Sunday, 20 April 2014

F451's posts

  • Posted in: Inside Housing mandtory registration to view full content

    F451's post | 31/03/2014 4:21 pm

    The Newspapers that have gone down this line I now refuse to view. In part, these are publications that I would not have wished to pay money to, but when particular items of interest were highlighted would have accessed the views and details available that way.

    I can understand then that some potential subscribers will be deterred from accessing the site, and so may never become customers either. This is a business call for the company itself, but at least the content remains 'free' to access unlike News International who actually have people volunteer to pay to read their 'news'.

    However, I am fast approaching the feeing that the agenda shift here means visiting is less worthwhile. But equally there will be whole regiments of right-wing apologists keen to read and enjoy having their world view confirmed, so all around IH is onto a short term winner with both political and operational directions now being taken.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 2:07 pm

    Of course, every relet following a downsizing will be at 80%MR, accelerating the government's abolition of social housing and massively increasing the cost to rent. Thus the outcome of this government measure will be primarily persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in Shapps Housing, and persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in private housing.

    If this is about giving tenants options then it seems 'choose which tenure you wish to be trapped into and then have the government point at you as the cause of economic blight!'

    If people are to be punished for underoccupation then the government should allow them time to seek out realistic alternatives - and at least morally the government should be making some attempt to improve the housing supply so that some realistic alternatives exist - but then that would spoil their evil plan, wouldn't it.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 10:24 am

    It is interesting that none of the many Tory apologists, who elsewhere chomp at the bit to say how fair the benefit punishments and tenants taxes are, have been strangely silent when asked to contribute real effects in their area or within their housing provider, in terms of the legislation in real terms effecting real people.

    Where are those normally strident individuals with their examples of how these pieces of legislation are going to help people - or is it because they know that the reality is that their government is destroying people and families, condeming the poor to even greater suffering simply so that they themselves can hope for the promise of a little tax cut somewhere along the way.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 5:28 pm

    They gather together their pocket change at a cabinet meeting and then divide the sum by the number of unemployed, pensioners and persons with disabilities, subtract 50% to take into account single parents and those under 35, subtract 10% of the remainder for teas and biscuits (rechargeable of course), and then the resulting figure is the daily sum for an average family of four to live on.

    To get the individual person rate, simply deduct the current child benefit payment value and then divide by 100 and times by 65 to get what an individual needs.

    However, it must be noted that the contents of Mr Pickles pockets are for the exclusive use of those who are poor but located in Birmingham.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 4:12 pm

    Perhaps looking it the other way around. If the government says it can not afford to pay the rent of someone such that they have more than £70 per week to live on how do they expect anyone, disabled or otherwise, to afford to pay the high rents the government are now sponsoring but will not make affordable. As rent is now the highest single element within a low income person's expenditure (just think, that used to be food, then fuel, then housing cost) then failing to enable a person to afford such a basic expense means that the person concerned will not be able to afford to live in this society.

    Oddly, in a third world society, where fuel may be gathered for free, food may be gleaned from the countryside without landlowners demanding arrests be made, and housing may be self built without accusations of squatting or failure to pay the planning department enough, people can live on lower sums. Expecting people here to live on such sums is just not practical without also granting the freedom to return to being hunter gatherers as well.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:50 pm

    An interesting thought that when the sitting MP next comes to stand they may not be returned to sitting once more because of the poor standing the appalling position, that they fell in behind, gave them.

    All that is needed is a cast iron pledge from any who are standing who, when sitting, may be held to and deliver in the interest of the everyday folk who entrusted them with their vote in the first place.

    Perhaps this trusting to representatives has done its day and we should all just take power as Jono keep asking us to do, although who would look out for the less strong in that set up.

    In the words of my election trainer many years ago - tell your voters to vote early and vote often!

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:06 pm

    May your minders begat further minders who too begat minders of their own, until their enough minders to get rid of the bloody Arthur Daley figure pretending to run the country!

    [tell your minders they are very special people, and much loved for all that they do.]

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:53 am

    People will be forced into house shares, and even room shares, as the only alternative to street homelessness or comitting benefit fraud. This is a highly backward step for our society and one that could be avoided if rents were reduced to more realistic levels and housing supply increased so people could actually move into a home more closely fitting their size requirements.

    Yes, the 'freed' up housing that results from this will be available to let out at 80%MR to a new family (until their make up changes) but the extra HB to fund this will totally blank out any saving from forcing out the smaller family - especially when that smaller family will either be in more expensive private rented housing or more expensive B&B temporary homeless housing.

    It is a sad statement on our nation that this is not only being implemented but with the consent of the nodding classes.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:20 am

    Cause for celebration - Rick is still with us.

    I'm so pleased to know you are still in the land of the living Rick. I was honestly beginning to fear the worst, and such a loss that would be.

    I was also hoping you'd be back on-line before I put out my flame at the end of this week (other time demands arising for a while, but then the odd alter-ego will still be able to pop up every now and again, and I did announce that this hot little chap could only ever last till Spring - well the bulbs are coming up in Somerset at least!)

    Thanks for making my week already Rick, simply by still breathing!

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 5:41 pm

    Fair enough Tricky - I do refute the denial claim, but accept it in the spirit of Friday.

    If your motivation is to learn from what others put perhaps commenting less and questioning more would help you achieve that.

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 4:14 pm

    Tricky, you ask for less condescension and then go on to make condescending and outright malicious remarks against tenants. As ever you have nothing to bring to the table - yet you feel able to contribute your anti-tenant stance.

    I do not deny that some tenants are poorly behaved, if not outrightly condescending and malicious to others and in their attitude to society. I do attribute such negative examples as being in the minority. Indeed, you may find such negative behaviours in other communities too, even cyber communities.

    My extent of reaction to your own position is the insistance you have to tar all with one brush and justify extreme action against all because of the actions of a minority.

    Perhaps you do not mean to be so offensive, but out of interest, are there any issues or subjects where you do have something to contribute?

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 3:17 pm

    There Tricky - don't you feel better for letting your true feelings out. Now, how about sharing an idea, a suggestion, any proposition you may have for making things better.

    Anything?

    Anything at all?

    Don't be shy, I'm sure there is an idea in there somewhere - or can you only comment on other's ideas?

    No I do not blame the extra taxes the Tories are humping onto the backs of tenants for the lack of community strength. Those taxes have yet to be fully implemented and so are yet to kill off the kindling hope some people may have.

    I think I was quite clear, but you ignored, that enablement, support and nurturing were the way forward. Working with people instead of against them. Building people up instead of knowcking them down. Emphasising just how much the popularist negative image of areas is often a description of the smallest minority; encouraging the majority to stand up and be seen for the strength and good that they are.

    Our leaders are telling us that reducing regulation and taxation on business will aid growth, yet they want extra regulation and taxation on the poor, whom they also demand to set out and found new businesses, take self control and responsibility, use your own resources to better yourself. All a little hard to do when the Tories are robbing you blind and stupid Oiks insist on painting the majority as is they behaved like the minority.

    In summary therefore, stamping on little worms like Tricky can only aid the development of stronger and fairer communities.

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 12:59 pm

    How about with enablement, support, nurturing Tricky?

    Perhaps if tenants, like business, were not squeezed to the limit they may grow and develop. Perhaps if those in communities looking to self improve were not penalised through items such as Tenant Tax, Bedroom Tax, Development tax, such self improvement might deliver wider community beneift more quickly.

    Just some outline thoughts - do you have any ideas of your own to offer?

  • Posted in: Risk management challenges

    F451's post | 16/02/2012 3:51 pm

    Cover the arrears potential by charging tenants more would be the government guidance.

    Employ temps and volunteers to plug the gaps would be the next government guidance.

    Ensure all borrowing is stacked upon tenants so the wider economy is not effected would be the other government guidance.

    My view would be that the landlords need to get more off of the fence and challenge the government, laying down the 'law' over how they will not comply. After all, when the Tories big business friends and city sponsors behave that way the government gives them all and anything they demand.

  • Posted in: Risk management challenges

    F451's post | 16/02/2012 2:11 pm

    I'd have thought the biggest risk as a result of government policy will be the growing body of tenants unable to afford to live in their own homes.

    The second biggest risk as a result of government propaganda will be staff retention as lowering pay and conditions together with the never ending onslaught of negative presentation makes working in the sector undesirable.

    Then, of course there is also the risk of the economy being so weakened by current policy that current borrowing becomes unsustainable.

  • Posted in: housing association

    F451's post | 16/02/2012 10:24 am

    Possibly Mark, it depends on whether the status of the communal area has been changed, or if it never existed. If it never existed you may need to explain why you agreed to pay for it. If it has changed then you have paid for a 'service' you have enjoyed. If it has not changed status but still exists you are benefiting from the landlords waiving the cost. However, if your landlord developed the homes with public funds then they have a duty to collect all costs where reasonable and possible.

    There are so many possibilities I'd say ask a professional legal source.

    Other questions are: was the communal area detailed in the lease; was the communal area detailed in the property details if leasehold. If it is in neither then there is an argument that a charge should not have been levied. If it was described as part of the property but does not exist then that falls under the Properties Misdescription Act (however, one of the early acts of the Tories was to water this Act down so as to no longer disadvantage thier friends in estate agencies).

    Simply as you describe it, I'd want the three year payment back; but as I say, speak to a professional source.

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 15/02/2012 5:22 pm

    The Foyer idea is excellent, and East Thames are a great example of how they can be well used.

    What is concerning though is that similarly vulnerable people in our communities are now facing service reductions, income reductions, rent and living cost increases and are now having to suffer the massive stigmatism placed upon them from the political rehetoric of Ministers and the Media.

    The Foyers need to be seen as the way forward, with the theory and practice being applied across the community. Instead, social, welfare, legal, and educational support are being removed from those who need them most.

    Whilst Peter's view is fatalistic it does flash a warning of where we will end up if we just protect our own little silo's, hoping the axe does not fall in our direction, whilst watching our neighbours life be cut to ribbons. We know the Foyer delivers value for money, and over a lifetime is not only self funding but produces profit - but this needs to be understood for across the community in time to save services before they are Toried for ever.

  • Posted in: S21 notice given in advance of any problems

    F451's post | 14/02/2012 12:16 pm

    There is also the protection that if the landlord abused the process the Court would still need to be satisfied there was a breach of tenancy. (the sort of finer point of law that escapes the average Tory Councillor in Wandsworth, for instance)

  • Posted in: S21 notice given in advance of any problems

    F451's post | 14/02/2012 11:00 am

    Think of it as a probationary tenancy.

    Personally I find the practice distasteful but understand it in the context of the directions at court and potential delays when a probationary tenancy does not include a notice and tenants behave in a way that contraveens the additional requirements of their probation. Although I understand that the case law behind this is very slight, and indeed the promotion from probationary to full tenancy is rarely not mandetory. Thus the notice would just expire.

    There needs to be a clearer status of the content of the probationary tenancy within legal consideration, in my opinion.

  • Posted in: Right to buy home

    F451's post | 14/02/2012 10:25 am

    Hi Gloria - go back and speak to the council again. What you are quoting sounds more like their responsibility to existing tenants. They can not 'give' an owner another home. They must purchase your home using the mechanisms that exist, and then you must purchase an alternative or rent privately.

    There is no liklihood of 'extra' money for the new home - you will get a fair price and that is the end of the matter. However, some regenerations are able to offer new homes for sale at minimum profit, thus maximum affordability for you. This is because the sale helps make the whole scheme funding viable, and so enable maximum grant money to be claimed. If this is the case in your regeneration this may mean that you will be able to buy another house, but it will be more expensive than your current home is worth.

    The Council does not have a liability towards you in the same way it does its tenants. You own your home and therefore the responsibility is totally yours. What may or may not be available to you as a result of the regeneration is therefore 'in the gift' of the developer, not a right. That said, they have nothing to gain by failing to treat you fairly and reasonably. So again, do speak to them and if you are unlear about what they are saying perhaps pay the small fee to have a solicitor advise you.

    It sounds as if you urgently need clear and accurate advice on the specific circumstances effecting your home.

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

About My Posts

Here you can see your forum posts, see who has replied and add to the comments.

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters