Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

Astria

wittynamegoeshere said:

We need a campaign around now to tell people their heating bills are going to double in a year.  Then that would give a year's notice for people to make changes, move house, save money or do whatever is needed.  But this won't happen, everyone will carry on blowing the money they don't have on tat, then there'll be stupid headlines and moaning about not being able to afford it.

A new "Don't Pay" campaign will be launched next year, and will most likely have the same outcome as the one this year. Some people will refuse to pay the bills regardless citing obscene profits and then complain to the press when they are forced to have a prepayment meter.

wittynamegoeshere

Ultrasonic said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

We need a campaign around now to tell people their heating bills are going to double in a year.  

No we absolutely do not, since nobody knows that is what will happen.

Solid advice on how to reduce energy use coupled with encouragement for those who can afford to use more to still do so is what we 'need' right now IMHO.

That gentle encouragement option's been done to death, undoubtedly absolutely everyone in the country knows what LED light bulbs and insulation are.  It's obvious that many people just don't care, plus lots are living lifestyles that are, frankly, unsustainable.

If I was driving a Ferrari to the shops and complaining that my petrol bills are too high and I want some subsidy then people might understandably lack sympathy.  But some people living in huge old draughty houses seem to believe they have some right for everyone else to pay their bills.

Perhaps the answer could be some kind of "help to move" scheme.  Alternatively, most of these old houses are actually pretty valuable, perhaps we could have some kind of non-profit equity release scheme, where those in old houses could borrow the cost of their heating bills from their eventual estate.  Such things already exist commercially but they're usually not good value and have issues - especially the fact that you can't move if your needs change.  A government lender would be very socialist really, but less expensive than just giving money away and never getting it back, which is the current method used.

deano2099

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

Right, but we're not talking about whether a given individual can find a smaller property to move to. What's being proposed is mass movement of people from larger properties to smaller ones because of the energy costs associated with a larger property. If that happens, those will vanish fast. It's no use saying "I look on Rightmove and there's like 50 such properties in my town" when there's 500 people in that town that would be looking to downsize.
Just because "anyone can do it" doesn't mean "everyone can do it".

ariarnia

deano2099 said:

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

Right, but we're not talking about whether a given individual can find a smaller property to move to. What's being proposed is mass movement of people from larger properties to smaller ones because of the energy costs associated with a larger property. If that happens, those will vanish fast. It's no use saying "I look on Rightmove and there's like 50 such properties in my town" when there's 500 people in that town that would be looking to downsize.
Just because "anyone can do it" doesn't mean "everyone can do it".

here theres 16 one bed flats or bungalows. even saying all of those would be suitable (some definitely wouldn't be with even a cursory look at the pictures and one of them is a field!) there's more than 60 three beds on the market in the same area. i don't know how much of that its he recent mortgage issue and people not being able to move up or how much of that is this area but its the same kind of result as we got when we were looking to move her a while ago. 

extend out the radius and sure there are some more (not many) but that also means she can't pop over easily to see her grandkids and help us out with that gap after school and in the holidays when work needs me in the office. completely agree its' not impossible but its also not as simple as 'just do it' and isn't a short term solution to the national problem of people not being able to afford the homes they currently live in. 

wittynamegoeshere

deano2099 said:

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

Right, but we're not talking about whether a given individual can find a smaller property to move to. What's being proposed is mass movement of people from larger properties to smaller ones because of the energy costs associated with a larger property. If that happens, those will vanish fast. It's no use saying "I look on Rightmove and there's like 50 such properties in my town" when there's 500 people in that town that would be looking to downsize.
Just because "anyone can do it" doesn't mean "everyone can do it".

The big houses they currently live in won't vanish from the planet, there will still be the same number of households and houses.  There are lots of families that are in undersized homes, who can't currently afford the big ones.  If they get to buy that now empty fixer-upper at a sensible price then they'll move, vacating the small one they currently live in.

The outcome will be that market forces will mean that larger houses will become less expensive, while smaller ones will increase in value relatively.  This makes sense, as heating costs rise then a bigger house becomes something of a liability, while the smaller one has more value due to its lower running costs.

Market forces will sort things out, if people actually move and the government stops incentivising people to stay where they happen to live at the moment.

ariarnia

wittynamegoeshere said:

deano2099 said:

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

Right, but we're not talking about whether a given individual can find a smaller property to move to. What's being proposed is mass movement of people from larger properties to smaller ones because of the energy costs associated with a larger property. If that happens, those will vanish fast. It's no use saying "I look on Rightmove and there's like 50 such properties in my town" when there's 500 people in that town that would be looking to downsize.
Just because "anyone can do it" doesn't mean "everyone can do it".

The big houses they currently live in won't vanish from the planet, there will still be the same number of households and houses.  There are lots of families that are in undersized homes, who can't currently afford the big ones.  If they get to buy that now empty fixer-upper at a sensible price then they'll move, vacating the small one they currently live in.

The outcome will be that market forces will mean that larger houses will become less expensive, while smaller ones will increase in value relatively.  This makes sense, as heating costs rise then a bigger house becomes something of a liability, while the smaller one has more value due to its lower running costs.

Market forces will sort things out, if people actually move and the government stops incentivising people to stay where they happen to live at the moment.

dont you see thats a catch 22? 

before our mil could move she would have to find the money up front to sell her place (problem 1. there dont seem to be many people buying larger houses at the moment given how many are sitting on the market. maybe because of interest rates or affordability checks.). you would say she could sell for less but then she would have less money to buy her onward property and make it suitable for her needs (problem 2).  while selling she would have to find somewhere to move to (renting or buying i think i've already pointed out theres not much rental accomodation available around here and the places there are arent really suitable for an elderly lady with some mobility problems). if that place was not immediately suitable (because of damp or accessibility) then she would need to pay to get it done (see problem 2). she can't do that if she doesn't have anywhere suitable to live in the meantime because she's sold her house (problem 3). so either she needs to move into somewhere which doesn't need any work doing (which there just don't seem to be any in the area. looking ar right move sold properties decent bungalows cost a LOT more than her house would ever bring in and theres maybe 2 a year. problem 4) or she has to move out of the area at which she would cost the government more because she would need more support to live independently without family close by (problem 5). 

any one of those problems is solvable but all of them combined means its just not a realistic or practical solution for right now. 

wittynamegoeshere

Obviously it's not a catch 22.  If the big houses aren't selling then price is the one and only reason, and they're probably only heading downwards now.  The problem is that most sellers don't seem to have worked it out - the smart way is to undercut the market quickly, get the sale and move on.  But many just chase it down unwillingly and never sell until forced, for a lot less than they could have got if they'd cut more in the first place.

We sold our last house very quickly, in fact we had 5 buyers who wanted it, at asking price, and the first to sell theirs got to buy it.  It all took about 6 weeks.  But we listed it at a sensible price rather than the daft price an estate agent would have asked, I would have been sat around complaining about how slow the market was if I'd taken their advice.

We sold before buying, we rented temporary accommodation in the meantime.  It was a long way from perfect, but it kept the rain off our heads while we found a house.  We also stayed with relatives at a couple of points.  During all this time all our belongings were in storage - a truck took away everything from our old house in massive crates to a warehouse, we paid a bit of rent for storage every month until I asked them to bring it all to our new house at the other end of the country, several months later.

Other than pointing out problems, do you have any suggestions for how things could be resolved, given that the government perpetually throwing money at everyone probably isn't going to be a possibility in future?

ariarnia

wittynamegoeshere said:

Obviously it's not a catch 22.  If the big houses aren't selling then price is the one and only reason, and they're probably only heading downwards now.  The problem is that most sellers don't seem to have worked it out - the smart way is to undercut the market quickly, get the sale and move on.  

so sell the house for less than you need to buy the next house and what exactly? its not like they're going to give a 70 odd year old woman a mortgage for the difference... and pay out for storage and rental costs for a damp and grotty flat that would make her ill and mean she has even less for a house when something suitable comes into the market? or stay in the house she's in which is bigger than she needs but she is comfortable and she can manage to keep up with and it can be adapted so she can manage to stay living in it when her mobility gets worse so won't need more expensive help from the government? one of those definitely seems more sensible to me than the other but maybe your too fixed on your idea of the solution to see that?

and yes. i've already said protect the most at need not everyone. but assess that need based on peoples actual situation understanding that lots of people are stuck in less than ideal situations with no easy ways to get out of them. dont use it as an opetunity for moralistic social engineering

wittynamegoeshere

Obviously bigger houses are always going to be worth more than smaller ones, even if neglected and sold for less than competing similar houses.  I didn't think I needed to explain this.

Most would end up with money in the bank at the end of the process, not in debt.  In a shinier, better maintained and more suitable house that costs less to run - just with fewer empty bedrooms.

There's no social engineering required.  All that's needed is to remove the market distortions that the benefits and subsidies are currently creating.  Perhaps some kind of assistance could speed up the process, but there's nothing stopping most from doing this for themselves.

As I stated above, what's your solution?  I'm suggesting action that individuals are empowered to take for themselves, I'm getting the impression that the tone from most arguing with me is just to complain and wait for money to arrive from the magic money tree.  My point is that this supply of perpetually borrowed money has run out, so things are going to change massively now, reality is dawning.  Best to get ahead and plan during the year ahead rather than crashing into the wall then complaining about it when it happens.

ariarnia

wittynamegoeshere said:

Obviously bigger houses are always going to be worth more than smaller ones, even if neglected.  I didn't think I needed to explain this.

thats obsurd and blatantly wrong. it depends on demand in the area for the different properties (the actual condition and desirablity of the properties) and whats actually on the market at the time someone is looking. 

As I stated above, what's your solution?  

i've already said protect the most at need not everyone. but assess that need based on peoples actual situation understanding that lots of people are stuck in less than ideal situations with no easy ways to get out of them. 

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?