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

[Deleted User]

Energy efficiency will do the same as solar PV.

It used to be that PV systems depressed your house price, then they were just a neutral item, and I think they're probably now desirable and add a premium.

lisyloo

Alnat1 said:

Anyone up for asking their mum-in-law to move in with them? 

I would move my dad in but he's funny and likeable.
and I would move him in a heartbeat if his heating went off.
However there are always issues (he needs a stairlift and we have a bendy staircase) etc.
Also what happens if we spend loads moving and then he dies (does happen).
there's a lot to think about

but mum-in-law not in a million years

mmmmikey

[Deleted User] said:

Energy efficiency will do the same as solar PV.

It used to be that PV systems depressed your house price, then they were just a neutral item, and I think they're probably now desirable and add a premium.

...as an aside on that, I bought my bungalow about 5 years ago at a discounted price because the previous sale had fallen through and they wanted a quick sale. I reckon I saved about £10k as a result compared with similar properties. A couple of years after I'd bought it, I found out the reason the sale had fallen through is because the prior intended purchasers solicitor had asked all kinds of "silly" questions about the PV panels and sown so much doubt in the purchasers minds they pulled out. So in effect, instead of costing me anything, I was actually "paid" £10k for the risk and inconvenience of having them. Since then, I've received FIT payments of about £4k in total and saved maybe £2k off my energy bills. The housing market doesn't always act rationally!

deano2099

ariarnia said:

any assessment based on how 'deserving' someone is of help leads to the lazy stereotypes and sweeping generalisations that people arent trying hard enough that have been in so many posts here. that is the point i was making and the point that i think you and others have kept missing.  

I'm not a fan of lazy stereotypes, but sweeping generalisations *do* help when correct. And what we're discussing here are the general cases, and they probably apply in 95%+ of cases. There will always be exceptions, there are always people who fall between the gaps. Walk into any city centre and you'll see plenty of "exceptions" out living rough on the streets. In theory we have a social housing system, in practice, there are gaps.

Whether the people falling between the gaps get taken care of is, alas, a political issue, so one you would have no interest in.

EssexHebridean

deano2099 said:

ariarnia said:

any assessment based on how 'deserving' someone is of help leads to the lazy stereotypes and sweeping generalisations that people arent trying hard enough that have been in so many posts here. that is the point i was making and the point that i think you and others have kept missing.  

I'm not a fan of lazy stereotypes, but sweeping generalisations *do* help when correct. And what we're discussing here are the general cases, and they probably apply in 95%+ of cases. There will always be exceptions, there are always people who fall between the gaps. Walk into any city centre and you'll see plenty of "exceptions" out living rough on the streets. In theory we have a social housing system, in practice, there are gaps.

Whether the people falling between the gaps get taken care of is, alas, a political issue, so one you would have no interest in.

That's a cheap swipe deano - and one that really wasn't required - and let alone at a poster who spends so much of their own time here trying to help others. 

mmmmikey said:

[Deleted User] said:

Energy efficiency will do the same as solar PV.

It used to be that PV systems depressed your house price, then they were just a neutral item, and I think they're probably now desirable and add a premium.

...as an aside on that, I bought my bungalow about 5 years ago at a discounted price because the previous sale had fallen through and they wanted a quick sale. I reckon I saved about £10k as a result compared with similar properties. A couple of years after I'd bought it, I found out the reason the sale had fallen through is because the prior intended purchasers solicitor had asked all kinds of "silly" questions about the PV panels and sown so much doubt in the purchasers minds they pulled out. So in effect, instead of costing me anything, I was actually "paid" £10k for the risk and inconvenience of having them. Since then, I've received FIT payments of about £4k in total and saved maybe £2k off my energy bills. The housing market doesn't always act rationally!

It certainly doesn't - although I suspect there are still many mortgage companies out there who demand that solicitors would ask a multitude of questions about such things as PV systems, largely because they don't understand quite what a bonus they are to homeowners now. 

wittynamegoeshere

mmmmikey said:

Deleted_User said:

Energy efficiency will do the same as solar PV.

It used to be that PV systems depressed your house price, then they were just a neutral item, and I think they're probably now desirable and add a premium.

...The housing market doesn't always act rationally!

This is the point I was attempting to make, perhaps not very well.  House buyers seem to be mostly stupid from what I've seen.  Hardly anything is logical, which means that if you can think a bit differently and look beyond first impressions then there are some really good opportunities.  Our current house came with a warning statement and probably wasn't mortgageable.  It's all fine now, after lots of work.

Before selling our last house I bought a 5L pot of paint in B&Q's bargain corner for £5.  It was the custom-mixed stuff, an unknown colour that was a sort of mucky grey, presumably a reject.  I then bought a few buckets of builder's cheapo special white and stirred a measured dollop of the murky grey into each to make "greige", painted almost every room with the stuff.  I reckon I made £1000s by slapping that cheap trendy rubbish on the walls.

I've since found out that I could have added £1000s more by sticking some big letters on the walls, "Home" or "Family" or something, seemed to be the in thing the last time I looked.

I'm about to start planning a garage conversion.  This will be entered from a neighbouring bedroom so will not add to the all-important bedroom count and will leave us minus a garage so, according to UK estate agent rules, will be a complete waste of money or could even reduce the value - no property developer would do it.  But it will add loads of useful space and we're never selling the place, so it makes total sense.

wittynamegoeshere

Back (vaguely) on-topic, the govt is currently pondering whether or not to keep the pension triple lock.

Could give a clue that times are definitely getting harder.

Mstty

I think knocking the triple lock pensions on the head is a good idea. It's not sustainable otherwise.

(Heading for the bomb shelter for incoming shells)

mmmmikey

wittynamegoeshere said:

House buyers seem to be mostly stupid from what I've seen.

Groan - you can't seem to stop yourself

What you've just done is make some perfectly reasonable points, but in the process of doing so you've felt the need to tell most of the people on the forum that have bought houses that they're stupid.

If you really mean that then you can expect the people you are calling stupid to consider you to be arrogant and opinionated. I'm not saying you ARE arrogant and opinionated, I'm saying that the words you are choosing and your forms of expression are poorly chosen and when read at face value give that impression The smiles are intended to reinforce the fact that this intended to be a good-natured response not a dig!

I suggest you employ a proof-reader

ariarnia

deano2099 said:

ariarnia said:

any assessment based on how 'deserving' someone is of help leads to the lazy stereotypes and sweeping generalisations that people arent trying hard enough that have been in so many posts here. that is the point i was making and the point that i think you and others have kept missing.  

I'm not a fan of lazy stereotypes, but sweeping generalisations *do* help when correct. And what we're discussing here are the general cases, and they probably apply in 95%+ of cases. There will always be exceptions, there are always people who fall between the gaps. Walk into any city centre and you'll see plenty of "exceptions" out living rough on the streets. In theory we have a social housing system, in practice, there are gaps.

Whether the people falling between the gaps get taken care of is, alas, a political issue, so one you would have no interest in.

not really. most people who will be struggling and need help will be renters or low income people who dont own a big house to downsize. most people who can afford to move and who would see benifit from freeing up capital or cutting costs probably wouldn't be eligible for help anyway because of savings or income levels. so you are already talking a minority of people who are in low income and energy ineffeicnet housing that you consider to be too big for them (i'd say even less than 5%). most of which probably wont have the kind of money needed to move (because they'd be using it to pay for their unaforable living costs) and other options that require less up front cash to make there existing homes energy efficient are probably better options than making them sell an asset just because you have a bee in your bonet about people with 'big' houses getting help from the government. 

what we've been talking about is assessment of need for heating help next winter and me saying it should based on need at the time of help being given and you (and others) saying people should be expected to improve there situation before they can get help. such as people with large homes shouldn't get help because they should sell them and move. thats not about political parties but about individual principles and ethics. i want to help people who are in need now and prioritise the limited resources based on that need until we are out of this immediate crisis. you want people to jump through hoops and prove they deserve it. 

if we're talking generality yes there will always be gaps and people who are just short of getting help. and its not about the evil conservatives or irrisponsable labour because both parties have done it the same way when in power. but if you spend a minute to think about how the government (all of them) assess things like winter fuel allowance and other benifits then they dont consider assets like houses and dont expect people to sell there house or move to qualify so its much more likely that it'll be done my way and not the way you seem to want it to happen.

some people will always want people who are living a life they disapprove of to be punished and for only those who wear hair shirts and crawl to be given any grudging help. but basic humanity and compassion aside that thinking is short sighted and childish. the kind of assessment that would be needed to do that would cost much more than the way they do it which is to assess need at the point of application via an arbitrary threashold of income. thats ignoring the arguments already given that forcing people to move into unsuitable housing away from there families will increase social care and health care costs and that theres a shortage of suitable housing. 

so i'm quite happy to not discuss politics because i dont think its relevant when both parties might say different things but will do the same thing in the end because of practical reality. and i'm fairly happy that people who do think eligibility for help should be based on making yourself as miserable as possible wont be happy with whatever the government does to help next winter. even if we have a general election between now and then.