housing issues affecting the young

Oldernotwiser

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Before ASTs were introduced.

Obviously the name Peter Rachman means nothing to you.

FATBALLZ

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Obviously the name Peter Rachman means nothing to you.

Actually looked it up the other day after someone mentioned it the other day. Are you saying that sitting tenants were always bullied out pre-ASTs and ASTs are actually an improvement for tenants? If so why did buy-to-let only take off after ASTs were brought in?

(If not what are you saying? )

ukcarper

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Actually looked it up the other day after someone mentioned it the other day. Are you saying that sitting tenants were always bullied out pre-ASTs and ASTs are actually an improvement for tenants? If so why did buy-to-let only take off after ASTs were brought in?

(If not what are you saying? )

I lived in a private rented in the 60s I bet you wouldn’t live in it now even if you had a 10-year tenancy

abaxas

The only worry is if they get really unhappy with it.

As they hold future labour moving forward, they hold ALL the cards.

vivatifosi

I came across this story the other day, about the government planning to release land to build 100,000 houses. If true, it will hopefully provide at least part of the impetus needed for u25s.

http://www.regen.net/Housing/article/1073570/cameron-spearhead-land-sale-to-build-100000-homes/

PasturesNew

FATBALLZ wrote: »

why did buy-to-let only take off after ASTs were brought in?

The law changed so that people COULD be booted out. This meant that banks were prepared to lend (more) money to everybody and his dog to buy one because the tenants didn't have 'rights' but could simply be asked to leave at the end of the AST. Before that, LLs had to put down about half and get a full/proper 'commercial mortgage' to be a LL.

Tenants with rights for life meant a house with a tenant was only worth about half those without a tenant, so banks were cautious - and LL's often owned them outright or only had a 50% mortgage. If the bank couldn't get somebody out for, say, 50-100 years, they weren't keen on lending on it.

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

Doesn't look to good a future for the future of our society does it?

Can only tackle so much at a time. The financial mess is far from resolved. However from the ashes a phoenix will arise. As the next generation will have a different approach. Starting work life in a recession hardens you for life.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And we've got iphones.

I can always flog a kidney if i need an ipad.

Kohoutek

vivatifosi wrote: »

I came across this story the other day, about the government planning to release land to build 100,000 houses. If true, it will hopefully provide at least part of the impetus needed for u25s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8556634/Surplus-public-land-to-be-sold-to-build-100000-homes.html

The first tranches are understood to include a site in Hemel Hempsted, Herts, owned by the Crown Estate; a former hospital site in Basingstoke, Hants; a housing estate scheduled for demolition in Tower Hamlets, east London; a brownfield site part-owned by Network Rail in Northampton, and a former colliery in Rushcliffe, Notts.

It's a good idea in principle, but these sites don't sound particularly attractive, for example a former hospital site would be subject to a lengthly and expensive decontamination process.

As for a former colliery - the developers must be queuing up! :rotfl:

ess0two

Kohoutek wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8556634/Surplus-public-land-to-be-sold-to-build-100000-homes.html



It's a good idea in principle, but these sites don't sound particularly attractive, for example a former hospital site would be subject to a lengthly and expensive decontamination process.

As for a former colliery - the developers must be queuing up! :rotfl:

Hospital site should'nt be that hard to sort,local to me attached.

http://crossleyhospital.0adz.com/redevelopment.html