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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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