Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I guess housing associations and charities, and the state.More importantly who will be able to afford these cheap houses after they've paid to build and subsidised the people in the social housing?
I guess housing associations and charities, and the state.More importantly who will be able to afford these cheap houses after they've paid to build and subsidised the people in the social housing?
"politics of envy" - a popular but mindless slogan from the right.We also had a brain drain - anyone with real ability emigrated.
And with 98% tax the incentive to work or take risks was close to zero, and the benefits of avoidance (or perish the thought) evasion immensely attractive - hence the rise of the tax accountants and lawyers.
Politics of envy at work, not common sense
It's publication coincides rather nicely with the new government and is clearly aimed as a pressure piece as Labour announce their Renters Rights Bill.Here is the report that the BBC were quoting.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/mfz4nb...tizens_Advice_Through_the_Roof_July_2024_.pdf
I personally think it oversimplifies matters to generate a shock headline. For instance it’s an obvious overlap with how warm a house is and the cost of living crisis which is a problem not exclusive to renters.
I believe Doug about his experience as we’ve had something similar with one of our properties following a change of tenant. If you have a shower and don’t ventilate the room mould grows in the shower - tenants responsibility to open the window.
Yes they should, its their property.They have that right but they shouldn't have the right to turf out their tenants - this can be a life changing event for many.
It would also be interesting to see the questions put forward. In a previous life I have seen many questionnaires with for exampleJust had a swift look at the CAB report - the source of the data. It is unclear whether the 43% is a statistically good sample of all rented property - a footnote to the report is as follows:
Survey data based on an online survey of 2,000 private renters in England by YouGov Plc for Citizens Advice, fieldwork undertaken between 12- 14 June 2024. Quotas supplied by Citizens Advice were set on age, gender, region and social grade, whilst custom weighting was applied to ethnicity and disability to ensure data were representative of private renters in England.
If CAB have set the quotas, and applied custom weighting, I am far less than convinced that the 43% is any other than a soundbite with limited credibility. It may simply be tweaked data to deliver the answer they wanted!
It would also be interesting to see the questions put forward. In a previous life I have seen many questionnaires with for exampleJust had a swift look at the CAB report - the source of the data. It is unclear whether the 43% is a statistically good sample of all rented property - a footnote to the report is as follows:
Survey data based on an online survey of 2,000 private renters in England by YouGov Plc for Citizens Advice, fieldwork undertaken between 12- 14 June 2024. Quotas supplied by Citizens Advice were set on age, gender, region and social grade, whilst custom weighting was applied to ethnicity and disability to ensure data were representative of private renters in England.
If CAB have set the quotas, and applied custom weighting, I am far less than convinced that the 43% is any other than a soundbite with limited credibility. It may simply be tweaked data to deliver the answer they wanted!
How is income tax fair if there are different rates depending on how much you earn
In my opinion it should be simplified to 0% up to the minimum living wage then 40% on everything above that.
Isn't it time the country (& the world) looked at things differently. TPTB keep on about a housing crisis but isn't it a population crisis? Time to stop paying child allowance after the second birth and Tax big families (4 plus kids). A declining birth rate would solve that easily and stop stressing the planet with the ever increasing numbers of humans who not only need a house/home but also more mouths to feed so we need agricultural land and the they amount of waste they cause.I doubt 40% would do it.
We are in a post tory government state of emergency with 45 years of austerity to remedy. Top rates could be raised to 75% or so. If there is any intention to do anything about climate change than 1944 wartime rates of 98% would be justified.
We had "surtax" on excessive wealth.
And it’s someone’s home too. Shouldn’t they have rights too and shouldn’t government/local authorities help them with those rights.after all. Is there bloody property and they should have the right to sell it if they want to.
That’s a childish fallacy. I personally only own one property. It’s mine to do with as I wish. The moment I acquire another one and let it out I acquire certain moral as well as legal responsibilities. I can’t just do what I want with it now as another person now has moral and legal right to take into account. That’s how civilised societies and decent people operate.Yes they should, its their property.
Completely agree but the tenant also has an obligation and all protections for landlords when the tenant does not keep their end of the contract are being eroded.That’s a childish fallacy. I personally only own one property. It’s mine to do with as I wish. The moment I acquire another one and let it out I acquire certain moral as well as legal responsibilities. I can’t just do what I want with it now as another person now has moral and legal right to take into account. That’s how civilised societies and decent people operate.
Good and bad. If it turns out the tenant has been claiming rent they didn't qualify for the council just takes the money back off the landlord. The landlord then has to try and get the money off the tenant which is basically impossible.A man I used to know who bought many, many dwellings in Liverpool on BTL, welcomed DHSS tenants, but I think that was back when the DHSS paid the rent directly to the landlords.
You have to ask yourself then; how is it that millions of households (including mine) have air dried their clothes for generations with no damp and mould problem, no tumble driers, no PVUs, no need of advice from a landlord?Having been a landlord for 35 years I have quite considerable experience with damp and mould in properties and the root causes of the problem
In 100% of the cases it is the tenant at fault with the way they live, i.e. drying their washing in the flat and never ventilating the property (window vents closed)
All my flats are relatively modern 25-35 years, most have ECH 80% and 20% GCH, all the flats with GCH there is never a problem with damp and mould as the boiler acts as a ventilator of the main body of the flat.
So my policy over the years has been
1. to provide a washer drier in each flat at twice the price of a standard washing machine
Some tenant would not use the dry cycle due to the extra cost on the electric bill and continue to dry their wet washing in the flat because they think it's "free" drying.
2. to install positive ventilation units (PVU) at around £1000 per flat
PVUs made a massive difference whereby the ventilation of the flat was automatic, but some tenants taped over the air inlet duct of the PVU to stop the cold air entering the flat in the depths of winter causing them to fail catastrophically, i.e. burnt out. These PVUs all had heater elements so no excuse for that and they're not cheap at over £500 each.
However most of my tenants are receptive to advice regarding mould and damp, I am only highlighting the 20% who continue to ignore the advice given.
All you are saying is that there would be no housing crisis if there were no people in need of housing.Isn't it time the country (& the world) looked at things differently. TPTB keep on about a housing crisis but isn't it a population crisis? Time to stop paying child allowance after the second birth and Tax big families (4 plus kids). A declining birth rate would solve that easily and stop stressing the planet with the ever increasing numbers of humans who not only need a house/home but also more mouths to feed so we need agricultural land and the they amount of waste they cause.
But it's also somebody's home. Evict them by all means as long as they are not made homeless, or forced into poorer housing, or had all their essential connections with the area and neighbourhood broken (access to work, school, friends, family etc etc).Yes they should, its their property.
I think you would find that it's one of many publications over the years, saying similar things.It's publication coincides rather nicely with the new government and is clearly aimed as a pressure piece as Labour announce their Renters Rights Bill.
As I said in another posting I'm getting out of the business.They have that right but they shouldn't have the right to turf out their tenants - this can be a life changing event for many.
Assume most of us are capable of drying our clothes without creating a damp problem, yet tenants inhabiting fundamentally the same type of properties do create damp problems.You have to ask yourself then; how is it that millions of households (including mine) have air dried their clothes for generations with no damp and mould problem, no tumble driers, no PVUs, no need of advice from a landlord?
The answer is surely that your flats are badly designed, inadequate. not fit for purpose.
Not your tenants' fault.
Not your fault either unless you designed them, but now your problem as the owner, looking for a profit.
PS obvious solution would be for you to provide the PVUs, extra heating bills and running costs FOC.
Enter your email address to join: