Properties sell-off by Southwark - how can this be right?

[Huguenot]

"Is the lounge really the right place for this thread?"

It wasn't about ED, and things don't get shifted to the Drawing Room.

DJKQ, I'm not going to Fisk you, but you make no sense.

I point out that housing support is for extreme cirumstances, and then you conjure up an extreme cicumstance and tell me to justify my position. This is stupid.

You tell me that housing isn't enough for one person, and then say 'couples move when they have a child' - which is three people. This is stupid.

Your bollocks about charity work doesn't tell me anything.

You have to understand that the MARKET IS DISTORTED. The market is distorted by housing benefit.

Of course I give a shit about all these hardworking people who are struggling to find accommodation because it's overpriced.

What you are struggling to get through your skull is that THE REASON WHY THE MARKET IS OVERPRICED IS BECAUSE OF HOUSING BENEFIT.

If you pump more money into housing benefit you are just distorting the market even more. YOUR POLICIES ARE GOING TO DRIVE PRICES UP FOR THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO PROTECT.

And it's all going to go into the hands of profiteering private landlords - the people you want to stop.

We already agree that there are tax benefits for multiple house ownership that you and I both despise.

What you do is look in a frustrated way at all these hard working people and look at all these high prices and have an emotional splurge, and you want to throw taxpayer cash at them. What you are struggling to do is connect the dots.

[DJKillaQueen]

The market in NOT distorted by HB Huguenot. You really are talking nonsense. And you tarred an entire group of people as being socially inept and without responsibility (your words not mine) because they live in council accomodation. Snobbery beyond belief.

The market is overpriced because of successive tampering by the banks to create products that immunised it from the normal market forces most other sectors are subjected to - like THREE recessions for example. Are you really so stupid as to think that self certified mortgages, zero deposit buy to let schemes and increased ratio to salary limits (because wages were not keeping up with market growth) have less to do with any of it????? There are countless studies that lay the blame firmly at those doors. I sugggest you read them, especially the one that Gordon Brown ignored in 2001 warning him that buy to let schemes were artificually inflating the market). These are the dots.

And caps on HB are doing nothing to alter that...as the evidence is showing. I agree that maintaining previous levels of HB isn't the answer either but what will be the answer when local authorities (as they are doing) find themselves having to resort back to the far more expensive bed and breakfast accomodation because there are not enough private sector landlords willing to rent to benefits recipients? And don't even go down the route of turfing out existing tenants to make room.....as they too will likely need HB if they don't already receive any to make up the difference between a pubilc and private sector rent.

If you actually read what I write (rather than what you want to see). I make the point that adjustments are needed across all areas from mortgage regulation to HB. You on the other hand seem fixed on HB and are are completely blinkered to the other contributing facters, perhaps because ideallogical you have an issue with people in council housing (I don't know?) as the ludicrous statement you made regarding them shows. At least take that silly comment back if nothing else.

Council housing is cheaper to rent because it has been regulated over the years. The level of growth in rents has mirrored the growth in salaries amongst other things (the average rent increase being around 6% each year). This is precisely what should have been happening in the private sector, but it didn't because of the kind of deregulation that created as we both agree, an over inflated market. It is the continued practise by banks and mortgage lenders to design products, no matter how risky, to keep a steady stream of buyers that has what has push prices up. The cost of HB (which incidently has always been capped at a percentage of average local rents) has simply followed in it's wake.

[DJKillaQueen]

And just to add H that BBC London radio are talking about this this morning and you know what...not one single expert or caller as yet has even mentioned HB let alone layed the blame at it's door. plenty of talk about buy to let schmes though.

[Huguenot]

WTF are you talking about?

First that ridiculous outburst in the Drawing Room, and now this. You want to read 'how to make friends and influence people'?

I didn't call anybody socially inept and without responsibility. What I said was that providing one person accommodation except in exceptional cicumstances "facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt". Guns facilitate crime, they don't make you a criminal.

Read it yourself.

Your views on HB not distorting a market are just childish - as are your views that landlords 'keep rents high because they can't afford to lower them'. Just stupid.

These observations stem from a victim mentality, and feeds failure. You believe it because it conveniently absolves the needy from responsibility, and gives you a political pulpit.

What 'evidence'? Show it to me, instead of crapping on in this relentless rubbishy back garden politician way of yours.

"perhaps because ideallogical you have an issue with people in council housing (I don't know?)"

What exactly don't you know?

You already know that I despise buy-to-let schemes. I think they're a travesty on the nation, and funded in no small part by housing benefit. These middle class wealth heroes doing BTL are ripping off the people you want to help.

I wasn't even talking about people in council housing, I was talking about the distortion that Housing Benefit introduces to the market. My only mention about council housing was to challenge gifting it out one person at a time. It's welfare paid for by other people, not a passport to a private penthouse.

Perhaps this would count :"Of course I give a shit about all these hardworking people who are struggling to find accommodation because it's overpriced."

If you don't get my views from that you're either terminally retarded or purposefully ignoring it, which makes you obnoxious.

My point was that your naive, uninspired and poorly informed approach is actually making it more difficult for the people you're trying to help. Do you get it? You're actually fucking them up.

You can't bloody get this because you have neither the wit nor the intelligence to think beyond taking money from taxpayers and giving it to others.

It's just going to private landlords, feeding their lifestyles, enriching their gluttony and justifying their theft.

[DJKillaQueen]

Ooh are you flouncing... no outburst from me..but I do see yet another H 'in his goldfish bowl' can't accept a strong counter argument moment!

facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt

Ok well what exactly does that mean? What lifestyle are single council tenants living that makes their environment NOT contructive? Because that's an unfounded insult too. If you work and are on a low wage you are still seeing half your take home pay go on your rent...so please enlighten me as to why securty of tenure (because that's what I think you are alluding to) is somehow a bad thing and why target single council tenants? What about those kids that never work for the inheritance that keeps THEM in a security of tenure, or kids that inherit anything of value tbh.

You know, accusing someone who has made a valid argument as childish is pathetic. You really can not engage with opposing views whiout resorting to playgorund insult can you? And try calling me or anyone retarded to their face H. Grow up. The annonymity of a PC does give you the right to be a 'sanctimonious dickhead'.

[Huguenot]

You don't think calling me 'ignorant' in the DR counts as an insult? You got called a sanctimonius dickhead as a direct consequence of that. When you start fucking abusing me, there is no reason why I should hide behind social graces to make my point clear.

The thing about people like you, is that you're quite ready to toss insults and abuse out, but when you get astute observations back you start whining like a stuck pig about how hard done by you are.

Completely pathetic. Ridiculous, childish and immature.

I've made an unfounded insult to council tenants? What soapbox are you on? You make stuff up.

I'm alluding to tenure? WTF? You thickheaded moron. This is complete bullshit. You're making up complaints about things I've never said.

How many fucking times do I have to say that I was referring to the distortion that housing benefit imposes upon the market, and was referring to taxpayers funding one person flats (something you presented as a necessity). The problem with one person flats is not the extreme circumstances, they're people like zeban claiming she should have a one person council flat because she wants an alternative 'charidee' lifestyle and wants to live like people who work really hard.

The thing about you DJKQ is that you look for insult an injury everywhere you go.

When it's not there, you're just a fucking liar.

Doesn't that make you miserable? Really sad inside?

[Brendan]

Well this is nice isn't it.

[Huguenot]

No it's not, DJKQ is a nasty piece of work.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well it is ignorant to not read the OP of a thread tbh. But you go to far with the insults H and you just make yourself look arrogant and nasty. That's what people say about you behind your back, because they do talk about you behind your back and not in pleasant terms i'm afriad. You might weant to think about the impression you give of yourself.

Calm down if you want a sensible discussion... and btw I never claimed to be hard done by, not once, because I don't feel that I am. I have skills and a level of education and intelligence that give me a lot of opportunity in my life. But I know many people that are not so lucky because...the world does not dole out talent and opportunity in equal measure just as it doesn't rewarded effort in equal measure also. Life should not be about money, or how many houses this person has or not. It's about what we do for each other, and how we build stable and happy communities. That's what I value.

I couldn't really give a toss what some jumped up IT worker (because that's all you are) on the other side of the globe thinks about me or anything. And you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who knows me to support the tirade of adjectives you use to describe me.

You still haven't quantified what your comment 'facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt' really means...prefering to jump on my attempts to make sense of the obvious bs it is. Who knows...maybe even you don't really know what it means...did you get it from Wiki?

[Brendan]

Breath.

Count to 10.

Paint a fence.

You are a hollow reed. Troubles blow through you like the wind.

[DJKillaQueen]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it's not, DJKQ is a nasty piece of work.

Cut it out ffs. How old are you?

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't know what's wrong with him Brendan. he sees things that aren't really there and seems to take offense at the drop of a hat with any one that disagrees with him...and then blows into some kind of teenage temper tantrum. He did exactly the same with TTT3. I just read back over the entire thread to see if there was any provocation for Huguenots hissy fit. There isn't and it's a rudeness he brings out often without provocation to other posters. I don't know how he gets away with it tbh.

Anyway, it's JUST a forum.....who cares lol?

[Huguenot]

Hey hey, she's off again.

I love it DJKQ when you start creating a 'gang' behind you. Rather than accept the fact that you started slinging mud and engaging in stratightforward lying you now go with this:

"That's what people say about you behind your back, because they do talk about you behind your back and not in pleasant terms i'm afriad."

You're trying to create a big mob of invisible people behind you, aren't you? You want to change my mind about your lies and abuse by threatening me?

That's what this was too, wasn't it:

"And try calling me or anyone retarded to their face H."

Not only did I not call you retarded, but that was a threat of violence wasn't it?

That's all your life is: lies, threats, mobs and violence.

All your talk about 'caring' and 'society' is just a veneer on your nasty aggression.

[DJKillaQueen]

HA HA......You really have lost the plot now H.....and no I don't think you would ever hurl the level of abuse you do at anyone face to face. You are just a sad little internet bully I'm afraid and one that is deliberatley trying to provoke me now. Sorry to diappoint you though - I'm not going to rise to it.

[DJKillaQueen]

In an effort to bring the thread back on topic for those who wnat to have a sensible discussion.....

On the radio discussion it has just been reported that private sector rents are rising by as much as 20% this year - this in spite of measures regarding HB or the lack of new mortgages being approved. There is a lady caller at the moment who is talking about two properties she owns in Holland and there the government regulates by how much the rents can be increased year on year and also rules on minimum security of tenure for tenants. I know the same happens in France. I really think that kind of regulation is the only way that can effectively get private sector rents under control.

[Ridgley]

They saying in the news today, in the future that London will have a generation of renters then house owners do to the property prices there needs to be a review on this as in Europe there are people that rent and it not frowned upon as it in England there not that obsessions to own a property to later on in life. I can only talk about Norway as I have family there and that is there view on this.

[DJKillaQueen]

And in Europe, security of tenure is something that both social and private tenants benefit from. Yet here we have some in governemnt determined to abolish any kind of security of tenure whilst doing nothing meaningful about slowing the market.

Another major mistake was the Thatcher governments policy of not allowing councils to use the money from the sale of council homes to build new homes. That's another reason why we are short of affortable accomodation. Without this restriction, the right to buy might well have been accepted as an altruistic aim of creating upward social mobility amongst poorer demographic groups, but in reality is was also a ploy to transfer as many council homes into the private sector as possible - with buyers benefitting from massive discounts off market value. Imagine being a home owner and the government telling you that your tenant has a right to buy it from you, but you must accept only half the market value. And then on top of that you can't use that money to buy another home. Councils were screwed by the right to buy scheme....and the country has lost two million unreplaced affordable homes from the process.

[Alex K]

To DJKQ -- indeed it seems that measures during the Thatcher administration substantially shrank council involvement in provision of housing. I hadn't cottoned on to the extent to which this occurred.

When I think of housing in Paris I think of a central core, within the peripherique, largely occupied by the well-to-do; an orbital of high-density housing for the disaffected with few skills to offer on the jobmarket; and a further orbital, greener than the core, again largely occupied by the well-to-do. Have tenant security and "rent control" slowed segregation of the poor into the banlieue? Possibly. But that system has its problems, too, or so it seems to me.

[Huguenot]

There appears to be a confusion of several different concepts here.

Security of tenure isn't the same thing as rent control, although they are often linked because without a cap on rent increases then the tenant could be priced out of their house when a contract ends.

Rent control itself can mean different things - one is a cap on rent increases for example, and another is a cap on on rent at a fixed price.

I don't think many would disagree that some sort of rent control protects the poor and disadvantaged, and stops gouging from landlords.

However, the negative side is rarely understood.

Rent control disincentivises property redevelopment, upgrading or maintenance because the landlord can't get the benefit from their investment.

In the US it was discovered that this effect was at a significant scale: a study exposed the fact that 29% of rent control buildings had deteriorated beyond what was considered appropriate for habitation, yet only 8% of non rent controlled areas.

Rent control in New York between 1972 - 1982 was estimated to have been directly responsible for 300,000 housing units to have become uninhabitable.

Rent control disincentivises new building, as the potential return is fixed at a price for existing housing, and not the cost of recouping new builds.

So when they're built, they're sh*t: a good example of this is the 'affordable housing' quota in London.

Vietnam repealed rent controls designed to help poor communities because the disincentive on development had destroyed more of their capitals infrastructure than had been possible with bombing during the American War.

It is also discovered that price controls actually benefitted the rich more than the poor.

In 1980 in France the rent control laws were repealed by a socialist government for this reason.

It was discovered that since the government couldn't oversee every aspect of a landlord/tenant relationship, hundreds of methods were created in order to allow rich people to pay more than the cap, and thus exclude poor people from the market.

Landlords focused all investment on properties where this kind of fraud was possible or appealling, and left the banlieues to rot.

Whilst I'm sure people will respond to this with loud opinions, this isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of 93% of economists (both left and right wing).

The thing about rent control is that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do - protect the poor and disadvantaged. Instead it funnels them over years into decayed and uninhabitable houses and communities.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's no confusion. Other countries successfully manage their housing markets far better than we do. You don't need spiralling growth to have decent housing, and something definitley has to be done in the UK - whatever that something might be.

Yes security of tenure is something different to rent capping but where tenants are allowed to rent for 10 years they tend to take better care of the property they rent. On the continent long tenancies are the norm and tenants will invest their own money on minor things like redecorations leaving the bigger maintenance to the landlord. It works very well.

You can also have rent capping and enforce legislation for what deems a habitable dwelling. The examples you give refer to decades ago. Have you any up to date data? I think your references are out of date.

In the UK the Housing Act was ammended in 1985, 1987 and 1989 to give both landlords and tenants updated legislation regarding property, contracts and condition. It is a criminal offence to rent a property without safe and working electrics and utilities. The deterioration and poor servicing that you allude to can easily be guarded against. If a landlord can't maintain the property then they could be forced to sell, again by legislation. It can be done to ensure that as much property as possible stays on the market. Again local authorities do already have some powers over derelict property in the UK.

As for building new homes....capital programmes through councils and HAs are the answer (so yes replacing the social housing lost over the past three decades). Those programmes rely on loans repaid over time unlike private sector delevopments aimed at making quick sale profit. That doesn't mean that the private sector doesn't have a role to play in the provision of new homes.....just that the absurd profitability of doing so has to be curbed.....for the greater good I'm afraid. At the end of the day it's about getting the balance right.

I doubt though if any government would have the balls to touch any of the private sector with legislation - too many votes to be lost doing so - so I fully expect things to get far worse. Today some financial institution predicted a 16% rise in house prices by 2015 but I'll predict that the bulk of new purchases will be from existing buy to let landlords expanding their portfolios with yet more buy to let properties......the madness continues.

[StraferJack]

so does this mean it's the governments fault or the voters fault?

[DJKillaQueen]

That's a good question...tbh I think it's a bit catch22. Successive governments should not have let us get to this situation but we are where we are and I don't think there will be any pain free solution (and at the moment the most pain is going to be felt by the LTU who will lose 10% of their HB).

Having said that, the voters invested in it all could only take up the opportunity on offer....so that has to come back to the products banks and mortgage lenders offered and ultimately the governments that deregulated to allow them to do so. I guess I'm swaying towards the government then :)

[StraferJack]

Except if they lose too many votes by being decisive, they don't have power to enact anything

I believe the voters haven't been led down any path here - I think this country is pre-disposed to the current system. So changing it means not them seeing "an opportunity" but a fundamental reevaluation. And I can't see any evidence of that

[Huguenot]

The examples I gave were where rent control was repealed. They were dated to when those repeals were made, and the information was why they were repealed.

It was repealed because they tried it and it didn't work.

You keep arguing about the 'greater good', but in fact the evidence is that rent control is bad for society, bad for new housing stock, bad for upkeep on existing stock, bad for poor people, bad for the disadvantaged. You merely 'think' it would be good, without use of informed argument or example.

All the hypothetical arguments don't really matter. The evidence is that rent control doesn't work.

There probably does need to be something to be done. I'd start with reducing tax breaks for multiple home ownership.

Then I'd be looking at basic supply and demand issues. This means incentivising new builds, especially on brownfield sites. It would include wise use of existing stock - which doesn't include filling existing stock 1 person at a time because the poor little dears deserve to have their own 1 person place.

[pinkhalf]

Just to fling another perspective in here - there is a massive demographic and class shift happening in London. 40 years ago and living in inner city London was considered for the poor, drug addicts, prostitutes, losers. If you had money you got out to suburbia asap. The place was so run down in the 1980s - dirty and cheap.

I think that has completely changed in the last twenty years and London is so desirable now that the city has had a sea change in terms of who is going to live in the central parts. The middle classes are staying put and aren't leaving. House prices OTT and we will be like Paris in ten years. The poor and those on benefits for housing will be outside the ring roads. Suburbs will decline (and are already from what I see) and the inner city will get more and more expensive. London was always odd compared to other European cities because for a long time you could live very centrally and pay very little - that is over for everybody, whether you get housing benefit or not. So HB reform will have the effect of shifting people out of the centre, ready for the wealthy to occupy. All parties seem to collude on this by calling it "regeneration" but with house prices getting higher and higher in the centre, we can all see what will happen. Yep, you're going to Dagenham.