Richard10002

So who or what, is going to own all the properties that people want/need to rent. Not everybody wants to own a property, and not everybody can afford to own a property, so there is obviously a demand for rental properties...... Your plan would mean no homes for all these people, thus making them homeless... Yet another ridiculous notion to which you give no thought

folowing that logic, many owner occupiers are merely tenants of their lenders. It is, of course, a ridiculous notion. At the end of the term, a lender of an interest only mortgage gets their money back, just like a lender of a repayment mortgage gets their money back in a different way.

You speak as though this is a new thing? People have been renting their homes for decades, (centuries?), and, in the context of your questions, it seems to have worked reasonably well over the years. Given the above, the problems you seem to be suggesting "could" happen, will already have happened, so you could do a bit of research and find out for yourself?

The fact that these developers are "allowed" to wriggle out of their planning requirements, and they are not enforced, is entirely the fault of councils/government. This is exactly why Government/councils should take the responsibility for actually building the needed social/affordable homes, (council houses). Until such a time, (which might be "never"), without the provision of homes by the private rented sector, (PRS), where are all the currently housed going to live. In addition, given that, as things are gradually introduced to make the PRS less attractive, more and more private landlords will leave the market**, thus reducing supply, when demand is actually increasing, therefore increasing the rents for all those who need/want to rent. ** Not necessarily a bad thing for those who wish to buy, because it increases supply, thus making it easier.

Has anybody suggested these guys yet? https://www.bobilvans.co.uk/product-page/bobil-air-xchange

With a Boatman stove, I use 20kg of Excel for 3 days @ 24/7 useage, so a week would be about 47kg. That's a 45ft narrowboat with cruiser stern. The lounge gets toasty, whilst the bedroom remains slightly chilly.

When my flue started dripping stuff inside the boat, I thought it was running from the top and down the outside. After a while, it became clear that the flue had corroded, and the corrosion appeared at the top inside the boat. I suppose I'm lucky it didn't fill the boat with CO. I think there have been other threads on here suggesting similar.

That would buy a tenth of a bottle of gas, (19kg bottle), and a bag and a half of coal. That amount of gas would last anything like a month, and the coal would last 4 to 5 days.

I think it's years, rather than months.

A few weeks ago I had a few leaks from my Truma hot water tank, which coincided with the boat listing quite a bit to port, (same side as the tank). I dont have any inspection hatches so used an 86mm hole saw to cut a hole at the bottom of a wardrobe close to the stern steps. Quite full of water, pumped as much as I could see out with a wet and dry vacuum, and called it quits. The boat is almost level again, but I wouldnt be surprised if there is still some water down there, so I started thinking about proper inspection hatches. Came across a video by "Journeys with Jono" where he was considering a similar issue and used a "Cavity Master Kit" by "Super Rod" https://super-rod.co.uk/cavity-master/ However, all the "Where To Buy" places dont seem to stock it anymore, so I wonder if it's been discontinued. Does anyone know anything about it, where I might get one, or is there an alternative. If I cant get hold of one, I'll go back to plan B, and cut some bigger holes and make some covers. Here's Jono's video, (from about 8mins 45 secs to the end) :

I read that his wife of many years died shortly before he left his home for the last time. I'd guess there would be more speculation that the police wont be looking for anyone in connection with his passing.

I quite often hear/experience something which suggests that something I am 100% certain of may not be correct. If this happens, I usually check to discover that I was/am correct, and I remain 100% certain.

Many will have some kind of heating, eberspacher or similar and, if not, they are not too difficult to fit. In fact, there are many cheaper makes available these days. I spent a lot of time on my GRP boat in Glasson Dock during the winter of 2009/10 and, once the eberspacher had got to temperature, it was nice and cosy 24/7. Much less hassle than keeping the stove on my current narrowboat topped up, and the temperature regulated.

That's more or less what I said. It's driven by government policy, and solveable by massively increased supply, which is repeatedly promised, but never delivered. I could add that some of the recent policy changes have disadvantaged "private" landlords, as against those who own their properties in a company. The changes which are coming are equally likely to encourage more landlords to sell up, thus exacerbating the issues even more. Not disagreeing. In a sense, your last line is a similarly direct "It's you guv'". It would be good if you could acknowledge that what I said about council, housing associations and other social providers, is true, even if not exclusive. My first line acknowledge the existence of your family experience, and your googled findings, and my last line above was an experience based fact, possibly because I am merely repeating what I have seen in the media, (mainly on TV news programmes). Having said that, it almost certainly isnt "me" guv' Whilst it is quite right to complain about individual landlords, human nature dictates that they will continue to exist and thrive in current conditions. In order to be effective, the complaints might be better directed to your families various MPs. Having said that, I have done that with my MP a couple of times - she passed my complaints to government, only to receive the reponses which thanked me for my communications, and told me that they knew what they were doing and it was the right thing to do. I haven't bothered since

I'd guess that is because people who specifically ask for 3rd Party insurance may be seen as a higher risk by the underwriters.

This ^^^^^^^ Over the past few years, due mostly to government policy, private landlords have been net sellers of property. You would expect this to have had a downward pressure on house prices, although the concomitant is the reduced supply of private rented accommodation, and the subsequent increasing of rents and bad behaviour of bad landlords. Based on the above, if anything, on balance, "we" should be desiring more supply of private rented property for the public good. It's almost as if government wants to encourage increased rents and bad landlord behaviour. The answer to most of the housing issues which obtain today is to build hundreds of thousands of new homes, both private and social. In fact, when touting to be elected, parties acknowledge the fact, and promise to do exactly this....... then, once they have their hands on the cheque book, they dont, (although they will tell us that they have). Bit like Boris's promise to build 40 new hospitals and recruit 50,000 new nurses. If he had kept his promise, (not that you would have expected him to), the current problems with the NHS would be much less serious than they are. The fact is that, whilst I don't deny that there will be bad private landlords, every time I see a story in the media involving bad landlord behaviour, (including the recent death of the little boy), it is almost always related to council or housing association, or other social property.

In my experience, a moneyclaimonline is a long protracted process in these underfunded days. I entered a claim against Currys a while ago and a bit of research suggested that it would take around 9 months to get to court. Arbitration was offered, which was done over the phone, and I decided beforehand to agree to much less than I was claiming, on the basis that having it hanging was irritating, annoying, and stressful, and life is too short. It doesn't sound like the OP has the money to do the job quoted for, nor the time to wait for the outcome of a court case, although it is always possible that the yard gives in shortly after being served, or at arbitration.

It looks like what we do represents only about 4% of CO2 release, but that is obviously enough to tip the balance away from the equilibrium that obtained previously. Seemingly around 750 gigatons, (1 gigaton = 1 billion tonnes?) of CO2 is naturally output and absorbed by the planet, whereas humans output around 29 gigatons that isnt all absorbed by the planet, thus increasing the amount held in the atmosphere. Puts Peters 10 billion tonnes into perspective as a relatively small number which, as you say, is/was always a part of the natural equilibrium, rather than an increase.