UK House Prices Forecast 2014 to 2018 - Conclusion

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Wait...wait... last time I looked, if a place was deemed "uninhabitable" it incurred no Council Tax. Has your mate checked up on this?
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/j ... it-tenants
One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.

Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.
:evil: Christ! Is this what we've come to in this country?

Victorian values in the year 2014? What a reptile!
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Yeees, well.... it kinda was classed as 'inhabitable' what with having four walls and a roof that covered up most of the space between them. The way the re-build is going it could sort of be classed as habitable but the main thing is that the period of grace that the council uses is very short since they assume you are a cowboy builder and will have all the works completed in 6 months. They don't have a box on the form for single-handed craftsman building bespoke part time over a couple of years.
Little John
Posts: 8832
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

woodburner wrote:They are a couple of ex-teachers, they are loathed by many people round Ashford. They have screwed up the housing marked and bought them on a buy-to-let basis. They have bought the houses almost exclusively on credit AFAIK.
Do you know what, if they have bought them all on credit and they are making loads of money, but they didn't come out with this kind of shit and other stuff I have heard them come out with, I wouldn't necessarily have that much antagonism towards them. That is to say, they are just playing the cards in a hand that was dealt to them in a game they didn't create. Within the terms of the game, they have played their hand well. It's the game that is ultimately at fault.

But, because they consistently come out with this kind of smug, self-satisfied, reactionary, bourgeois shite by way of justification of themselves, I really do hope the worst for them.
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

When I say I have been told sorry we only hire people from eastern europe for jobs like picking vegetables or chopping christmas trees I get :D but its great for the country :shock: :shock: Or their only here because no british people are willing to do that sort of work :shock:



:shock: :shock:

And that story shows that this mass immigration is causing brits to be made homeless :shock:
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
extractorfan
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Ricky
Contact:

Post by extractorfan »

jonny2mad wrote:When I say I have been told sorry we only hire people from eastern europe for jobs like picking vegetables or chopping christmas trees I get :D but its great for the country :shock: :shock: Or their only here because no british people are willing to do that sort of work :shock:



:shock: :shock:

And that story shows that this mass immigration is causing brits to be made homeless :shock:
I don't really know if I understand that post, which is weird as your posts usually seem very clear to me.

One thing I have learned in real life though is that certain Eastern Europeans seem to work harder and complain less than Brits, nothing to do with MSM or zeitgeist type stuff. My attitude to work has always been similar to theirs, I'm specifically talking about Polish and Ukrainian people. They seem to have a culturally better work ethic that I think the Brits used to have but have lost over time due to Molly coddling.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

stevecook172001 wrote:
Shortfall wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/j ... it-tenants
One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.

Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.
:evil: Christ! Is this what we've come to in this country?

Victorian values in the year 2014? What a reptile!
He prefers Eastern European migrants because he knows they will be prepared to live in more crowded conditions and will complain less because of their precarious status. In other words, this landlord prefers them because he will be better placed to **** them over. He is using the tired excuse of migrants "working harder/being more reliable/insert your bullshit of choice here" because he thinks that excuse fits in with the current bourgeoisie liberal zeitgeist. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of his evicted tenants shoots the fucker.
+1. Here he is in all his glory. :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDVMEA40TVg

Rachman would've been proud of him. :evil:
Last edited by 3rdRock on Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... blackspots
Eviction of tenants on welfare 'will create benefit blackspots'

A big landlord's decision to reject housing benefit claimants is the latest symptom of a trend that could see the low-paid excluded from whole areas of the country, says a leading charity.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

I'm not sure that incitement to murder quite fits into this forum's terms and conditions. Here is a more restrained approach from the Chair of Kent Green Party and a Green Party European Election Candidate for the South East, Stuart Jeffery:
Letter to Guardian: 200 tennants evicted for claiming benefits in Maidstone
Letter to Guardian in response to http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/j ... it-tenants

Sir,

Kent landlord, Fergus Wilson's action to evict 200 tenants for simply being in receipt of benefits may not be illegal but it is certainly immoral. His portfolio of properties covers Maidstone, which was noted in a recent council document on the impact of welfare reforms as seeing an eight fold rise in homelessness in the past three years.

A further 200 families will now be looking for a home because of the combined Conservative and Lib Dem assault on people in need and Mr Wilson's desire to put profit before people.

Stuart Jeffery

http://stuartjeffery.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... icted.html
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

[quote="fuzzy] I agree, and a lot of other peoples points are also right.
.....
.......
The value of private rented houses with sitting tenants is much lower than empty property, so the economics change. [/quote]
.
.
That strikes me as being totally off. It certainly is not true in New England where a empty house has to be drained of all water or the pipes will burst come November. We appraise houses down twenty-five percent if they go vacant for more then a couple of months. Is the UK housing market so much different that a property that is bringing in rental income is worth less then one that sits idle and still generating maintenance expenses? How can that be?
Now sitting tenants that are stiffing you for the rent is another matter but I didn't read the above to mean that.
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

vtsnowedin wrote:[quote="fuzzy] I agree, and a lot of other peoples points are also right.
.....
.......
The value of private rented houses with sitting tenants is much lower than empty property, so the economics change.
..
That strikes me as being totally off. It certainly is not true in New England where a empty house has to be drained of all water or the pipes will burst come November. We appraise houses down twenty-five percent if they go vacant for more then a couple of months. Is the UK housing market so much different that a property that is bringing in rental income is worth less then one that sits idle and still generating maintenance expenses? How can that be?
Now sitting tenants that are stiffing you for the rent is another matter but I didn't read the above to mean that.
[/quote]

I can't compare the US with the UK. New England is a desirable place as well? Most of the UK is either poor moorland, wealthy historic rich owners, or somewhere like Detroit. In the UK we used to have long term protection for tenants. A landlord could not just decide he wanted an empty property to sell. These rights have dissappeared under various governments in the UK and fewer people remain on the original contracts:

Rights of assured tenants
As an assured tenant you have the right to stay in your accommodation unless your landlord can convince the court there are good reasons for eviction, for example rent arrears or damage to the property, or that another of the terms of the agreement has been broken.

As an assured tenant you can enforce your rights, for instance, to get repairs done without worrying about getting evicted.

As well as the right to stay in your home as long as you keep to the terms of the tenancy you will also have other rights by law including:-

•the right to have the accommodation kept in a reasonable state of repair
•the right of a your spouse, civil partner, or other partner to take over the tenancy on your death (‘the right of succession’)

--------

With rights like those most rental property was cheap and there was little pressure for social government housing. As Biff says, there has been massive social changes like old people living in large houses by themselves for decades, huge immigration - probably over 80 million in the UK of which 25 million is not admitted by UK gov:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 95428.html

and the young all deciding they should have their own place rather than share. Benefits have made things more warped, although I can't see them improving the system. The UK is a shambles:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/j ... ation-rent
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Er, have you checked the date on that Indie piece? It was bonkers six years ago and hasn't aged well.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

vtsnowedin wrote:[quote="fuzzy] I agree, and a lot of other peoples points are also right.
.....
.......
The value of private rented houses with sitting tenants is much lower than empty property, so the economics change.
..
That strikes me as being totally off. It certainly is not true in New England where a empty house has to be drained of all water or the pipes will burst come November. We appraise houses down twenty-five percent if they go vacant for more then a couple of months. Is the UK housing market so much different that a property that is bringing in rental income is worth less then one that sits idle and still generating maintenance expenses? How can that be?
Now sitting tenants that are stiffing you for the rent is another matter but I didn't read the above to mean that.
[/quote]

How can it be? As fuzzy has explained, it is because the landlord couldn't get rid of the tenants, and therefore the pool of potential buyers was limited to other people who wanted a property to rent out. This leaves out the majority of potential buyers, because most people who want to buy houses in the UK are people who actually want to live in that house.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11328
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:Er, have you checked the date on that Indie piece? It was bonkers six years ago and hasn't aged well.
Bonkers? That's handy, isn't it, Biff? Because if it's true then you have to eat quite a lot of humble pie, don't you...

I think you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you live in a remote rural area and have no clue about what is going on in the big cities in the UK. You've never lived there, have not witnessed the changes and that's what drives your own views on immigration - views which truly are bonkers. Far more bonkers than that article, that's for sure.

How about answering this question: if the article is accurate, and not bonkers, do you think it is time to stop immigration into this country, or do you still advocate letting in whoever wants to come here? You know...that question you still haven't had the guts to answer because "it's the wrong question."
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

SleeperService wrote: These landlords have just ended the hopes of many of the 200 they've evicted, hope is all that keeps things going.
+1. What's next? The workhouse?
Post Reply