No Fault Evictions

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The press, as always have a political narrative they wish to portray - and boy do they play it.
And as for the likes of Crisis and Shelter who don't actually provide any housing, what would you expect them to say?
You are quoting 2nd and 3rd hand information as if it were the gospel truth.
Shelter through its political lobbying has directly contributed to the reduction in available housing stock, whilst their directors again sit on 6 fig salaries.
Firstly averages (mean average is nonsense, use median instead, as this portrays a much more accurate picture).
Lets take a £200k house , 95% mortgage at 5% = £9,500 per annum or £791.67 PCM.
That does not seem much different to me than £900 per month rent, especially factoring in costs for maintenance.
So as the cost of finance has increased, the cost of ownership has increased and therefore the cost of rent. Add to this the activities of the left leaning so called conservative government we just got rid of, they further exacerbated the rise in rentals through punitive taxation on revenue not just profit.
In terms of immigration effecting housing stock, I can't see how anyone can say that an increase in population (from any source), doesn't correlate with an increase in the need for homes. Please explain this to me?
 
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/property/what-now-costs-rent-home-25936813

"As of July 2024, the average monthly private rent in Birmingham, UK was £1,003, which is an 11.4% increase from July 2023. In the city center, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is between £900 and £1,200 per month, and a two-bedroom apartment can cost between £1,200 and £1,600 per month"
"As of April 2024, the average rent for properties in Derby, Derbyshire was £902 per month, which is a 7.1% increase from the previous year. Derby's rental market has seen strong demand, and the city offers relatively affordable property prices compared to other regions."


and so on. There is a massive housing crisis, with booming rent and house price increases.
Blaming immigrants is nonsense.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/housing/housing-supply/
Over 50% of social housing in London is taken by immigrants. Why is blaming them nonsense?
 
There's another category of renter and that is people who have sold their house and moving to a new area and need a base for six months to decide where to buy.
Over the years I have seen all the above, I currently have a (5) who earns far more than I will ever see and likes to travel, rents a flat from me because he knows it will be maintained and generally looked after while he is away, the arrangement is good both for him and me, if he is away for more than 30 days consecutively it's agreed I go and stay there for a night or two to maintain the insurance cover and do any maintenance required, I also make sure there is milk in the fridge etc. Different people live different lives.
 
..........
In terms of immigration effecting housing stock, I can't see how anyone can say that an increase in population (from any source), doesn't correlate with an increase in the need for homes. Please explain this to me?
Immigration is a fact of life and we actually need them. Picking on any one homeless group as blameworthy for house price /rent inflation is just lazy thinking. What about second home owners, empty properties, lack of council house building, low incomes...etc etc
 
Build more houses - can't think of any other way except culling the population - I could draw up a list of volunteers if your interested
Exactly. Successive governments have failed to build more houses. They have also failed to regulate and control existing stock and new builds. This has led to the highly profitable house price inflation bubble which started before Thatcher but was given a big boost by selling off council houses and other measures.
 
Exactly. Successive governments have failed to build more houses. They have also failed to regulate and control existing stock and new builds. This has led to the highly profitable house price inflation bubble which started before Thatcher but was given a big boost by selling off council houses and other measures.
We agree - that worries me

I'd like to see good quality council housing mixed into estates of owner occupiers, give people the right to buy at market value and replace stock as it's sold. we would still need all the controls in place for those who have the capacity to behave themselves but won't.
 
No not at all Diver Fred said he's selling up anyway.
The general point I'm making is that the private sector has completely failed to solve the housing problem since it was freed up over 40 years ago. In fact it has made it worse and turned it into a disaster.
Like the curate's egg I'm sure it is excellent in parts but maybe you haven't seen the news lately: https://news.sky.com/story/dagenham...e-middle-of-having-cladding-replaced-13203744
This is 7 years after Grenfell Tower!!! and there are thousands of similar properties at risk.
All comes down to disrespecting people, there were regulations in place on fireproof cladding but they were brushed asid, the people who allowed and or profited should face the consequences
 
We agree - that worries me

I'd like to see good quality council housing mixed into estates of owner occupiers, give people the right to buy at market value and replace stock as it's sold. we would still need all the controls in place for those who have the capacity to behave themselves but won't.
So do I…. The key point is the right to buy in due course and the the council is obliged to replace that stock. Replacing the stock should be a requirement for new development to include council housing in their plan and provided to the council at cost as a condition of planning.
 
We agree - that worries me

I'd like to see good quality council housing mixed into estates of owner occupiers, give people the right to buy at market value and replace stock as it's sold. we would still need all the controls in place for those who have the capacity to behave themselves but won't.
Why surprised? I have said the same throughout this thread, it would leave a market for people like me to provide for people as categorized by I think by Northern Steve not settled into an area or who are willing to pay over average for something better than average.
 
So do I…. The key point is the right to buy in due course and the the council is obliged to replace that stock. Replacing the stock should be a requirement for new development to include council housing in their plan and provided to the council at cost as a condition of planning.
Complete revision of our planning laws, local plans linked to regional plans, linked to a national plan. If you are going to build houses you need hospitals, shops, water etc, etc. some things are to big for a county to finance
 
Last edited:
Complete revision of our planning laws, local plans linked to regional plans, linked to a national plan. If you are going to build hoses you need hospitals, shops, water etc, etc. some things are to big for a county to finance
Wouldn’t that be a good thing to see. Oh something pink just flew past my window
 
Councils, not-for-profit housing associations and variations thereof.
Always a role for the private renter of course, but only if much better controlled and regulated than now.
The system has failed and the blame is inadequate government housing policy.
The free-market can't do it, as is glaringly obvious.
It's not like any other hire/rentier commodity in that housing is a basic essential for absolutely everybody and has a huge bearing on the quality of life and personal development. When inadequate it can go on to create other social problems affecting us all
Merton Council are to be congratulated in taking decisive action over a clearly delinquent landlord.

If the rentier class is taken out of the process, the need for property management in the broadest sense remains - investment, allocation of scarce resources, managing tenants, dealing with excess and limited demand etc.

In the absence of a free market these tasks need to be absorbed into government, local authorities, housing associations etc to manage affairs on behalf of the community.

The real question is whether they will do a better job than than a properly regulated free market - I have close to zero confidence in their ability. It has evidently taken the public sector 20 years to do that which was legislated 2 decades ago.

They have proven themselves incapable of effective legislation, regulation or action even when the legislation exists so to do.
 
....

The real question is whether they will do a better job than than a properly regulated free market -
Surely a contradiction in terms?
I have close to zero confidence in their ability. It has evidently taken the public sector 20 years to do that which was legislated 2 decades ago.

They have proven themselves incapable of effective legislation, regulation or action even when the legislation exists so to do.
You've got it completely upside down. Council house building was highly successful but Thatcherite ideologues said private sector could do it better. Private sector failed completely and left us with a housing crisis.
New Labour did even worse and de-regulated mortgage lending limits.
https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
 

Latest posts

Back
Top