All over the place
Over three years of the Coalition Government and the economy has got worse, less houses than ever are being built and affordability has all but disappeared.
The National Tory Party can not restrain its Nasty Party roots. The Liberals are struggling with their long standing rejection by the electorate, which after over 100 years you think they would have understood by now. And Labour, still failing to decide whether being the Party of the People or remaing a 2nd Class Tory Party is the route to success, are neither struggling nor restrained in their non-entityness.
The housing sector remains in dissarray, and there are no heros rushing to protect, defend or in any way make life for the average citizen better.
As someone who has spent so many years working towards this point my main question is - why?
Comment on: Delays to Lord Freud’s pledge
How about reviewing a system of government that can allow such a travesty dressed up as policy in the national interest?
Comment on: New public sector home registrations up 37%
All we need to do now is build ten times the number of homes each year that people can actually afford, keep doing so for at least 40 years, and we may have solved the housing crisis.
That banker Blair has so much to answer for.
Clearly the cure for this is to increase rents to market levels. Ridiculous I know but that really is how the stupid idiot Tory policy makers think. The market will save us they say.
Throw them out of my temple I say.
Comment on: Empty homes should be taxed, says board member
The French seemed to come up with the most permenant cure for that which ails us but they lacked the balls to finish the job.
Comment on: Delays to Lord Freud’s pledge
Meanwhile the suffering continues, the pain increases and the collateral damage of Tory economic policy takes human form. The true face of the modern Conservative and the abuse outcome of Toryphilia.
The main group to benefit from the budget will be the financial sector, with their risks further underwritten, their reserves further replenished, their profit margins further assured, and their p
Was there a bet in the IH Office as to which blogger could secure the highest number of posts on their blog, and the highest number of consecutive posts on their blog, from a single reader, during
Yet another article that us plebs are obviously not supposed to have a view about - however:
If the argument is valid, and can get past the NICE health rationing guidebook, then why can't
You may want to reproof read the article then repost - If i were permitted to comment with the article I would direct you to the simple errors made, but as I can't I won't.
Whilst hastly t
Are the introduction of comment free articles:
a) a welcome improvement
b) a good thing but should only be used where libel or legal issues need to be considered
c) a good
Simply - No there is no right to buy. Right to buy is only for the removal of social rent properties, not a right for tenants as such.
Your succession will depend on the details of the tenancy, and the permission of your landlord - I would think your succession on curernt terms is highly unlikely.
You do have rights under Disrepair - and you should gain advice about this.
A glimmer of hope is that you actually hold a leasehold tenancy instead, in which case again gain advice about this as your potential to purchase the lease could exist.
Check out a good housing law specialist in your locality - it would be worth a small fee to be sure of the advice you are getting especially as getting free advice these days is hard to come by.
Originally you could not be evicted for non payment of a charge that was not rent. However, recent legislation has enabled the privatised water companies to pay fees to councils to act on their behalf by paying the water charges attributable to their stock directly and then collecting it as rent from their tenants.
On the face of it there should be no difference, as tenants are only paying the same as they would under the previous arrangements. However, compared to any other form of tenure the Council tenant is severely disadvantaged as no other tenure can be evicted for not paying the ever growing water bills.
This also flies in the face of the principle lofted over water privatisation of the consumer being in control because they pay the bill directly and are aware of the cost (a piece of Selsdon Group waffle if ever there was one).
What is needed is a proper legal challenge against such an action - but sadly law centres and legal aid are about as easy to find as a socialist in the Labour Party.
Posted in: Rehouse tenant during repairs?
You are the landlord. The primary responsibility for your tenant is yours. Your insurance (if you do not have any then your funds) will have to pay for the essential decanting and rehousing of your tenant. If it is bad enough to require such action, then why have you not carried out your responsibility to your tenant yet?
Once you have acted as a responsible landlord then you can take issue with the Freeholder, the Council, concerning recovery of the costs you have suffered. Your insurer (if you have one) would also be able to pursue recovering their costs from the Freeholder.
Can I ask why you have left your tenant in circumstances that you the landlord consider unsuitable, and do you not realise that your tenant could now sue you successfully because of your admission of failure?
The main group to benefit from the budget will be the financial sector, with their risks further underwritten, their reserves further replenished, their profit margins further assured, and their profits even less taxed.
Oddly, the option is not available in the poll!
Have no fear the answer is clear.
The anti squatter law means you can't live in an empty home (and the empty commercial property is next to be protected.)
The planning laws mean you can't live in a caravan (except on a designated site, paying the dues to the Council.)
The vagrency laws mean you can't live on the streets.
And the recent amendments to local laws mean that you may not even be able to pitch a tent.
Indeed, the anti assembly laws mean that even if you do find somewhere to lay your box, you may only do so if on your own.
Yep, the succession of Tory law, including that beloved by Tory Blair, means that you must accept paying all that you have so that those that have more can keep what they call theirs.
Of course, that won't stop them coming back for whatever else they think you don't deserve!