in the public psyche, are VERY different from SUVs. Minivans are only really for people with kids. Their very practicality makes them deeply uncool and they have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them... Edited to fix typos
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...