Another Tory Manifesto Pledge hits the deck - Tories U-turn on plan to build more socially rented council housing

by Guest Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:24 am

First topic message reminder :

Plan to build genuinely affordable homes ditched by housing minister

The Conservatives have U-turned on a flagship pledge to build “a new generation” of social housing announced in their manifesto just weeks ago.

Theresa May personally promised her policy would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”, but her housing minister has now admitted planned homes would be let at significantly less affordable rents.

The embarrassing admission represents the second about-turn on a Conservative manifesto pledge, after the damaging furore around the “dementia tax”.

Tory officials played down the reversal, but Labour claimed it showed one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to help low-income families had “fallen apart”, while the Chartered Institute of Housing branded it “very disappointing”.

In mid-May the Conservatives announced they would build “a new generation of homes for social rent”, in a policy seen as critical to winning over the kind of working-class voters Ms May needs to steal seats off Labour.

The Tory manifesto spelt out a plan for “new council housing deals”, which would help councils "build more social housing”. And, in an intervention that spoke to the policy’s importance, Theresa May personally pledged it would create “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”.

But in an interview on Friday with trade magazine Inside Housing, minister Gavin Barwell admitted the party was planning to continue to build homes with higher rents and was not in fact reinstating traditional socially rented council housing.

Asked whether the homes would planned by his party would be let at low-level council rents, the minister said: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government defines social rented housing as having lower rents “determined through the national rent regime” – a specific formula set by the Government.

Affordable-rent housing, meanwhile, is separately defined, and simply requires homes to be “of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent” – meaning rents could be considerably higher. In practice, social rent tends to come in at around 40 per cent of market rent, meaning that in some areas the difference in rent could be twice as much.

CIH chief executive Terrie Alafat called the switch “very disappointing”, adding: “In reality affordable rents are still often out of reach to a significant proportion of the population.

“We have to commit to building new homes that people can afford.”

The apparent reversal comes after Theresa May was forced to U-turn on the “dementia tax” care policy – introducing a cap at the last minute as her Tory poll trickled away amid the backlash.

Ms May also dropped a pledge to force companies to put ordinary workers on their boards of directors, scrapped a flagship rise in National Insurance for self-employed workers in this year’s Budget, and changed her mind on whether to call an election.

There has also been confusion over the Tory policy to scrap universal free school lunches for infants to save money and replace them with breakfasts – after it emerged the party had only budgeted 7p for each child. The party has indicated that those costings are now defunct.

Labour's shadow housing secretary John Healey said the Tories’ only housing announcement of the general election was collapsing.

“This is another policy pledge from the Prime Minister that has fallen apart,” he told The Independent.

“The housing minister has now contradicted Theresa May's only housing announcement of this election campaign. She promised that the Conservatives would build new homes for 'social rent', he has confirmed they will not.

“The Prime Minister now urgently needs to level with the public. Either her housing minister is wrong about Conservative housing policy or she is. Which is it?”

Asked about Mr Barwell's comments, a Conservative spokesperson said: “We will be supporting new council housing at below market rents. Councils will be in the lead in deciding the precise form of tenure – we expect a mixture of social and affordable rent, as at present.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html

Uncosted manifesto that might just as well have been written on toilet paper so they could tear bits off of it.

by Victorismyhero Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:52 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You grumpy old bugger.....

So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

primarily becasue most of em are (to use quills quit phrase) cunnus. They buy a rural property then complain about the cockerel crowing ...etc etc etc...they whinge about nettles, and brambles and moan about the smell of shit spreading on a few days a year. they havnt the foggiest idea of how the countryside works and functions, think its PERFECTLY ok to walk their dog off lead through a field full of sheep (even where there is no footpath) and get all shirty when the irate farmer tells em to bugger off....and even shirtier when the farmer rightly shoots their precious pooch for sheep worrying..... they dont know that you should leave ALL gates as found, unless there is good reason not to...as in its open but you have good reason to think it should be shut...in which case you shut it and then inform the farmer...there is NO instance in which you should think a shut gate should be open.....i.e. you should never leave open a shut gate...if you think somethings wrong...go ask the farmer. making these kinds of judgements requires eaperience and a countrymans 6th sense.

even when on a public footpath through otherwise private woodland they see nothing wrong with allowing their (usually ill disciplined moronic) muts to run unchecked for yards either side, allowing said walking crap makers to use the surrounding area as their toilet.

BUT ...most of all these brain dead townies are the single biggest cause of the rapid inflation in price of homes in rural areas, meaning that the children of the people local cannot possibly buy a home in their area.

I can see your point, but many people can and do adapt to rural life. It was easy for my mum, as she came from that life.

well there you go then....

You cannot expect everyone to be of the same standard as yourself mate
true but I CAN expect them to have a bit of common sense, a shed load less arrogance and follow a few simple rules...like DONT BE A DICK, you may own a "house in the country deah!" BUT the surrounding land is NOT your back yard..oh and do your homework BEFORE you buy....the cockerel has precedence......

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

yes and when we live in north korea or cuba we may well do that. However rents are not set by evil money grabbers they are set by market forces and as long as there are more people looking than available properties rents will be high.

Us landlords are not charities and in my case the rent I receive is my entire income until my pension comes on stream. I dont even have an income that exceeds the tax allowance.

Should Labour get in and introduce their mickey mouse politics of envy policies I will probably have to sell my home and that would mean 1 family less having somewhere to rent.

by Guest Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:55 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I can see your point, but many people can and do adapt to rural life. It was easy for my mum, as she came from that life.

well there you go then....

You cannot expect everyone to be of the same standard as yourself mate
true but I CAN expect them to have a bit of common sense, a shed load less arrogance and follow a few simple rules...like DONT BE A DICK, you may own a "house in the country deah!" BUT the surrounding land is NOT your back yard..oh and do your homework BEFORE you buy....the cockerel has precedence......

Okay, but this goes to my point to rags, how would they know mate?
Unless someone teaches them?
Maybe you could start up a business to teach rookie townies on how to live out in rural areas?
Surely that would also be in your benefit?
Surely you can appreciate that some people want to move to rural areas where its quite and nice but simple have no idea as you do, in how to live that way and respect others who already do?

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:56 pm

Syl wrote:I think we do need more social housing. Private renting to private landlords is out of reach for many, as is buying a property.
Thatcher did allow people to buy their council houses, sadly she didn't replace them.

The present situation is we have far too many people needing cheaper properties and no practical way of providing them.

thatchers government built more social housing in one year, every years she was in office than labour did in their entire 13 years.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:00 pm

Syl wrote:Social housing should be for people in need....when their circumstances change they should move on.

The days of living in a council house for life, even passing it down to offspring should be gone forever.

I lived in mine for 20 years before buying it. It now costs me a couple of grand a year in ground rent and management fees to own it, so dont think it was a total giveaway, I might own it, but I am still almost paying the same as when I rented it.
It has however more than tripled in value since I bought it.
I am very grateful to gordon Brown for crashing the housing market and making it affordable. However if I had waited until the tories got in I could have got the full discount that was capped by labour.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:03 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.
yes and when we live in north korea or cuba we may well do that. However rents are not set by evil money grabbers they are set by market forces and as long as there are more people looking than available properties rents will be high.

Us landlords are not charities and in my case the rent I receive is my entire income until my pension comes on stream. I dont even have an income that exceeds the tax allowance.

Should Labour get in and introduce their mickey mouse politics of envy policies I will probably have to sell my home and that would mean 1 family less having somewhere to rent.

In other words, rents are set by money grabbers. Landlords see that several people are interested, so they rub their hands in glee because they can charge more.

Most people earn money as well as live on rent they receive.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:I think we do need more social housing. Private renting to private landlords is out of reach for many, as is buying a property.
Thatcher did allow people to buy their council houses, sadly she didn't replace them.

The present situation is we have far too many people needing cheaper properties and no practical way of providing them.

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

why the hell should private rents be artificially low. whilst mortgages might be low now as we found out in the 80's they can shoot up.
I am not a charity, I charge the maximum the market will stand. when a tenant breaks a fridge, microwave, hob or shower I have to buy them a new one, if there is a problem I have to pay to fix it. since I have been renting it out I have bought 3 fridges, 2 microwaves a new hob and a shower. I have also had to pay £100 a couple of times when the tenant has blocked the sink. Plumbers are not cheap. I have also had to pay more than £1000 for repairs done to the entire estate which didn't really do anything on my flat.
I pay 9% on my management fee, I dont get all the rent by a long chalk.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:11 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

you need the land to build, people are not keen on building cheap houses in their neck of the woods.
the NHs may well be selling off unused land to create an income for them and up to 26000 affordable accommodation for NHS staff.

Land is expensive because there is not a lot of it we can build on.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The point is she did sell off the council house stock and didn't replace them.

It makes no sense for local councils to rent off private landlords in order to house people on benefits.
It would be cheaper in the long run to just build more houses for people who need help.

People on benefits can rent privately. The reason some landlords don't like renting to them is that they don't always pay their rent. If councils paid the housing benefit to the landlord, the problem would be solved.

the last time I was out of work the housing benefit was paid directly to the landlord, that has all changed now which is why landlords often dont get paid and will not take those on benefits.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:14 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant that she didn't replace them, she shouldn't have allowed them to buy them in the first place. If private rents were regulated and lowered, it would make a big difference.
why the hell should private rents be artificially low. whilst mortgages might be low now as we found out in the 80's they can shoot up.
I am not a charity, I charge the maximum the market will stand. when a tenant breaks a fridge, microwave, hob or shower I have to buy them a new one, if there is a problem I have to pay to fix it. since I have been renting it out I have bought 3 fridges, 2 microwaves a new hob and a shower. I have also had to pay £100 a couple of times when the tenant has blocked the sink. Plumbers are not cheap. I have also had to pay more than £1000 for repairs done to the entire estate which didn't really do anything on my flat.
I pay 9% on my management fee, I dont get all the rent by a long chalk.

They're artificially high because landlords know they can charge what they like. If they're making a profit, they're money grabbing. Most people are money grabbers really, which is why the Government needs to do something about it.

If rents were forcibly lowered, house prices would drop - bad for those who hoped to sell their house for a huge amount of course, but good for the country in general.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:14 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

People on benefits can rent privately. The reason some landlords don't like renting to them is that they don't always pay their rent. If councils paid the housing benefit to the landlord, the problem would be solved.
the last time I was out of work the housing benefit was paid directly to the landlord, that has all changed now which is why landlords often dont get paid and will not take those on benefits.

Exactly, so that needs to change.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:18 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

Okay, but this goes to my point to rags, how would they know mate?
Unless someone teaches them?
Maybe you could start up a business to teach rookie townies on how to live out in rural areas?
Surely that would also be in your benefit?
Surely you can appreciate that some people want to move to rural areas where its quite and nice but simple have no idea as you do, in how to live that way and respect others who already do?

People don't need lessons on how to live in the country! It's common sense.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:24 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Building more social housing for rent is a waste of time anyway. There will never be enough, and it just causes resentment in those who can't get one. The answer is to regulate all rental properties and cut rent by quite a large amount.

I personally think we need more social housing. But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough. Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.

the thing is they aren't forced to pay that, they choose to pay it.
It's called market forces.
If you dont want to pay that then live further out where prices often get cheaper.
the first place I lived in cost me £6 a week for a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of an old georgian building. I lived in 3 properties with that landlord over about 15 years, the last being burnt down, by the landlord if rumours were to be believed, and in all that time he never did a thing.
the thing is no one forced me to live there, I chose to and was happy he kept his nose out.

by Guest Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Okay, but this goes to my point to rags, how would they know mate?
Unless someone teaches them?
Maybe you could start up a business to teach rookie townies on how to live out in rural areas?
Surely that would also be in your benefit?
Surely you can appreciate that some people want to move to rural areas where its quite and nice but simple have no idea as you do, in how to live that way and respect others who already do?

People don't need lessons on how to live in the country! It's common sense.

Well clearly they do based of the experiences Victor has had with many townies

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:30 pm

Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

my stepdads family still lived in a prefab built after the war well into the 90's.
It's not just the houses though, it's the land to put them on as well.
We have a large towns worth of immigrants arrive every year, how are we supposed to house the ones we have when numbers are rising so fast.
the population is increasing by 1 million every 3 or 4 years now.

the young should stay with their parents but many these days prefer to live on their own.
If we are harsh about it, the old are house blocking by not dying off soon enough.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.

yes but some brownfield sites cost quite a lot to clean up before they are considered safe for habitation.

Perhaps you could donate your wood for some much needed housing estates.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why can't those in need rent privately? If they have a council house, they might be getting benefits anyway if they're in need.

A lot of landlords do rent privately to people on benefits, the council pay, often over the odds.
I know of people who move to a second property and rent out, sometimes to DHSS, and the properties which people on benefits now live in drag down the neighbourhood......the owner doesn't care, he is getting a good rental and he will sell on when he is ready.
If specific houses were built to accommodate people on benefits (and I think prefabs are a good idea) it would stop landlords creaming off the state, which some now do.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/17/councils-pay-private-landlords-up-to-4000-to-house-tenants

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tory-mps-donors-taking-millions-5614468

if they drag down the neighbourhood then the house prices will fall.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:35 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

The benefits system including Housing Benefit has a cap and limitations. If you're single, then they won't pay for you to go into a three bedroomed house for example. So yes, they do need low rent just like everyone else. We do hear silly stories about whole families being put up in £1m homes but that's rare.

not in london.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You grumpy old bugger.....

So there should be a ten mile exclusion zone around your lands?

Why cannot people buy land in rural areas based on your qualifications? When my parents retired, they bought a house in rural Ireland and they never needed any qualification. My mum still lives there on her own.

primarily becasue most of em are (to use quills quit phrase) cunnus. They buy a rural property then complain about the cockerel crowing ...etc etc etc...they whinge about nettles, and brambles and moan about the smell of shit spreading on a few days a year. they havnt the foggiest idea of how the countryside works and functions, think its PERFECTLY ok to walk their dog off lead through a field full of sheep (even where there is no footpath) and get all shirty when the irate farmer tells em to bugger off....and even shirtier when the farmer rightly shoots their precious pooch for sheep worrying..... they dont know that you should leave ALL gates as found, unless there is good reason not to...as in its open but you have good reason to think it should be shut...in which case you shut it and then inform the farmer...there is NO instance in which you should think a shut gate should be open.....i.e. you should never leave open a shut gate...if you think somethings wrong...go ask the farmer. making these kinds of judgements requires eaperience and a countrymans 6th sense.

even when on a public footpath through otherwise private woodland they see nothing wrong with allowing their (usually ill disciplined moronic) muts to run unchecked for yards either side, allowing said walking crap makers to use the surrounding area as their toilet.

BUT ...most of all these brain dead townies are the single biggest cause of the rapid inflation in price of homes in rural areas, meaning that the children of the people local cannot possibly buy a home in their area.

that is how a lot of people feel about the Muslim population.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes and when we live in north korea or cuba we may well do that. However rents are not set by evil money grabbers they are set by market forces and as long as there are more people looking than available properties rents will be high.

Us landlords are not charities and in my case the rent I receive is my entire income until my pension comes on stream. I dont even have an income that exceeds the tax allowance.

Should Labour get in and introduce their mickey mouse politics of envy policies I will probably have to sell my home and that would mean 1 family less having somewhere to rent.

In other words, rents are set by money grabbers. Landlords see that several people are interested, so they rub their hands in glee because they can charge more.

Most people earn money as well as live on rent they receive.

no rents are set by what people are willing to pay.

Personally I would like £1000 or more a week for mine but that is not realistic. I ask my agent what the going rate is and tell him to put it on the market at that.
supply and demand is what sets the rate. the same with every commodity.
I dont do a bidding war when letting my house. all the tenants are willing to pay what is being asked because it is a fair rent for the area.
now what if the government said you had to take in lodgers, would you be happy with that?

by The Devil, You Know Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
why the hell should private rents be artificially low. whilst mortgages might be low now as we found out in the 80's they can shoot up.
I am not a charity, I charge the maximum the market will stand. when a tenant breaks a fridge, microwave, hob or shower I have to buy them a new one, if there is a problem I have to pay to fix it. since I have been renting it out I have bought 3 fridges, 2 microwaves a new hob and a shower. I have also had to pay £100 a couple of times when the tenant has blocked the sink. Plumbers are not cheap. I have also had to pay more than £1000 for repairs done to the entire estate which didn't really do anything on my flat.
I pay 9% on my management fee, I dont get all the rent by a long chalk.

They're artificially high because landlords know they can charge what they like. If they're making a profit, they're money grabbing. Most people are money grabbers really, which is why the Government needs to do something about it.

If rents were forcibly lowered, house prices would drop - bad for those who hoped to sell their house for a huge amount of course, but good for the country in general.

they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

by HoratioTarr Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:42 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I personally think we need more social housing. But I also agree that rents are way too high, and not regulated enough. Nobody should have to pay £750 for a single room in a shared house, nor live in a hovel because of unscrupulous landlords.
the thing is they aren't forced to pay that, they choose to pay it.
It's called market forces.
If you dont want to pay that then live further out where prices often get cheaper.
the first place I lived in cost me £6 a week for a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of an old georgian building. I lived in 3 properties with that landlord over about 15 years, the last being burnt down, by the landlord if rumours were to be believed, and in all that time he never did a thing.
the thing is no one forced me to live there, I chose to and was happy he kept his nose out.

You can pay £1,200 for a one bedroom flat in London and upwards. £200 plus just for parking space, not including your accommodation. My daughter was paying £450 a month for a single room in a shared house in Chorlton Green, Manchester. Yes, it was her choice but the alternatives were not nice. If you think you can get a flat these days for £6 a week you're living in LaLa Land.

by Victorismyhero Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:43 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:they should build a whole shitload of prefabs...modern ones are very nice indeed....
on brownfield sites especially in and around the cities and towns

and NO-ONE from a city or big town should be able to buy a second home in a rural area, indeed they should not be allowed to buy a house in a rural area AT ALL, unless they can pass an "A" level standard exam in countryside management and living.
yes but some brownfield sites cost quite a lot to clean up before they are considered safe for habitation.

only if they are "contaminated" sites....

Perhaps you could donate your wood for some much needed housing estates.

you would have a job getting that past "rural wales" and powys council methinks.......

by HoratioTarr Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:45 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
They're artificially high because landlords know they can charge what they like. If they're making a profit, they're money grabbing. Most people are money grabbers really, which is why the Government needs to do something about it.

If rents were forcibly lowered, house prices would drop - bad for those who hoped to sell their house for a huge amount of course, but good for the country in general.
they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

They can charge what they like just as someone can sell their house for whatever price they like. But of course whether they actually get a tenant is dictated by the competition of the market around them. And rents keep on going up and up because first time buyers can't afford houses anymore and more young people are having to rent or live at home.

by HoratioTarr Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:47 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
They're artificially high because landlords know they can charge what they like. If they're making a profit, they're money grabbing. Most people are money grabbers really, which is why the Government needs to do something about it.

If rents were forcibly lowered, house prices would drop - bad for those who hoped to sell their house for a huge amount of course, but good for the country in general.
they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

As for your comment about work, I think you'll find there's a whole underbelly in the UK that are not even on minimum wage, and certainly poor bastards forced into doing zero hours.

by Guest Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:50 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

As for your comment about work, I think you'll find there's a whole underbelly in the UK that are not even on minimum wage, and certainly poor bastards forced into doing zero hours.

Sorry Horatio, but nobody is forced into contract hours. Its a choice people make when taking on work, where many are happy to do so. I have not found many people who are at odds with such contracts. We have many at the hospital i work at and for many it suits them.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:26 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
the thing is they aren't forced to pay that, they choose to pay it.
It's called market forces.
If you dont want to pay that then live further out where prices often get cheaper.
the first place I lived in cost me £6 a week for a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of an old georgian building. I lived in 3 properties with that landlord over about 15 years, the last being burnt down, by the landlord if rumours were to be believed, and in all that time he never did a thing.
the thing is no one forced me to live there, I chose to and was happy he kept his nose out.

You can pay £1,200 for a one bedroom flat in London and upwards. £200 plus just for parking space, not including your accommodation. My daughter was paying £450 a month for a single room in a shared house in Chorlton Green, Manchester. Yes, it was her choice but the alternatives were not nice. If you think you can get a flat these days for £6 a week you're living in LaLa Land.

you probably can, but you aren't forced to pay it, you can choose to live somewhere cheaper and someone else will choose to pay it.
my point on the £6 rent was it was the market rate. My dole money at that time was also £6 a week.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:27 am

Lord Foul wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes but some brownfield sites cost quite a lot to clean up before they are considered safe for habitation.

only if they are "contaminated" sites....

Perhaps you could donate your wood for some much needed housing estates.

you would have a job getting that past "rural wales" and powys council methinks.......

which rather proves why land prices are so high, because it is in high demand.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:28 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

They can charge what they like just as someone can sell their house for whatever price they like. But of course whether they actually get a tenant is dictated by the competition of the market around them. And rents keep on going up and up because first time buyers can't afford houses anymore and more young people are having to rent or live at home.

yes you rent or sell property at the market rate.
the market rate is what people are willing to pay, they are not forced to pay it.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:30 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

As for your comment about work, I think you'll find there's a whole underbelly in the UK that are not even on minimum wage, and certainly poor bastards forced into doing zero hours.

around 2% of the workforce are on zero hours contracts and from surveys around 80% of those are very happy with the arrangement.

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:30 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

You can pay £1,200 for a one bedroom flat in London and upwards. £200 plus just for parking space, not including your accommodation. My daughter was paying £450 a month for a single room in a shared house in Chorlton Green, Manchester. Yes, it was her choice but the alternatives were not nice. If you think you can get a flat these days for £6 a week you're living in LaLa Land.
you probably can, but you aren't forced to pay it, you can choose to live somewhere cheaper and someone else will choose to pay it.
my point on the £6 rent was it was the market rate. My dole money at that time was also £6 a week.

You are forced to pay it if that's all there is. People's accommodation is often tied to where they work, or perhaps their children's school or family. It's all very well saying move out of the area...but why should they? Or perhaps they can't.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:33 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
you probably can, but you aren't forced to pay it, you can choose to live somewhere cheaper and someone else will choose to pay it.
my point on the £6 rent was it was the market rate. My dole money at that time was also £6 a week.

You are forced to pay it if that's all there is. People's accommodation is often tied to where they work, or perhaps their children's school or family. It's all very well saying move out of the area...but why should they? Or perhaps they can't.

you aren't, you can move somewhere cheaper.
If I for instance had taken that approach during my working life I would have been out of work an awful lot of the time. I went where the work was, not expected the work to come to me. I chose to live in the same town and pay the going rate for rent there. however the closest I ever got to work from home was 25miles. I have commuted more than 100 miles a day each way many times.

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:42 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

As for your comment about work, I think you'll find there's a whole underbelly in the UK that are not even on minimum wage, and certainly poor bastards forced into doing zero hours.

around 2% of the workforce are on zero hours contracts and from surveys around 80% of those are very happy with the arrangement.

910,000 people wondering whether they'll have work from one day to the next. Not a figure to be sniffed at nor brushed under the rug.

Research has shown that workers on zero-hours contracts earn less per hour than staff in similar roles and are denied benefits such as sick pay. A study published by the TUC in December showed that average weekly earnings for zero-hours workers were £188, compared with £479 for permanent workers.

Forty percent of zero hours workers earn less than £111 a week, the qualifying threshold for statutory sick pay, compared with 8.5% of permanent employees.

The TUC estimates that in addition to Britain’s zero hours workforce, there are another 820,000 employees who say they are underemployed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:46 am

I spent 2 years working on zero hours and I can confirm it's fucking shite. No sick pay. No guaranteed work. You'd go in and they'd say we don't need you today, go home. You can't get a second job because you're on call. At the time I had no choice but to do that work and I was lucky in that my husband works and we got by. Then my circumstances changed and I set up my own business. But many are not so lucky.

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:49 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

You are forced to pay it if that's all there is. People's accommodation is often tied to where they work, or perhaps their children's school or family. It's all very well saying move out of the area...but why should they? Or perhaps they can't.
you aren't, you can move somewhere cheaper.
If I for instance had taken that approach during my working life I would have been out of work an awful lot of the time. I went where the work was, not expected the work to come to me. I chose to live in the same town and pay the going rate for rent there. however the closest I ever got to work from home was 25miles. I have commuted more than 100 miles a day each way many times.

What if you have kids? What if you're a single parent? What if you're disabled? What if you can't find work anywhere else and are on low pay? The permutations are endless and you seem unable to grasp that some people are stuck in certain situations or circumstances through no fault of their own. Are they expected to live in a hovel because of it, or should this country we are told is so prosperous fork out and ensure our poorer fellow human beings at least have a decent roof over their heads?

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:50 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:

around 2% of the workforce are on zero hours contracts and from surveys around 80% of those are very happy with the arrangement.

910,000 people wondering whether they'll have work from one day to the next. Not a figure to be sniffed at nor brushed under the rug.

Research has shown that workers on zero-hours contracts earn less per hour than staff in similar roles and are denied benefits such as sick pay. A study published by the TUC in December showed that average weekly earnings for zero-hours workers were £188, compared with £479 for permanent workers.

Forty percent of zero hours workers earn less than £111 a week, the qualifying threshold for statutory sick pay, compared with 8.5% of permanent employees.

The TUC estimates that in addition to Britain’s zero hours workforce, there are another 820,000 employees who say they are underemployed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19

Is it 910,000 peoples view that they are, or the guardian claiming so?

Sorry Horatio, just because this is an opinion piece by a journalist, does not mean that is the views of people who want these contracts. Does it?

All temp workers have less pay than full time workers, but after 13 weeks they are entitled to the same benefits. So that is a poor spin by the Guardian. No temp agency can take a person off a contract before 12 weeks and then move them back to thus avoid this. They would break the law. As the worker has rights.

You need to research more into what is claimed, the article is poor and politically based not even understanding employees.

Again the Hospital, those working for Serco in the Porter, cleaning and security have a union, who continue to fuck them over, taking their pay weekly. I speak to these people daily and know and come to see what unions are like. They dont give a fuck, only. I spoke with one of their managers the other week, as was asked to come to a meeting to hear gripes being made. I asked this Union Rep, why after 7 years she had failed to do many things the Union had promised staff. She went silent. They are all mouth and no trousers

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:51 am

BTW...somewhere cheaper is usually a council house. The waiting list for which is usually several years.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:53 am

HoratioTarr wrote:I spent 2 years working on zero hours and I can confirm it's fucking shite. No sick pay. No guaranteed work. You'd go in and they'd say we don't need you today, go home. You can't get a second job because you're on call. At the time I had no choice but to do that work and I was lucky in that my husband works and we got by. Then my circumstances changed and I set up my own business. But many are not so lucky.

Many companies do not have sick pay and again did you not sign up to this employment?

There is other jobs surely you could have applied for?

You are intelligent Horatio, companies will let staff go on a day if there is less work. That is just common sense.

What i have seen is people committed to these contracts get full time work after 13 weeks.

Its those unreliable who do not

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:54 am

HoratioTarr wrote:BTW...somewhere cheaper is usually a council house. The waiting list for which is usually several years.

There is other schemes that are not council for cheaper housing

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:07 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

910,000 people wondering whether they'll have work from one day to the next. Not a figure to be sniffed at nor brushed under the rug.

Research has shown that workers on zero-hours contracts earn less per hour than staff in similar roles and are denied benefits such as sick pay. A study published by the TUC in December showed that average weekly earnings for zero-hours workers were £188, compared with £479 for permanent workers.

Forty percent of zero hours workers earn less than £111 a week, the qualifying threshold for statutory sick pay, compared with 8.5% of permanent employees.

The TUC estimates that in addition to Britain’s zero hours workforce, there are another 820,000 employees who say they are underemployed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19

Is it 910,000 peoples view that they are, or the guardian claiming so?

Sorry Horatio, just because this is an opinion piece by a journalist, does not mean that is the views of people who want these contracts. Does it?

All temp workers have less pay than full time workers, but after 13 weeks they are entitled to the same benefits. So that is a poor spin by the Guardian. No temp agency can take a person off a contract before 12 weeks and then move them back to thus avoid this. They would break the law. As the worker has rights.

You need to research more into what is claimed, the article is poor and politically based not even understanding employees.

Again the Hospital, those working for Serco in the Porter, cleaning and security have a union, who continue to fuck them over, taking their pay weekly. I speak to these people daily and know and come to see what unions are like. They dont give a fuck, only. I spoke with one of their managers the other week, as was asked to come to a meeting to hear gripes being made. I asked this Union Rep, why after 7 years she had failed to do many things the Union had promised staff. She went silent. They are all mouth and no trousers

No, not all temp workers have less pay. At least not in my experience. They usually get more per hour as they are temps. I used to work for several temp agencies and I always got more per hour than a full time worker. Agencies who offer pay between assignments contracts must pay you if you’re between jobs for more than a week. It has to be either the National Minimum Wage or at least 50 per cent of what you were paid in your last job, whichever is greater. But on the whole, most temp jobs through agencies are better paid.

Zero hours on the other hand, can jerk you around with both pay and working hours.

As for that Guardian article, there are other links out there indicating pretty much the same thing.

I can't really comment on the Union thing as I've never been in a Union. But I'll take your word for it.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:12 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Is it 910,000 peoples view that they are, or the guardian claiming so?

Sorry Horatio, just because this is an opinion piece by a journalist, does not mean that is the views of people who want these contracts. Does it?

All temp workers have less pay than full time workers, but after 13 weeks they are entitled to the same benefits. So that is a poor spin by the Guardian. No temp agency can take a person off a contract before 12 weeks and then move them back to thus avoid this. They would break the law. As the worker has rights.

You need to research more into what is claimed, the article is poor and politically based not even understanding employees.

Again the Hospital, those working for Serco in the Porter, cleaning and security have a union, who continue to fuck them over, taking their pay weekly. I speak to these people daily and know and come to see what unions are like. They dont give a fuck, only. I spoke with one of their managers the other week, as was asked to come to a meeting to hear gripes being made. I asked this Union Rep, why after 7 years she had failed to do many things the Union had promised staff. She went silent. They are all mouth and no trousers

No, not all temp workers have less pay. At least not in my experience. They usually get more per hour as they are temps. I used to work for several temp agencies and I always got more per hour than a full time worker. Agencies who offer pay between assignments contracts must pay you if you’re between jobs for more than a week. It has to be either the National Minimum Wage or at least 50 per cent of what you were paid in your last job, whichever is greater. But on the whole, most temp jobs through agencies are better paid.

Zero hours on the other hand, can jerk you around with both pay and working hours.

As for that Guardian article, there are other links out there indicating pretty much the same thing.

I can't really comment on the Union thing as I've never been in a Union. But I'll take your word for it.

They would still get less than the person who would be full time Horatio. So not saying you are wrong, but would be surprised if you did. Most permanent staff would be in uproar if people were as temps getting paid more. So if you did, that to me would be wrong. Not knocking but can you imagine full time staff knowing that?

I agree that some zero contracts with certain temp agencies do jerk people around. Its more to do with the agency itself and what they have signed up to with an employer. As I say most people I know it suits them. Some get screwed about and only know the day before if they have work. That I find wrong, as they could at least let them know whether they have a full weeks worth of work. There is 3 agencies used at the hospital. Two are good and one is poor and yet they use the poorest one the most, go figure eh?

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:32 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:I spent 2 years working on zero hours and I can confirm it's fucking shite. No sick pay. No guaranteed work. You'd go in and they'd say we don't need you today, go home. You can't get a second job because you're on call. At the time I had no choice but to do that work and I was lucky in that my husband works and we got by. Then my circumstances changed and I set up my own business. But many are not so lucky.

Many companies do not have sick pay and again did you not sign up to this employment?

There is other jobs surely you could have applied for?

You are intelligent Horatio, companies will let staff go on a day if there is less work. That is just common sense.

What i have seen is people committed to these contracts get full time work after 13 weeks.

Its those unreliable who do not

We're talking about zero hours here. If the work isn't there, you don't get paid. It does work both ways of course, but many people who do zero hours are not in a position to say, no, to any work. There was a kind of desperation going on that was really horrible where I worked. There was no chance of full time work after 13 weeks. You'd be surprised also how hard it is to get work, particularly if you're over a certain age. Even my daughter struggled for a long time after she was made redundant. It's pretty soul destroying, let me tell you. I remember going along to the job centre to sign on, this was a few years ago, and I'd not been out of work since I was in my early twenties, and I actually asked the job centre person whether my age was against me, and she said unfortunately, yes. I cried all the way home that day, and resolved to start up my own business. And I did. And I haven't looked back and I'm now doing ok. But I can remember how desolate I felt. It's a horrible feeling. And at that time I had a physical injury that stopped me from doing certain work. So, it's not always about being unreliable or lazy, it's often about circumstance and bad luck.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:37 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Many companies do not have sick pay and again did you not sign up to this employment?

There is other jobs surely you could have applied for?

You are intelligent Horatio, companies will let staff go on a day if there is less work. That is just common sense.

What i have seen is people committed to these contracts get full time work after 13 weeks.

Its those unreliable who do not

We're talking about zero hours here. If the work isn't there, you don't get paid. It does work both ways of course, but many people who do zero hours are not in a position to say, no, to any work. There was a kind of desperation going on that was really horrible where I worked. There was no chance of full time work after 13 weeks. You'd be surprised also how hard it is to get work, particularly if you're over a certain age. Even my daughter struggled for a long time after she was made redundant. It's pretty soul destroying, let me tell you. I remember going along to the job centre to sign on, this was a few years ago, and I'd not been out of work since I was in my early twenties, and I actually asked the job centre person whether my age was against me, and she said unfortunately, yes. I cried all the way home that day, and resolved to start up my own business. And I did. And I haven't looked back and I'm now doing ok. But I can remember how desolate I felt. It's a horrible feeling. And at that time I had a physical injury that stopped me from doing certain work. So, it's not always about being unreliable or lazy, it's often about circumstance and bad luck.

Sorry to hear about your situation and i do not doubt that some people suffer as you have.
So do not get me wrong, i try and weigh up what is best here and see many people happy with such contracts. So its always difficult to gauge the effects Horatio. Seems you have had a run o bad luck and am not discounting that this happens to people or that people are not given a fair break with work. In fact i have known from some employers ( I have two manager friends in HR in big companies) Where they take more stock in people Polish as reliable than those born here. That clearly does not help those born here willing to work, as they get a bad rep from those lazy. Who only take on work, knowing they can sign on again if sacked. That happens loads from what I have been told.

Once again sorry to hear what you went through

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:38 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

No, not all temp workers have less pay. At least not in my experience. They usually get more per hour as they are temps. I used to work for several temp agencies and I always got more per hour than a full time worker. Agencies who offer pay between assignments contracts must pay you if you’re between jobs for more than a week. It has to be either the National Minimum Wage or at least 50 per cent of what you were paid in your last job, whichever is greater. But on the whole, most temp jobs through agencies are better paid.

Zero hours on the other hand, can jerk you around with both pay and working hours.

As for that Guardian article, there are other links out there indicating pretty much the same thing.

I can't really comment on the Union thing as I've never been in a Union. But I'll take your word for it.

They would still get less than the person who would be full time Horatio. So not saying you are wrong, but would be surprised if you did. Most permanent staff would be in uproar if people were as temps getting paid more. So if you did, that to me would be wrong. Not knocking but can you imagine full time staff knowing that?

I agree that some zero contracts with certain temp agencies do jerk people around. Its more to do with the agency itself and what they have signed up to with an employer. As I say most people I know it suits them. Some get screwed about and only know the day before if they have work. That I find wrong, as they could at least let them know whether they have a full weeks worth of work. There is 3 agencies used at the hospital. Two are good and one is poor and yet they use the poorest one the most, go figure eh?

I worked for years as a PA/secretary. I spent some of that time doing temp work, and it's general knowledge within that industry that temps get paid more. Not once did I ever come across any full time staff I worked with as a temp being bothered by that. Most of them had no idea what money I was on anyway. I got paid around £4 per hour more as a temp than any full time work I ever got. But I guess this must vary from industry to industry, as I know you work in the NHS, so perhaps temp work is different within that.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:41 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

They would still get less than the person who would be full time Horatio. So not saying you are wrong, but would be surprised if you did. Most permanent staff would be in uproar if people were as temps getting paid more. So if you did, that to me would be wrong. Not knocking but can you imagine full time staff knowing that?

I agree that some zero contracts with certain temp agencies do jerk people around. Its more to do with the agency itself and what they have signed up to with an employer. As I say most people I know it suits them. Some get screwed about and only know the day before if they have work. That I find wrong, as they could at least let them know whether they have a full weeks worth of work. There is 3 agencies used at the hospital. Two are good and one is poor and yet they use the poorest one the most, go figure eh?

I worked for years as a PA/secretary. I spent some of that time doing temp work, and it's general knowledge within that industry that temps get paid more. Not once did I ever come across any full time staff I worked with as a temp being bothered by that. Most of them had no idea what money I was on anyway. I got paid around £4 per hour more as a temp than any full time work I ever got. But I guess this must vary from industry to industry, as I know you work in the NHS, so perhaps temp work is different within that.

Interesting to know but am still shocked that temps would get more. Seems it then pays more to then be a temp I guess. Its been years since i worked and lived in London, so I am out of touch with this. When I did work there and i guess the same is within any city. Mine is a Market Town. So clearly I am out of touch on this.

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:44 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

We're talking about zero hours here. If the work isn't there, you don't get paid. It does work both ways of course, but many people who do zero hours are not in a position to say, no, to any work. There was a kind of desperation going on that was really horrible where I worked. There was no chance of full time work after 13 weeks. You'd be surprised also how hard it is to get work, particularly if you're over a certain age. Even my daughter struggled for a long time after she was made redundant. It's pretty soul destroying, let me tell you. I remember going along to the job centre to sign on, this was a few years ago, and I'd not been out of work since I was in my early twenties, and I actually asked the job centre person whether my age was against me, and she said unfortunately, yes. I cried all the way home that day, and resolved to start up my own business. And I did. And I haven't looked back and I'm now doing ok. But I can remember how desolate I felt. It's a horrible feeling. And at that time I had a physical injury that stopped me from doing certain work. So, it's not always about being unreliable or lazy, it's often about circumstance and bad luck.

Sorry to hear about your situation and i do not doubt that some people suffer as you have.
So do not get me wrong, i try and weigh up what is best here and see many people happy with such contracts. So its always difficult to gauge the effects Horatio. Seems you have had a run o bad luck and am not discounting that this happens to people or that people are not given a fair break with work. In fact i have known from some employers ( I have two manager friends in HR in big companies) Where they take more stock in people Polish as reliable than those born here. That clearly does not help those born here willing to work, as they get a bad rep from those lazy. Who only take on work, knowing they can sign on again if sacked. That happens loads from what I have been told.

Once again sorry to hear what you went through

Thorin, you wouldn't believe what I've been through in my life. I've had some truly terrible times, as I'm sure we all have, but it's part and parcel of the learning curve. I'm blessed with a small but great family, and friends, and a loving partner who's been supportive to me for the past 9 years. So all is good.

We have a large Polish community here in Manchester where I live, and they are lovely people and hard workers. Several of my clients are Polish and Romanian...

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:49 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I worked for years as a PA/secretary. I spent some of that time doing temp work, and it's general knowledge within that industry that temps get paid more. Not once did I ever come across any full time staff I worked with as a temp being bothered by that. Most of them had no idea what money I was on anyway. I got paid around £4 per hour more as a temp than any full time work I ever got. But I guess this must vary from industry to industry, as I know you work in the NHS, so perhaps temp work is different within that.

Interesting to know but am still shocked that temps would get more. Seems it then pays more to then be a temp I guess. Its been years since i worked and lived in London, so I am out of touch with this. When I did work there and i guess the same is within any city. Mine is a Market Town. So clearly I am out of touch on this.

Well, this was also some time ago...around 15 years ago. I used to be with Reed Employment, they paid really well. Some agencies paid more than others.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:51 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry to hear about your situation and i do not doubt that some people suffer as you have.
So do not get me wrong, i try and weigh up what is best here and see many people happy with such contracts. So its always difficult to gauge the effects Horatio. Seems you have had a run o bad luck and am not discounting that this happens to people or that people are not given a fair break with work. In fact i have known from some employers ( I have two manager friends in HR in big companies) Where they take more stock in people Polish as reliable than those born here. That clearly does not help those born here willing to work, as they get a bad rep from those lazy. Who only take on work, knowing they can sign on again if sacked. That happens loads from what I have been told.

Once again sorry to hear what you went through

Thorin, you wouldn't believe what I've been through in my life. I've had some truly terrible times, as I'm sure we all have, but it's part and parcel of the learning curve. I'm blessed with a small but great family, and friends, and a loving partner who's been supportive to me for the past 9 years. So all is good.

We have a large Polish community here in Manchester where I live, and they are lovely people and hard workers. Several of my clients are Polish and Romanian...

I love the Polish people and have many friends who are. They work hard as do some Romanians I have come to know and these later have had it horrible back at home. So I have the greatest respect for them, as they simple want to better their lives.

Glad to see you have come through the hard times. i think life can throw some of the worst things at us, but it makes us all the more stronger and you are living proof of that. It certainly is a learning curve, one though none of us would wish on anyone. Glad to hear you are surrounded by loving family and friends, with most of all a loving partner.

Very happy things have worked out for you.

by HoratioTarr Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:54 am

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin, you wouldn't believe what I've been through in my life. I've had some truly terrible times, as I'm sure we all have, but it's part and parcel of the learning curve. I'm blessed with a small but great family, and friends, and a loving partner who's been supportive to me for the past 9 years. So all is good.

We have a large Polish community here in Manchester where I live, and they are lovely people and hard workers. Several of my clients are Polish and Romanian...

I love the Polish people and have many friends who are. They work hard as do some Romanians I have come to know and these later have had it horrible back at home. So I have the greatest respect for them, as they simple want to better their lives.

Glad to see you have come through the hard times. i think life can throw some of the worst things at us, but it makes us all the more stronger and you are living proof of that. It certainly is a learning curve, one though none of us would wish on anyone. Glad to hear you are surrounded by loving family and friends, with most of all a loving partner.

Very happy things have worked out for you.

Thank you.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:56 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

In other words, rents are set by money grabbers. Landlords see that several people are interested, so they rub their hands in glee because they can charge more.

Most people earn money as well as live on rent they receive.
no rents are set by what people are willing to pay.

Personally I would like £1000 or more a week for mine but that is not realistic. I ask my agent what the going rate is and tell him to put it on the market at that.
supply and demand is what sets the rate. the same with every commodity.
I dont do a bidding war when letting my house. all the tenants are willing to pay what is being asked because it is a fair rent for the area.
now what if the government said you had to take in lodgers, would you be happy with that?

Yes, and the money grabbers will take advantage of that. People have to live somewhere, and if all the rents in an area are pretty much the same, they don't have much choice. Market rates are merely a reflection of how greedy people are.

by Sponsored content