Property disaster

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 29 Mar, 2009 5:56 pm

I'm happy to admit to living in a council house. It's in an OK area and the mix is probably around 60/40 privately owned / council at the minute. I looked at buying this house, but the figures simply didn't add up for us (for all this talk of 65% discounts the discount is capped at considerably below that actual amount in monetary terms). In the current climate I'm glad I'm renting as in the worst case scenario I can get my rent covered while I find another job. Hopefully it won't come to that, but who knows in this day and age?There were two major issues with 'right to buy' - the councils were not allowed to plow the money raised back into more social housing, and (obviously) mainly the better housing got snapped up leaving mainly the less desireable homes in less desireable areas, which became a vicious circle as the rot set in.Then you have ludicrous schemes like EASEL where council houses, admittedly in need of refurbishment, are emptied and demolished and the land sold off cheaply to a developer who builds new housing (some of it 'affordable'), after going cap in hand to the council for more money. Tenants initially weren't consulted and when they kicked up a fuss were paid lip service to and largely ignored. So we have a huge swathe of East Leeds that has been cleared, with tiny homes no-one can afford to live in sandwiched between run down areas on either side. I'm not sure who will aspire to live here? This will apparently regenerate the area, although I'm not sure how.And finally, on the subject of empty houses: My dear dad died last year and it took the council 4 months to let new tenants into his old three bed semi with a good sized garden after we handed the keys back. That is exactly the sort of house the council claim to be crying out for and while I admit it did need a little modernising it was deemed quite adequate for my dad to live in up to his passing. It's precisely this sort of waste and incompetence that makes my blood boil.

Post by **chameleon** » Sun 29 Mar, 2009 7:00 pm

cnosni wrote: chameleon wrote: Just a thought, if more Council ('social') houses are built and the right-to-buy persists, what happens in a few years time to the next generation of peopls needing a home they can afford? Well one of the reasons why there is a shortage of council housing is because succesive governments prevented councils from building new council homes.The monies from tose sales were frozen.The amount of homes the council are talking about are relatively small,but nonetheless needed. Of course they are, and then they will be bought too - back to square one.

Post by **cnosni** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 4:51 am

chameleon wrote: cnosni wrote: chameleon wrote: Just a thought, if more Council ('social') houses are built and the right-to-buy persists, what happens in a few years time to the next generation of peopls needing a home they can afford? Well one of the reasons why there is a shortage of council housing is because succesive governments prevented councils from building new council homes.The monies from tose sales were frozen.The amount of homes the council are talking about are relatively small,but nonetheless needed. Of course they are, and then they will be bought too - back to square one. So what is the answer for those trying to get o the property lader then?Private landlords,unreachable mortgages and lack of social housing do not encourage the young uns to get on up the ladder.The points made about people in council houses are very sweeping im afraid.Either in or out of social housing those people who dont want to make their own way in life will end up recieving help one way or another,something we will all pay for.Council housing does not make antisocial benefit sponging layabouts.Theyre made by their own upbringing and attitude to life.There is a family behind us who have a privately rented house.They clearly dont work so obvioulsy the rent is paid by the social.Theyre a bunch of no good noisy inconsiderate layabouts.Theyre not in a council house,so how has this come about?Simple,its how they are.Until they start getting their money stopped for not trying to get a job the sooner they wont be able to sit in their back garden supping Carling Black Label from 10am until i get back from work.

Lilysmum · Post by **Lilysmum** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 11:09 am

A house opposite mine was privately rented to a family on benefits several years ago.At the time the rent was paid directly to the landlord but then the rules changed (for some crackpot reason) and now the rent money has to be paid to the tennant and they pay the money to the landlord.Consequently this woman never paid any rent and the owner of the house has been trying for years to get her out,but because she had several kids he couldn't get her evicted. When he eventually did the house was left in a disgusting state and has had to be gutted.It has now been sold.A cautionary tale for any would be landlords out there.

ads · Post by **ads** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 11:26 am

Like her or loath her, (and I don't want to go into a political argument) the right to buy scheme was a Thatcher political master stroke. Whilst the obvious advantage was to give people the empowerment to buy a home they would never have been able to afford othewise, the less publicised master stroke was to get get rid of huge chunks of sub-standad and neglegted housing stock that would have crippled local authorities had they been made to bring them back up to standard. Local authorities are notorious for building things then not putting the investment into maintaining them until they are in danger of falling down. Hence, the aim for the last few years has been to use private housing associations to meet the social housing need. No material cost to the local authority and ultimatley no pressure on central government to up their local authority subsidies. And before we go into the political argument, this is something that has been going on for years and years under different leaders and political colours. They all are as bad as each other.

Post by **cnosni** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 4:54 pm

ads wrote: Like her or loath her, (and I don't want to go into a political argument) the right to buy scheme was a Thatcher political master stroke. Whilst the obvious advantage was to give people the empowerment to buy a home they would never have been able to afford othewise, the less publicised master stroke was to get get rid of huge chunks of sub-standad and neglegted housing stock that would have crippled local authorities had they been made to bring them back up to standard. Local authorities are notorious for building things then not putting the investment into maintaining them until they are in danger of falling down. Hence, the aim for the last few years has been to use private housing associations to meet the social housing need. No material cost to the local authority and ultimatley no pressure on central government to up their local authority subsidies. And before we go into the political argument, this is something that has been going on for years and years under different leaders and political colours. They all are as bad as each other. absolutely,its the Labour government and councils who have benefited from what Thatcher did,something they would love to have done themselves but would never dare to do so.Privatising of BR is another example.So,anyone have any answers as to how we help young people/couples to get on?

Post by **chameleon** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 8:23 pm

cnosni wrote: ads wrote: Like her or loath her, (and I don't want to go into a political argument) the right to buy scheme was a Thatcher political master stroke. Whilst the obvious advantage was to give people the empowerment to buy a home they would never have been able to afford othewise, the less publicised master stroke was to get get rid of huge chunks of sub-standad and neglegted housing stock that would have crippled local authorities had they been made to bring them back up to standard. Local authorities are notorious for building things then not putting the investment into maintaining them until they are in danger of falling down. Hence, the aim for the last few years has been to use private housing associations to meet the social housing need. No material cost to the local authority and ultimatley no pressure on central government to up their local authority subsidies. And before we go into the political argument, this is something that has been going on for years and years under different leaders and political colours. They all are as bad as each other. absolutely,its the Labour government and councils who have benefited from what Thatcher did,something they would love to have done themselves but would never dare to do so.Privatising of BR is another example.So,anyone have any answers as to how we help young people/couples to get on? I don't know Chris the culture we are in has taken some time to develop and will take even longer to devolve, it all seems to revolve around everyone wanting their share of the pot for anything you maight want and consequently values change. A very mundane example - why on earth do folk pay a fortune in premium rate calls to vote for Fred in the latest generic mind-numbing (un) 'reality' show? But they do of course.Hind-sight is a wonderful thing but fore-sight all too often in short supply - I wonder if the longer term result of selling-off the housing stock was foreseen? Not necessarily a bad idea but with escalation over the years, the situation of having few council houses now pervades and will continue to do so.My son and partner have two good degrees, professional jobs and even with our help, struggled to get onto the bottom rung of the ladder with a small house and ludicrous mortgage periods a couple of years ago. At least they managed this, now first time buyers are being asked for deposits of some 30%-40%. No wonder the average age for them is now 34.I do agree with your sentiments about people's attitudes - so much of society has a fundermental disregard for others, authority, all the things many consider to be 'decent' and sadly, themselves. I've suggested this before (is Fev around) and I believe it to be true.Even simple rules within our lives are there for a purpose, unless they are 'inconveneint' and then unless there is a clear penalty in view, they are ignored.People are people, are what they believe they are and this largely comes from the examples they are set - or as you put it, their upbringing and the values they are taught. It is certainly not defined soleley by where you live!

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Mon 30 Mar, 2009 9:19 pm

Rod McPhee (who is never short of an opinion) vents his spleen about the 'Shameless' types starting to partake of city centre living in tonights YEP:http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/f ... 5121668.jp

ads · Post by **ads** » Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:27 pm

A new model for living needs looking at from the bottom up. My fix would 1. Instead of direct social payments, benefits would be paid onto a pre payment card that couldnt be used for beer and fags. No different from using a cash card.2. Unless you are in hospital or can get a sick note from a doctor, you have to earn your benefit. Councils should be made to use people to sweep the streets, clean graffiti up , and other community based jobs that need doing but never get done. No work no benefits. That might encourage some people to take 'real jobs' and not just sit on their back sides.3. For those who chose to have large families, after 4 children ( an arbitery figure) child benefit starts getting reduced. A cap is put on other benefits as well.4. Provide starter housing for young people. These can either be low cost or low rent. They can only be occupied for a limited period of time - say 5 years, then you either purchase your own property or move into housing association. Any increase in value is capped to the rate of inflationWhilst I know it doesn't apply to every one, there are a sizable amount out there who think society owes them. Society owes nothing, we owe it to society and those around us. There we go. Problems solved in one easy post.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:49 pm

Only problem with point 3 is that it's the children who suffer through no fault of their own. Because of their parents feckless lifestyle they are forced to live into poverty. Not an easy one to solve without taking them into care, which costs.