Too Good To Be True

Does it make sense to have social housing disproportionately concentrated in expensive central London boroughs? Hypothetical example: If Southwark is 50% social housing and Bromley 20%, over the long term it might make sense to shift council housing to Bromley to the point at which the proportions are equal (say 35% - avoiding either becoming disproporionately middle class/council house). The money saved could be spent on reducing the chance of future generations needing social housing, say by spending more on schools.

I assume that figure doesn't include housing association, but does include private leaseholders where the council owns the freehold. I was initially surprised, but then remembered every street I've lived on has had some council residences.

Thanks for highlighting this survey. I've replied using the Southwark Council portal. Will you be sharing the findings with Family Mosaic and other publicly-funded housing providers? Seems important for at least the third question (and probably all three).

The law firm Rubinstein Phillips Lewis has a solicitor with international probate and family law experience. (Declaration: one of my family works there) Hope this helps if you choose to go down that route. Good luck.

'equally happy going out or curled up on the sofa with DVD and a bottle of wine' = Imaginative. Definitely not socially dysfunctional.

Large bolt cutters are the most effective. No lock, however expensive, can defend you against high quality 40 inch+ bolt cutters.

Out of interest, when you have a subjective technical problem like subsidence, how do you ensure the insurance company does their job properly? What's to stop them doing a superficial touch up job and then tripling your premium so you don't renew? Can you appoint a neutral structural engineer and add that to the claim?