Petition the Prime Minister - vertical living projects

west_is_best

geordie_joe wrote: »

That's because, for some things I am.

I don't mind how many cars/TVs/Computers people have. But I do think it's wrong that some people buy a second home as a holiday home and leave it empty 50 weeks of the year.

I don't mind people who buy second homes, or more, to rent them out and make a profit as this is providing a home for someone. But to buy a house with the intention of leaving it empty most of the year is criminal in my eyes.

I agree with you 100%... I live near New Quay in West Wales where 78% of the properties there are holiday homes... its like a ghost town in the winter...
I too agree with the poster who stated immigrants should be sent home, not live on the british allowances and taking up homes, while the british have to suffer the consiquences..
This annoys me something rotten, the government states that we are running out of resorces to power our homes, by damn, next thing they say we need to build 1000's extra properties.........

Hapless_2

I have to agree with geordie, when we got this 4 bedroomed council place it was because the widowed man went into hospital and was unable to live here due to his health. He had lived here alone for 20yrs and refused to move out. Even in this village there are still 3 and 4 bedroomed houses that are council and are lived in by single people when families are on the housing list and either in unsuitable or expensively rented accomodation.

HugoSP

Cardew wrote: »

Come on Geordie - you sound like a throwback to the Soviet era;)

Why should people have 2 cars when some can't afford one car?

2 TVs?

A 3 bedroomed house when only a couple live there? - should they be forced to take in homeless people?

Why should people travel first class on a plane when others can't afford to fly?

Do you need Broadband when some can't afford a computer?

Etc Etc.

Thank goodness we can choose how to spend our money.

TVs. cars etc are in plentiful supply. If you want a second TV you go and buy one and the manufacturers build more to meet demand.

Houses are not quite that straightforward. If you want a 2nd or even 3rd property then it's not as simple for another to be manufactured - as not only do you need materials but you need land. Land is no longer in manufacture. The shortage of land to build on is one of the real limitations affecting availability of property.

I would not like to see a repeat of vertical living, so will not be signing the petition - sorry.

But I do feel that property owners have a duty to ensure their property is properly utilised. As a property investor there is nothing that makes me more cross than to see long term vacant property. Whilst I do not agree with squatting in principle, like all evils this outdated law can be used to good effect in certain circumstances.

People with more property than they need for their own personal use should either:

1. Sell the surplus to someone who will put it to use
2. Let it out.
3. Repair, modernise or Develop it if that what needs doing.

The only exceptions to this IMO are:

1. Holiday cottages where extra council tax is being put to good use. Although I don't like to see properties empty for several months of the year, they do bring visitors and hence more money to the areas they are in.
2. People working abroad. They need the security a home to come back to. Some I know rent their houses out whilst they are abroad long term, that is down to personal choice.

Seakay

Hapless wrote: »

I have to agree with geordie, when we got this 4 bedroomed council place it was because the widowed man went into hospital and was unable to live here due to his health. He had lived here alone for 20yrs and refused to move out. Even in this village there are still 3 and 4 bedroomed houses that are council and are lived in by single people when families are on the housing list and either in unsuitable or expensively rented accomodation.

I do hope that when your family has grown up and moved out, and your lovely home is full of happy memories, you will remember this post. Perhaps you will have a better understanding by then of the importance of familiar surroundings, personal possessions with family events and history associated with them, a familiar garden and neighbours who recognise you? Or perhaps you will be happy to move into a sensible city centre flat, close to public transport and in easy reach of medical facilities etc and without the space for cluttering furniture, mementoes which only gather dust and with an invigorating urban view instead of the hard work of a garden?

Cardew

Hapless wrote: »

I have to agree with geordie, when we got this 4 bedroomed council place it was because the widowed man went into hospital and was unable to live here due to his health. He had lived here alone for 20yrs and refused to move out. Even in this village there are still 3 and 4 bedroomed houses that are council and are lived in by single people when families are on the housing list and either in unsuitable or expensively rented accomodation.

So what is your conclusion?

A spare bedroom means eviction?

Visiting family/friends stay in the local hotel - or don't visit?

Force people to have lodgers?

OR

Prevent people having children by enforced sterilisation/abortion so 4 bedroomed subsidised accomodation is not required. Sounds horrific but that is what was happened/happens in some Socialist States; and it is that sort of State that would evict an old man in the circumstances you describe.

To me the latter 'solution' is no worse than evicting someone from a house that you consider is too large.

geordie_joe

Cardew wrote: »

So what is your conclusion?

A spare bedroom means eviction?

Visiting family/friends stay in the local hotel - or don't visit?

Force people to have lodgers?

OR

Prevent people having children by enforced sterilisation/abortion so 4 bedroomed subsidised accomodation is not required. Sounds horrific but that is what was happened/happens in some Socialist States; and it is that sort of State that would evict an old man in the circumstances you describe.

To me the latter 'solution' is no worse than evicting someone from a house that you consider is too large.

There's two sides to every story. What about the families living in cramped overcrowded conditions because single people or couples are holding onto their 4 bedroom council houses?

Years ago the council would move couples into small accommodation when their kids left home. Couples could only occupy at best 2 bedroom house, so if you had a 3 or 4 bedroom house and your kids left home you had to move into a two bedroom house.

They didn't "evict" you, they just put you on the list as an emergency case and you got up to three offers of a smaller house.

Lets not forget those people who own their houses. They have a 3 or 4 bedroom house and can't wait for the kids to move out so they can sell it and buy a smaller one. Funny how a council house is full of precious memories, friendly neighbours etc. but if you own the house all that goes out the window at the merest sniff of cash.

Cardew

geordie_joe wrote: »

There's two sides to every story. What about the families living in cramped overcrowded conditions because single people or couples are holding onto their 4 bedroom council houses?

Years ago the council would move couples into small accommodation when their kids left home. Couples could only occupy at best 2 bedroom house, so if you had a 3 or 4 bedroom house and your kids left home you had to move into a two bedroom house.

They didn't "evict" you, they just put you on the list as an emergency case and you got up to three offers of a smaller house.

Lets not forget those people who own their houses. They have a 3 or 4 bedroom house and can't wait for the kids to move out so they can sell it and buy a smaller one. Funny how a council house is full of precious memories, friendly neighbours etc. but if you own the house all that goes out the window at the merest sniff of cash.

I really don’t follow your logic here Geordie; or your terminology! If someone is moved from his home against his will, it is ‘eviction’ in my book – 3 choices or not.

Firstly if we are talking about privately owned homes, the owners are surely at liberty to decide on their motive for moving and downscaling. IMO opinion it is perfectly sensible to downscale to release equity. At least the “merest sniff of cash” as you put it, is their own cash and they are not expecting the State to supply them with a subsidy.

In many cases however, couples/widows/widowers cannot bear to sell their home for the reasons outlined by Seakay above. Their home is full of memories of family, the garden, friends, neighbours etc and these mean far more than “the merest sniff of cash”.

Turning to Council accommodation, what you appear to be advocating is a strict ‘State’ regime that moves people from house to house according to a set of guidelines set by whom? – You? – Hapless?

As it happens I agree with the principle of social housing. However, if you believe that accommodation should suit only actual requirements, why should a couple have a 2 bed council property? They only need 1 bedroom.

If an older couple have their adult children and grandchildren living in their 4 bed council property, why should those children/grandchildren be allowed advantages(e.g. be housed) over others?

Why shouldn’t the occupants of every council property be strictly means tested and made to pay according to their income?

Why should a young single girl who has a baby, move up the waiting list and move ahead of a couple who have acted more responsibly about parenthood etc etc.?

The point being that once you have people receiving State subsidy of any kind, and that includes Council housing, you will always get inequalities and anomalies and plain injustice.

If your level of ‘State control’ would kick out the single man from his Council house home(with all the memories etc); another person might have that control limiting the number of children couples could have whilst expecting the ‘State’ to support the family.

geordie_joe

Cardew wrote: »

I really don’t follow your logic here Geordie; or your terminology! If someone is moved from his home against his will, it is ‘eviction’ in my book – 3 choices or not.

I see eviction as being kicked out of your home, possibly because you didn't pay the rent, and your landlord having nothing more to do with you. In this case the council are simply rehousing you. Private landlords "kick" people out all the time, for all sorts of reasons.

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly if we are talking about privately owned homes, the owners are surely at liberty to decide on their motive for moving and downscaling. IMO opinion it is perfectly sensible to downscale to release equity. At least the “merest sniff of cash” as you put it, is their own cash and they are not expecting the State to supply them with a subsidy.

People in council housing aren't necessarily subsidised either. Anyway, my point is people may want to move to a smaller home, no matter who owns it. Less rent, less council tax etc. and less work keeping it clean. Just because someone lives in a council house and there is a riule saying they have to move into more suitable accomodation doesn't mean they are forced to against their will. Many will want to move just as many home owners will want to move.

Cardew wrote: »

In many cases however, couples/widows/widowers cannot bear to sell their home for the reasons outlined by Seakay above. Their home is full of memories of family, the garden, friends, neighbours etc and these mean far more than “the merest sniff of cash”.

Yep.

Cardew wrote: »

Turning to Council accommodation, what you appear to be advocating is a strict ‘State’ regime that moves people from house to house according to a set of guidelines set by whom? – You? – Hapless?

It used to happen. The point is council have a duty to house people, but only housing suitable for their needs. If you are a single person, maybe divorced with grown up children and you try to get a council house, and say "I fancy a 4 bedroom one". They will tell you they can't give you one. The best you will get is a one bedroomed flat, or possibly a one bedroomed house. They won't give you more bedrooms than you need. So why should they let you keep more bedrooms than you need?

Cardew wrote: »

As it happens I agree with the principle of social housing. However, if you believe that accommodation should suit only actual requirements, why should a couple have a 2 bed council property? They only need 1 bedroom.

I'm told it comes from a time when councils only built houses, and a 2 bedroom house was the smallest they built. Therefore the smallest house they could put a couple in was a 2 bedroom house. These days you can argue that you need a second bedroom for grandchildren to visit, hubby snores so you can't sleep in the same room as him etc.

Cardew wrote: »

If an older couple have their adult children and grandchildren living in their 4 bed council property, why should those children/grandchildren be allowed advantages(e.g. be housed) over others?

I'm not sure what you mean? Why should the children and grandchildren be allowed to live in the house? Or why should the children be given a house when they already have somewhere to live?

Cardew wrote: »

Why shouldn’t the occupants of every council property be strictly means tested and made to pay according to their income?

What has that got to do with it?

Cardew wrote: »

Why should a young single girl who has a baby, move up the waiting list and move ahead of a couple who have acted more responsibly about parenthood etc etc.?

Because it's based on need. I don't agree with it in some circumstances and I'm convinced some young girls get pregnant just to get a house. But the state is there to help people based on their needs not whether they've been responsible, have good jobs or come from a certain background.

Cardew wrote: »

The point being that once you have people receiving State subsidy of any kind, and that includes Council housing, you will always get inequalities and anomalies and plain injustice.

Council housing isn't a subsidy. Most are run by housing associations that are there to make a profit. They managed to do this from the rent they collect even after paying for repairs, wages etc. I can't see how that is a subsidy.

Cardew wrote: »

If your level of ‘State control’ would kick out the single man from his Council house home(with all the memories etc); another person might have that control limiting the number of children couples could have whilst expecting the ‘State’ to support the family.

But the council already have that power, it's just they don't use it these days. At least the council have to rehouse the single person, a private landlord can kick you out for no reason and leave you homeless. All they have to do is not renew your tennancy when it ends.

What about the council who are paying to house a couple with 3 children in a bed and breakfast because the old man in the 4 bedroom house won't give it up and move into a smaller one?

The council may not be able to put the family in a small house because they would be overcrowded, so they have to put them in emergency accomodation.

HugoSP

I knew someone who lived in a 2 bed council house opposite me in Leicester. Leicester City Council made the bright move IMO of buying victorian terraced houses when prices were low, and putting tenants in them. On the whole the tenants were fine.

This chap was asked to relocate into a flat, as the council needed the house for a single mum.

It's a difficult one to call I will agree. But should the chap have been allowed to move into the house in the first place on his own? - probably not.

On the one hand he had a nice house in a reasonable part of Leicester, then was moved to a block of council flats that were not so nice.

But on the other hand the council had a responsibility to house this young girl and her child - and intended to discharge it. When you see families of 3 or 4 sharing a 1 bed flat this is the view that you may hold strongest. The couple I knew of lived there for several years whilst single people occupied 3 bed houses in different parts of the city.

As gj says, tenants have limited security of tenure. If it suits me to serve one of my tenants notice on one property then offer them alternative accomodation with a new AST, then I can legally do so. Councils can also do this. It's just it's not always seen as politically correct to do so.

Indeed there have been stories of councils offering incentives to pursuade people to move out.

My wife's grandmother was told that she may have to move into smaller accomodation to accomodate the needs of families in the area. This was put paid to when she and her daughter responded by exercising her right to buy

Maybe the answer is to adjust council rents to increase the disparity between one bed and 3 bed properties, then be more generous with rent allowances in the case of families in genuine need.

Hapless_2

Seakay wrote: »

I do hope that when your family has grown up and moved out, and your lovely home is full of happy memories, you will remember this post. Perhaps you will have a better understanding by then of the importance of familiar surroundings, personal possessions with family events and history associated with them, a familiar garden and neighbours who recognise you? Or perhaps you will be happy to move into a sensible city centre flat, close to public transport and in easy reach of medical facilities etc and without the space for cluttering furniture, mementoes which only gather dust and with an invigorating urban view instead of the hard work of a garden?

Actually our retirement is sorted, when our children have grown up we are going to live in a caravan again!