Landlords 'earn £5.6bn a year from unsafe homes'

cells

ukr wrote: »

ONS figures 136610 new homes in 2013/4 of which 30590 were social and affordable rent. I can't find breakdown between social and affordable, affordable rent can be 80% of market rent.

Thanks, please post the link if you find it

So I was close with my estimate.

Using your figures of 30590 homes and the recent right to buy sales running at circa 10,000 a year we have an expanding social stock contrary to almost all expressed views


also the subsidised homes actual subsidy are highly dependant on location. For arguments sake council rents might be say £600 a month ..... thats a huge discount and subsidy vs the £2000 a month rent in London but hardly any discount on say the £650 rent in Birmingham. ...and go to even cheaper places like say Telford and you find that private rents are at £550 a month which is close to or even under social rents in most places

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Thanks, please post the link if you find it

So I was close with my estimate.

Using your figures of 30590 homes and the recent right to buy sales running at circa 10,000 a year we have an expanding social stock contrary to almost all expressed views


also the subsidised homes actual subsidy are highly dependant on location. For arguments sake council rents might be say £600 a month ..... thats a huge discount and subsidy vs the £2000 a month rent in London but hardly any discount on say the £650 rent in Birmingham. ...and go to even cheaper places like say Telford and you find that private rents are at £550 a month which is close to or even under social rents in most places

I couldn't find breakdown between social and affordable rental that £2000 in London could still be £1600 hardly affordable.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

As far as I can tell 1/3 of properties sold under RTB are now private rentals.....

When you say "As far as I can tell" are you just guessing, or do you some kind of source?

ukcarper wrote: »

...The post I replied to said "created under" which to me means what it says not whose watch did it happen under. As I said Labour didn't do anything to help situation and I can't see the present goverment doing much either. With very little social housing being built and nobody wiling to get into large scale private rental BTL seems to be the only solution.

So basically you are in agreement that the problem was indeed "created under" Labour's watch because they (a) "didn't do anything to help situation" and (b) built "very little social housing".

Good to know.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

When you say "As far as I can tell" are you just guessing, or do you some kind of source?



So basically you are in agreement that the problem was indeed "created under" Labour's watch because they (a) "didn't do anything to help situation" and (b) built "very little social housing".

Good to know.

I can't find a government source but there are plenty of articles giving that figure.

No I don't agree to me create means create just because the number of BTLs increased under Labour it doesn't mean they created the problem. This is the problem to many people try to attribute blame to one party or the another while in reality the problem is the fault of more parties.

Do you think The Tories would have done anything to curb the growth in BTL?

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

I can't find a government source but there are plenty of articles giving that figure.

No I don't agree to me create means create just because the number of BTLs increased under Labour it doesn't mean they created the problem. This is the problem to many people try to attribute blame to one party or the another while in reality the problem is the fault of more parties.

Do you think The Tories would have done anything to curb the growth in BTL?

None of which absolves Labour of any responsibility for what happened on their watch. You're only trying to duck that responsibility by waffling on about 'blame' and 'fault' as well as deploying that classic cliched old excuse "the other lot wouldn't have done any better".:)

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

None of which absolves Labour of any responsibility for what happened on their watch. You're only trying to duck that responsibility by waffling on about 'blame' and 'fault' as well as deploying that classic cliched old excuse "the other lot wouldn't have done any better".:)

Have I tried to absolve Labour I've already said they did nothing to help but it's you who seem to blame it entirely on Labour and absolve the Tories.

gazter

cepheus wrote: »

Landlords are making profit from undermining safety! Good job their mates in government will support and protect them from prosecution. They must of breathed a great sigh of relief on May 8th.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32815226 …

Can you tell us which laws the Coalition had introduced or modified that would facilitate this?

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Have I tried to absolve Labour I've already said they did nothing to help but it's you who seem to blame it entirely on Labour and absolve the Tories.

Oh good grief!:rotfl:

All I have tried to do is point out that BTL was a New Labour phenomenon. That is simply a matter of historical record. I understand that you don't like that, and that you are desperately trying to come up with some form of words that makes it easier to live with. But I really think that it would be better in the long run simply to accept reality.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

Oh good grief!:rotfl:

All I have tried to do is point out that BTL was a New Labour phenomenon. That is simply a matter of historical record. I understand that you don't like that, and that you are desperately trying to come up with some form of words that makes it easier to live with. But I really think that it would be better in the long run simply to accept reality.

Did they introduce it how did they encourage it just because it happened under their watch doesn't mean it was their thing. I can easily live with it why couldn't I. It's you who won't accept that the previous government is also responsible

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Did they introduce it how did they encourage it just because it happened under their watch doesn't mean it was their thing. I can easily live with it why couldn't I. It's you who won't accept that the previous government is also responsible

The only person on this thread who has mentioned any 'previous government' at all on this thread is you, with your "Who Maggie" comment. Presumably on the basis of the well known principle that Everything Is Thatcher's fault.:rotfl: