Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sue Wrote:

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

> zeban Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Bloody Maggie Thatcher. Social housing should

> stay

> > just that, not for people trying to make an

> > investment.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Hear Hear



Whilst I agree Social Housing should remain Social Housing....


The big Problem is that many Local Councils do not have the Money to maintain the housing it still owns.

Much of Social Housing is in a poor state of repair.


At least most of housing that has been bought Privately is well maintained and habitable.


So a difficult one.


Fox

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Dulwichfox, my understanding of the right to buy

> scheme is that the money raised is sent back to

> central government. Is this not the case?


That may be true of the initial sale..


But not of subseqent sale.


Also private landlords buying up property to re-let at high rents also with poor up-keep


Like I say, it's a difficult one.


Fox.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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


> Whilst I agree Social Housing should remain Social

> Housing....

>

> The big Problem is that many Local Councils do not

> have the Money to maintain the housing it still

> owns.

> Much of Social Housing is in a poor state of

> repair.

>


xxxxxxx


But for example there has recently been an absolutely massive programme of improvements on the Dog Kennel Hill Estate, and I believe also on at least one estate on the other side of the Rye (and probably others).


I recognise one swallow does not a summer make (or something) but it does seem to me that Southwark Council is doing its best with probably very limited resources.


It could probably do more if it raised council tax, and then what? Votes for the other party.


That's partly why the NHS and many schools are in such a fragile state - income tax rate reduced for political gain, and then nobody willing to put it back up again. What do people think pays for the NHS and education budgets?


This isn't The Big Society, is it? It's everybody paying lipservice to community, but not wanting to be out of pocket to see other people lower down the heap raise their standard of living.


Sorry admin, off topic, delete post if you want :-$

Are you referring to Lordship Lane Estate area, if so its fine around here. Been here 4 years, never any problems, no trouble, everyone keeps their business to themselves. Relatively quiet, can expect the odd kids playing but thats understandable. We are in a private rent, ex council owned but are charged a extortionate amount, over ?400pcm more than its worth on private rental market (and the condition its in!!) and over ?700pcm the council rate for the same flat.

GinaG3 Wrote:

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

We are in a private rent, ex

> council owned but are charged a extortionate

> amount, over ?400pcm more than its worth on

> private rental market (and the condition its in!!)

> and over ?700pcm the council rate for the same

> flat.


xxxxxx


Stupid question, I know, so feel free to shoot me down in flames, but why are you renting a flat at over ?400 pcm over the going rate?

Don't blame Jimmybob for the demise of council housing - presumably any place he buys will already be privately owned.


While I'm not in favour of any moves to reduce the amount of council housing available, I am in favour of having a public/private mix within developments. Private ownership within council blocks is not a bad thing.


If you buy an ex-council property to rent out, make sure the return on investment will be solid, as appreciation tends to be behind the rest of the market.

Yes, I've heard the same stories. A lady I know bought a flat at the bottom of Lordship Lane (top of the hill) and had to raise ?30,000 to pay to replace all the windows - the costs were shared only between those who owned their flats. They took Southwark to court and the costs were reduced to ?16,000 each but she had to pay it. Shameful. I'd steer clear for that reason. She said she only realised after she looked into it that Southwark have done similar elsewhere. However, I can't find anything online I'm afraid. She was going through this over 2 years ago when I spoke to her about it.

property is returning 6/7/8% from rental yields (incl ex-local authority flats)

there's zero incentive to save in a bank, quite literally. you may as well withdraw 5% each year and burn it in the back garden...


the metal (is it metal?) exLA flats often aren't mortgagable, so watch for that if you're buying with cash as it may not sell that easily. The brick builds are mortgagable.


debt being currently VERY cheap, and rental yields high, makes sense to me if you want to save for the long term. There's no other way to save right now (stock market is too scary for most)

Still better than most, if not all savings accounts though and you can also write off repairs etc.


womanofdulwich Wrote:

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

> but those are GRoss yields -on secondary stock-net

> yields more like 3- 4% ( if capital values are the

> same)

I think the real crime regarding social housing is that much of it was sold at well below market value with no requirement by the owner to actually continue to live in the property beyond sale.


Also under the thatcher years local authorities were not allowed to reinvest the money from the sale of social housing back into social housing. Add to that the scenario where the government creams off a percentage of social housing rents (about to change under plans drawn up by the last labour government) it's no wonder that too much council stock has suffered in a shortfall of investment.


Morally I am opposed to the sale of council homes and to the then subsequent purchase for investment by secondary buyers or rental by the original buyers. The poorer members of our society are being squeezed enough and the lack of affordable and decent housing is shameful.


Rents are at a record high (so much for changes to hb curbing them) and if you are a family crammed into inadequate accomodation and paying a massive whack of your income for it then it's a miserable place to be in life.


Having said all that, purchasing an ex local authority flat comes with annual service charges and sizeable bills for communal works. The key is to do your homework. Speak to other leaseholders in the area (there is a southwark leaseholder organisation) and make a balanced decision on the risks from that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
    • Ah, thanks,  it all comes flooding back. I've actually been to the Hastings shop, I'd forgotten all about it, along with her name! Didn't she (in between?)  take over what  was then The Magnolia, previously The Magdala, now The Lordship, with her then partner? Or is that some figment of my imagination?  In fact, didn't they transform it from The Magdala (much missed) to The Magnolia? With flowery wallpaper covering the front of the bar? Which reminds me of the pub's brief period after The Magnolia  as the ill-conceived and ill-fated The Patch.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...