What will the new government mean for tenants?

pyueck

adg1 wrote: »

I must clarify a mistake - I meant basic right, not human right. Thats what comes with rushing.

I still, though, strongly believe a tumble dryer is not a needed item to live comfortably.

Nor do I, my post was regarded how the previous government's policy on housing has caused people to live in very small living spaces, with no option but to dry clothes in already small living space. A balcony to dry clothes, larger accomodation with room for a clothes horse to not impact on living space, a garden, a communeral outside area, a tumble drier, a bath, a drying rack space would all solve the problem.

Unfortunately tenants are often stuck with none of the above, and are left with very small living areas, which I believe this current government should look to address. Too often they then get told by landlord that by drying clothes they are causing damp. Leaving windows open in the middle of windows is not an option for most, especially those who do not wish to freeze or pay to heat cold air from an open window.

PasturesNew

BexInLondon wrote: »

Clothes horse, window open, job done.

Not very practical in a ground floor studio flat when you're out at work all day, then come home and it's dark/cold. My washing used to take up to 3 days to dry, I had a clothes horse in the middle of my studio room.,.. I'd be watching TV and my knickers drying at the same time.

lynzpower

I was at a course the other day and I queried this. Is drying area "just a nice-to-have" or is it a deficiency.

Clearly, I was told, its a deficiency.

clutton_2

tenants always have choice as to where they live... if you dont want to live in a tiny pokey flat... choose somewhere else..... this may mean a little travelling .....

or would that be transgressing one's human rights also ?

pyueck

PasturesNew wrote: »

Not very practical in a ground floor studio flat when you're out at work all day, then come home and it's dark/cold. My washing used to take up to 3 days to dry, I had a clothes horse in the middle of my studio room.,.. I'd be watching TV and my knickers drying at the same time.

Precisely, these are the conditions that millions of people are currently living in. I can honestly understand why people who live in large houses cannot understand the problem, but a real problem it is. I cannot imagine how anybody who lives in conditions like the poster above is expected to live in the space provided.

It is no good as Clutton states to say oh why did you choose to rent there, why not travel in. Petrol is so expensive for somebody on low earnings driving 15 miles to work each day would wipe out a large proportion of their earnings. Also if these properties are the only ones being built then inevitably people will end up living in them.

I really hope the Con/Lib alliance adresses the issue of small accomodation urgently. We need greenbelt land reassessed, in my opinion having families in affordable, appropraitely sized homes trumps having an empty field any day. Unfortunately many tory supporters are happily already in their 5 bedroom homes, so have no sympathy for those stuck in appauling housing conditions. Infact I distincting remember Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks saying he will oppose new developments of housing. It doesn't look hopeful.

I'm amazed there hasn't been more in the media about the issue. The lack of affordable reasonable sized housing is damaging many lives, and yet the Conservatives seem to be actively campaigning against development.

clutton_2

pyueck - i thoroughly applaud your views on trying to get more building land available - but i think this will be a huge battle..

why not mount a more local campaign to force local authorities to take on board/compulsorily purchase and renovate empty properties - they have had these powers for several years - and yet there are still many many empty - which could be used to ease the desperate shortage of housing in some areas.......

some authorities would rather invoke Landlord licensing - (which i am not wholly agin) - which is an income stream for them, than put effort into finding absent property owners and getting on with filling empty properties....

franklee

pyueck wrote: »

Also if these properties are the only ones being built then inevitably people will end up living in them.

I really hope the Con/Lib alliance adresses the issue of small accomodation urgently. We need greenbelt land reassessed, in my opinion having families in affordable, appropraitely sized homes trumps having an empty field any day. Unfortunately many tory supporters are happily already in their 5 bedroom homes, so have no sympathy for those stuck in appauling housing conditions. Infact I distincting remember Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks saying he will oppose new developments of housing. It doesn't look hopeful.

I'm amazed there hasn't been more in the media about the issue. The lack of affordable reasonable sized housing is damaging many lives, and yet the Conservatives seem to be actively campaigning against development.

Hang on a sec it was John Prescott who upped the density that builders have to build. Round here there are many new build empty flats and a shortage of newbuild houses. The houses that are built have teeny gardens. My letting agent is also an estate agent and she said the buyers want the same, house with a reasonable bit of garden, the builder would like to build that but they have to meet the government imposed density of homes so they have to build flats which they aren't selling. The builder knows they aren't selling and would rather build what sells, it's obvious as many flats have been empty for several years. So blame labour for that one.

As for the NIMBYS you get them everywhere of all parties, no one wants the new build in their own back yard.

As for the affordable issue, house prices are dictated by what the GBP can borrow and as we know there has been irresponsible lending which should have been clamped down upon five years ago! As it is we are all now picking up the tab for that failure.

Jowo_2

What will the new government mean for tenants? asks the OP. The short response is 'nothing'. It's not doing anything for landlords, either.

Housing, like immigration, was simply another area which is virtually absent from any of the policies of the major parties.

I can recollect few discussions on it by the politicians and I can recall little in the way of changes to legislation in this whole area, save for perhaps the potential scrapping of HIPs.

There's a demographic timebomb in terms of supply and demand but you wouldn't know there is a housing and homelessness crisis in this country from the recent election.

franklee

The country is up to it's eyeballs in debt, there is no money available.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Hmmmmmmm.....

You argue the lack of affordable accommodation....

"a generation of tenants with overpriced accomodation that does not provide adequate living space,"

Then propose a cost increase....

"I would like the independant dispute resolution avaliable to tenants (not just for deposits) to be free and funded by the industry, much like the FOS is for banking."

As for your final point, regarding greenfield sites. If you seriously think that the land used will make any difference to the profit motive of developers, then you are very much mistaken.

Labour may well get only 1/10 from you. I won't tell you what my marks were for your proposals. I'm just glad your not in a position to realise these plans.