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.

  • Posted in: Right to buy home

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 8:46 pm

    Speak directly to the regeneration lead - the council can tell you who this is.

    Ordinarily, if your home is in the way of the regeneration, you will be offered a financial settlement to leave. This actually may prove to be better than what you may achieve through a normal private sale, but do not get confused by 'market value'. If you home is to be demolished then it has little 'market value'.

    You may need to find another home on the open market though.

    Do check because estate regenerations do not always entail complete demolition. For instance, a major regeneration I was involved in left 60% of homes where they were. During the regeneration property values fell by up to a third, however after regeneration property values regained that loss and then added a third. This is not exceptional when you consider that often regeneration removes other blighting factors that may have depressed the price previously.

    In another regeneration, no properties were bought back as the work was to remodel the homes. In such a case the owner occupiers gain the benefit of the work, and sometimes at near zero cost on the basis that it is cheaper, for instance, to add pitched rooves to a terrace rather than miss one out.

    These are very brief scenarios with the intention to give you some reassurance, hopefully. Another instance is where owners gain a discounted purchase of newbuilds as part of the regeneration.

    The main point is to speak to those leading the proposals and find out what is exactly happening, what it means to you, and what options you may have.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 5:55 pm

    Does the MP explain how paying higher amounts of LHA to private landlords through restriciting the availability of cheaper social housing through Right to Buy (even if it is replaced then it will be at 80%MR so for higher HB) can help reduce the deficit when it is increasing total benefit costs, decreasing the amount of disposable income people have and so depleating growth?

    Perhaps he can also explain how scrapping the development and regeneration funds, stalling building, losing jobs and contracts, and resulting in the wiorst building output ever, has addressed the deficit.

    Perhaps the MP would care to explain how cuts for the poorest and boosts for the richest does anything to reduce the inequalities that led to the financial crisis - or perhaps paying Millions to advisors on how to encourage the poor to get by on less is justified.

    Oh the fun you must have with the urchin - what a shame the MP is so shy.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 4:01 pm

    Do press your MP on the point that turfing out the existing tenant does not make the home anymore affordable to a family that can not afford to rent in the area. Only rent capping can do that, unless of course people will be offered higher earnings to match housing cost increases in future.

    Who's the MP and can we come and watch?

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 3:01 pm

    I'm reminded by the report elsewhere on the redvelopment at Craylands, Basildon, that Swan have been doing valuable work for many years, and currently. Not only using estate regeneration to target improved environments Swan have used social support and uplift, tying into neighbouring resources and part supporting resources for residents to be advised and to self improve through.

    I hope someone at Swan offers fuller details, but they may not connect the two as obviously this item is looking at the post riot scenario as if work has not been ongoing.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 2:43 pm

    I'm sure some posters will revel in seeing middle class families in line at the soup kitchens and having downsized into shared rooms as a result of the cuts in public sector jobs and he failure of the private sector to grow.

    I'm sure that they will equally be pleased that the old poor and new poor are being treated with equal indiffference under the American system, but will reassure themselves that workfare will be better in Britain, its simply the Americans have not implemented it successfully.

    I'm equally convinced that those same posters will completely fail  to realise that within months their lives too could be turned upside down exactly the same way as some of those professionals interviewed on the programme. They too could not have expected the axe to fall on them, and realised to late that the cuts in welfare they supported now meant that they could not eat or heat their homes.

    It would probably be best if these people spent the evening reading the Daily Mail or looking up Conservative Home website rather than have their delusions challenged by the reality of that they support.

  • Posted in: Housing Benefit cap

    F451's post | 13/02/2012 10:27 am

    Working families will face reductions in the LHA and incresing rents. They may also fall foul of the extra room tax, and if under 35 the significant reduction in benefit for that age group.

    Working families who do not have full time work (and lets face it the bulk of jobs growth under the last years of Labour has been carried on under the Tories - low wage short hour retail and fast food outlet jobs) face massive losses under the benefit cuts for tax credits on top of the verious tenant related cuts and additional charges.

    Families on full benefit will be losing through the cap, but working families look set to lose even greater proportions of thier income - unless of course they are fortunate to have secure employment and an above average wage.

    As for the last point mrkfm, you are absolutely correct, but the government refuse to restrict those rents, nor provide affordable social housing as an alternative. Where people unable to afford the Tory rents are meant to live I'm not sure, but the lie from Shapps that forcing out those on benefit is because it is unfair to working people who can not afford to live there as the motivation is exposed by the fact that working people are on benefit, and even the average waged can not afford the city rents.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:43 pm

    How does equal taxation and the freedom to earn your worth prevent you from acquiring possesions or bettering yourself Nonny?

    I make no such demands (neither am I calling you anti tenant). Are we reading the same posts?

  • Posted in: Information on damp

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 3:02 pm

    "The proportion of dwellings with damp problems reduced from 13 per cent in 1996 to 7 per cent in 2010. Private rented dwellings were more likely than those in other tenures to experience damp problems"

    You could try the English Housing Survey, CLG Website, of which this is an extract - but in honesty, there is not going to be a single source for the detail that you seek Ms Venter.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 10/02/2012 10:57 am

    Nonny 10-2-12 9:10am

    Why not when it can be such fun!

    I do not advocate benefit increases. Indeed I advocate the scrapping of every single benefit, including the many that you get, scrapping all tax allowances and all tax bandings. I advocate the replacement with a flat rate tax on all income and a flat rate premium paid to all citizens. What people earn on top of their premium is up to them, but they will pay the flat rate tax on every pound of it the same as the next person.

    What I also advocate is that the wage paid for the job should reflect the value of the work done. It is ridiculous that a senior executive may lead an organisation to no advancement yet gain maximum reward at the same time as a front-line worker may achieve and exceed all of their targets, generate significant earning yet only receive a portion of that they have generated. Each should receive in proportion to the worth that they add.

    The real flaw in your proposition Nonny is that the greater proportion of those dependent on benefit are earning, are working, yet remain poor. It is not a case of the squeezed middle funding the poor but a case of the poor and the middle funding the rich in ever higher proportions. That is why proportionate shares of wealth has decreased for the bottom 20% and increased for the top 10%.

    A restoration of fairness in pay and taxation would allow the long put off revolution in work that ICT can permit, as well as re-empower the majority who have seen their powers eroded for decades.

    You may argue to kep things as they are Nonny - but is that really what you want.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 09/02/2012 7:04 pm

    Yes nonny - clothing is not essential either - indeed without clothing who needs wardrobes. The savings are endless.

    The Tories are right, all anyone needs is sufficient food upon which to do a days' labour and somewhere to sleep for the 4 hours when not working. A fiver a day is more than enough, if we convert some old commercial units in to dorms and feeding centres for the poor. Then, all the houses that are freed up can be afforded by the middle earners, who will not have to suffer living next door to the poor. Tory Utopia, and only a couple of years away.

  • Posted in: RSL`s and Government Incentives

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 9:16 pm

    Have a look at the related story threads on this site and you will pick up a number of views and arguments.

  • Posted in: Ending an 'Affordable' Tenancy

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 4:41 pm

    I noticed - hence the thread.

    This will arise as an issue only when the sheep realise the true cost of ending security for millions of families, removing affordability as a permenant step, and playing to the needs of the buy-to-let investor over and above any national interest, and definately against the interest of the poor British Taxpayer.

    I remember Tories on the doorstep in the 90's, complaining that the Councils did not provide enough houses anymore, so there was no where for their children to live - well you dumb sheep, that's what you created when you applauded Right to Buy in the 1980's I'd reply (only thinking the dumb sheep part - but honestly it was so tiresome talking to the very people who had voted for the calamity who now had the cheek to complain because it was effecting them.)

    It is equally tiresome talking to the sheep today who are applauding the latest great Tory Take Away, as I'm sure they will come bleeting back when they realise the policies effect them too!

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 3:21 pm

    Here here mrkfm

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 11:34 am

    Am I right in concluding that the string of nonny contributers are tenants of the landlord exercising their right to reply?

    If so - perhaps the nonnies would be up for sharing the reason the rent was not paid would be helpful to the rest of us on the forum to judge the rights and wrongs in the case.

    That said - are posts detailing the processes of a court case legal?

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 10:20 am

    Again - that would be each, and higher if supporting a family. Does anyone like me remember the days when a average paid worker could support an average sized family on a single wage?

    Through the 1950's and 1960's it was not out of the ordinary for a working man (as it was in most cases) to earn enough to support his partner and children, afford housing, transport and living costs, and even a modest holiday - all on one wage. Second wages allowed for luxuries, such as colour TV's and washing machines.

    Just consider that compared to now where the same family would struggle to exist on two wages and you will have understood just how much the average working person has lost under the policy of greed and consumerism, the break up of Trades Unionism, the destruction of the Labour Party, and the whittling away at the social security offered by the State.

    Soon, there will be a crying need for children to go out to work to contribute to the family pot, and for more children to be born to poorer families simply so that there is a prospect of support in ones old age - just as things were back in the good old days of Dickens.

    What I can not understand is why certain quarters find this additional financial burden upon the poorest a cause for celebration.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 5:35 pm

    @mrkfm - I can imagine the Tories would be thrilled, so long as that was per week!

    What is needed is a regional premium, as whilst such a low hourly rate may support an individual in the rural west, it would not even pay the rent in the urban centre. The other consideration for the figure is that it should be an expression of how much to support a family, not just one individual, so that it may have comparative meaning.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 3:28 pm

    I repeat,

    The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

    Is that truly incorrect nonny?

    You state to my 'rantings', which I presume to be my consistent call for fair pay and fair rents. This is on the basis that if people were paid a fair wage, and rents were more about affordability and less about short term profit, then the extent of benefit need would reduce drastically. therefore the sustainable way to reduce the total benefit bill is by increasing wages and decreasing rents such that the former reflects the value of the work done and the latter reflects the value of the home occupied; thus treating neither as an outright comodity.

    How is saying that a Marxist perspective nonny?

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 2:50 pm

    Arguing for fair pay and less dependency on benefit is a Communist view Anon? What a narrow world you inhabit.

  • Posted in: Board member pay

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 2:48 pm

    Board Members are recruited in a number of ways.

    Some are directly recruited. They need to apply and meet the recruitment criteria, attend for interview, even pass tests, before being accepted following such a competitive exercise.

    Some are directly elected. They need to apply and meet the recruitment criteria (which may be more tenant centered and less business centered than the directly recruited members, although equally they can be the same), attend for interview, and in the instance that there are more qualifying than there are positions, either face election or another round of interview.

    Some are appointed as political representatives from the local council, or as corporate representatvies from a parent body.

    Some are co-opted to offer the Board expertise that they would otherwise lack.

    All should be accountable however, and tenants should know who is on the Board through which method, what their roles are, and how they may be contacted.

    Board Members should definately recieve expenses back, but as for direct payment that is for the corporate body to decide. The 'shareholders' - that is the tenants - should be the greater proportino of the corporate body in such a decision.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 12:09 pm

    I can include the working poor in my statement Nonny. Indeed, some of those you despise for claiming benefit have indeed worked all of their lives. Others that you despise for claiming benefit are indeed working currently.

    I repeat,

    The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

    What I can not understand is those poor, such as those in the circumstances you describe Nonny, who seem to revel in their destitution and want to blame those more destitute for the suffering of all.

    Such sickness, being so twisted is the true disgrace for it undermines the very positino of those taking it, condemns them to perpetual poverty and loathing, and simply enables the elite to continue exploiting all for their own ends.

    Perhaps, instead of worrying over who's got what and who's not Nonny, instead of some peverted sense of greed and loathing of others, exploring the simple question of what represents a decent standard of living should be what engages you.

    Does a State Pension supply that standard? Does a low wage, or indeed an average wage?

    I'd say it does not - yet at least I can see that cutting someone elses benefit and demanding workers work for even less is not going to improve the position. Even lemmings do not anecdotally through each other off of cliffs!

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 11:32 am

    What an odd conversation to spring from a statement that simply calls for some decency in the life of those who either can not work, or who's working options are severely limited.

    The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

    Too many nonnies and not enough sense it would seem.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 19/01/2012 5:08 pm

    What happened here - Meeta had achieved calm and positivity previously.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 2:24 pm

    Tough times for tenants and landlord - how many more landlords will share your experience as more and more people lose jobs and incomes and need to try to make ends meet with shrinking benefits and disappearing work options.

    Of course, public landlords have been faced with these loses previously - or more to the point the public purse has ultimately been responsible for writing of anything that can not be recovered. Now, because of the privatisation of housing, private landlords face these losses and any write off is between you and the tax man as to how much may be offset.

    The privatisation of debt, the privatisation of housing, and the centralisation of wealth plays a considerable part in the negatives that you are experiencing trying to gain an income from the trade-able commodity that was once your home.

    I return to my fundemental point, that whilst working people allow themselves to be divided the ruling class will always ensure that we carry the heaviest load for the smallest reward. Hoping to one day belong to that class is no protection against their ensuring we never will.

    Perhaps you should consider returning to your home. After all, the vast majority of Tottenham residents appear to have survived the riots, and indeed appear to be building a stronger community in their wake (just like they did before, forming the community you lived in previously.)

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 1:59 pm

    There is more money to be made through direct renting, but less stress if using an agent, and even less worry if renting via a local authority scheme even though this delivers the lowest return.

    I'd say that if any form of employment or work is adversly and unavoidably damaging your mental health then you should either stop doing it or learn to think differently about it.

    If the proceeds of renting allows you to just about get by then the business vulnerability is beyond risk management. Where before the recession this risk was less likely to deliver a downfall, currently it will, and in the future with the majority being forced to rent privately the outcome is obvious just by looking at history when such was the case. Tenants would disappear when the rent arrear got too much knowing that there would always be another landlord eager to earn money from them. Landlords despised tenants for that very reason and looked to spend the bare minimum and so preserve profits in expectation of the moonlight flit. Tenants felt justified stiffing the landlord because the landlord offered such poor service. It is a self propelling mechanism for depravity and dispair, with only the financiers coming out with a gain.

    I do wonder what would happen if all private landlords could show solidarity and refuse to take LHA clients until income was assured, and dependency issues removed - but would landlords accept charging a significantly lower rent to achieve such ends?

    If the governments entire housing policy depends upon a vibrent, growing, and sustainable private sector, I think if you all stood together the government would have no choice but to meet you with an open ear. Whilst private landlords aim to outdo each other and squeeze the tenant, the government have you all where it wants.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 1:39 pm

    No, I'm not a landlord. Just somebody with a long experience inside housing and communities, and a passion for social justice.

    I've had to assist people who's landlord was harrassing them, making exceptional charges, refusing them access to heat. terminating occupancy without terminating the tenancy - the list goes on, and I'm sure good landlords are as fed up as I am with the fly-by-nights and unprofessional, or frankly inhuman landlords who make the trade have a poor reputation.

    I've also witnessed the massive rise in LHA fixing such as to optimise the take from the taxpayer cake, so to speak.

    I do come down more on the side of the tenant, by default, but also support the person, which includes the small landlord. It is ridiculous for the government to carry on the ways of the past 30-years propping up poor and inadequate landlords with benefit payments simply to continue to try and make the private sector appear to be capable of replacing social housing. Meanwhile many good people, landlords and tenants, exist as collateral damage in the policy war that results.

    As I see it, the best chance of small private landlords getting a fair deal is for them to stand together with each other, and even with their tenants, and so force the government into a more sustainable position. but that is just my view.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 12:44 pm

    Well done Meeta, you seem so much nicer than Nasty Nonny. The importance of tone is illustrated by your posts.

    I've mentioned previously that there needs to be some sort of federation for small private landlords, so that you may enjoy the same sorts of benefit that the larger private landlords do who are able to use their size to achieve outcomes that you can not afford.

    However, to date no small landlord has responded positively to the suggestion - which I find hard to understand.

    Meanwhile - I apologise for any individual offence casued by my fascist behaviour of tarring all with one brush (not for the first time, and knowing my own failings probably not for the last).

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 12:26 pm

    Do you really think that the experience will make your former tenants better people?

    More to the point, do you think that the experience those children will have passed from home to home, fosterer to fosterer, held back in education and thrown out to fend for themselves on the 18th birthday having been disabled from knowing normal family stability or value - do you think they are likely to be all the better for it.

    Yes, it is not directly your fault these children have been destroyed - it is still something of a sickness to relish their prospect Nonny, or indeed appear to congratulate oneself for one's role in their plight.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 12:05 pm

    I do not begrudge you your venom against the financial loss, nor even the adults that caused you that loss - but glorying in the breaking of a family and condemning innocent children to life of misery (and probably abuse) in the State Care System is hardly something to boast about.

    Such posturing does more to reinforce the negative private landlord stereotype than remove it, and does an injustice to the many good and caring people who are involved in the business of renting property.

    Perhaps you'd want to put that matter right, perhaps you would not. It all depends on how much self respect you feel that you require.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 11:53 am

    Your venom shows just what a nice private landlord you are nonny.

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 18/01/2012 11:43 am

    I'm sure nonny needs no advice, but may I suggest that you shop around for the best deal.

    Squeal as you may Nonny, you were ignorant of the facts about such insurance. I am pleased that the more competent meeta has been able to educate others and help each become less amature. Perhaps meeta should consider a new income stream by training would-be landlords in the basics - there is clearly a demand.

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