Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zeban Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Bloody Maggie Thatcher. Social housing should

> stay

> > just that, not for people trying to make an

> > investment.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Hear Hear



Whilst I agree Social Housing should remain Social Housing....


The big Problem is that many Local Councils do not have the Money to maintain the housing it still owns.

Much of Social Housing is in a poor state of repair.


At least most of housing that has been bought Privately is well maintained and habitable.


So a difficult one.


Fox

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dulwichfox, my understanding of the right to buy

> scheme is that the money raised is sent back to

> central government. Is this not the case?


That may be true of the initial sale..


But not of subseqent sale.


Also private landlords buying up property to re-let at high rents also with poor up-keep


Like I say, it's a difficult one.


Fox.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Whilst I agree Social Housing should remain Social

> Housing....

>

> The big Problem is that many Local Councils do not

> have the Money to maintain the housing it still

> owns.

> Much of Social Housing is in a poor state of

> repair.

>


xxxxxxx


But for example there has recently been an absolutely massive programme of improvements on the Dog Kennel Hill Estate, and I believe also on at least one estate on the other side of the Rye (and probably others).


I recognise one swallow does not a summer make (or something) but it does seem to me that Southwark Council is doing its best with probably very limited resources.


It could probably do more if it raised council tax, and then what? Votes for the other party.


That's partly why the NHS and many schools are in such a fragile state - income tax rate reduced for political gain, and then nobody willing to put it back up again. What do people think pays for the NHS and education budgets?


This isn't The Big Society, is it? It's everybody paying lipservice to community, but not wanting to be out of pocket to see other people lower down the heap raise their standard of living.


Sorry admin, off topic, delete post if you want :-$

Are you referring to Lordship Lane Estate area, if so its fine around here. Been here 4 years, never any problems, no trouble, everyone keeps their business to themselves. Relatively quiet, can expect the odd kids playing but thats understandable. We are in a private rent, ex council owned but are charged a extortionate amount, over ?400pcm more than its worth on private rental market (and the condition its in!!) and over ?700pcm the council rate for the same flat.

GinaG3 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

We are in a private rent, ex

> council owned but are charged a extortionate

> amount, over ?400pcm more than its worth on

> private rental market (and the condition its in!!)

> and over ?700pcm the council rate for the same

> flat.


xxxxxx


Stupid question, I know, so feel free to shoot me down in flames, but why are you renting a flat at over ?400 pcm over the going rate?

Don't blame Jimmybob for the demise of council housing - presumably any place he buys will already be privately owned.


While I'm not in favour of any moves to reduce the amount of council housing available, I am in favour of having a public/private mix within developments. Private ownership within council blocks is not a bad thing.


If you buy an ex-council property to rent out, make sure the return on investment will be solid, as appreciation tends to be behind the rest of the market.

Yes, I've heard the same stories. A lady I know bought a flat at the bottom of Lordship Lane (top of the hill) and had to raise ?30,000 to pay to replace all the windows - the costs were shared only between those who owned their flats. They took Southwark to court and the costs were reduced to ?16,000 each but she had to pay it. Shameful. I'd steer clear for that reason. She said she only realised after she looked into it that Southwark have done similar elsewhere. However, I can't find anything online I'm afraid. She was going through this over 2 years ago when I spoke to her about it.

property is returning 6/7/8% from rental yields (incl ex-local authority flats)

there's zero incentive to save in a bank, quite literally. you may as well withdraw 5% each year and burn it in the back garden...


the metal (is it metal?) exLA flats often aren't mortgagable, so watch for that if you're buying with cash as it may not sell that easily. The brick builds are mortgagable.


debt being currently VERY cheap, and rental yields high, makes sense to me if you want to save for the long term. There's no other way to save right now (stock market is too scary for most)

Still better than most, if not all savings accounts though and you can also write off repairs etc.


womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but those are GRoss yields -on secondary stock-net

> yields more like 3- 4% ( if capital values are the

> same)

I think the real crime regarding social housing is that much of it was sold at well below market value with no requirement by the owner to actually continue to live in the property beyond sale.


Also under the thatcher years local authorities were not allowed to reinvest the money from the sale of social housing back into social housing. Add to that the scenario where the government creams off a percentage of social housing rents (about to change under plans drawn up by the last labour government) it's no wonder that too much council stock has suffered in a shortfall of investment.


Morally I am opposed to the sale of council homes and to the then subsequent purchase for investment by secondary buyers or rental by the original buyers. The poorer members of our society are being squeezed enough and the lack of affordable and decent housing is shameful.


Rents are at a record high (so much for changes to hb curbing them) and if you are a family crammed into inadequate accomodation and paying a massive whack of your income for it then it's a miserable place to be in life.


Having said all that, purchasing an ex local authority flat comes with annual service charges and sizeable bills for communal works. The key is to do your homework. Speak to other leaseholders in the area (there is a southwark leaseholder organisation) and make a balanced decision on the risks from that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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