Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Yep.

I've been monitoring the Gov.UK website, nothing yet. Im not convinced all liveaboard boaters will be easily identified, having said that, I did get one cold weather payment, it's linked to my postcode.

But that’s an old aged person’s payment, ?, nowt to do with anything else. 
 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

I think the announcement was scheduled to be around the middle of the month, so wouldn't expect anything for a week or so yet.

 

[ditchcrawler]

23 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

 

 

 

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. 

South London council named and shamed as dodgy landlord by Michael Gove (msn.com)

[LadyG]

This is not a thread about renting housing. Please create your own thread.

[ditchcrawler]

5 minutes ago, LadyG said:

This is not a thread about renting housing. Please create your own thread.

I didn't realise you were still a mod.

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

I didn't realise you were still a mod.

I'm a stealth mod(e)

Edited January 7, 2023 by LadyG

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

This is not a thread about renting housing. Please create your own thread.

 

After the last psychotic episode I'm surprised they have accepted you for modship again ?

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

After the last psychotic episode I'm surprised they have accepted you for modship again ?

Any excuse for a snipe. Please reload sense of humour faculty and apologise.

[LadyG]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Any excuse for a snipe. Please reload sense of humour faculty and apologise.

Don't give the fool publicity by quoting him, he's on ignore for good reason.

He's just attention seeking. Reminds me of a certain ginger.

Edited January 7, 2023 by LadyG

[MtB]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

I'm a stealth mod(e)

 

Curiously, the link to the Mod list seems to have gone.

 

Or mebbe I just can't see it today.

 

 

Or do we have to start  new thread about that, too?

 

 

 

[LadyG]

22 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Curiously, the link to the Mod list seems to have gone.

 

Or mebbe I just can't see it today.

 

 

Or do we have to start  new thread about that, too?

 

 

 

Yes please, I had to put up a silent prayer for those snowflakes to disappear, and they did.

I've also  taken down my Christmas decorations.

I've no particular objections to threads going off topic, but I do object to petty squabbling in public, this is a discussion forum , and if every disagreement ends up with personal insults it does nobody any good.

Edited January 7, 2023 by LadyG

[doratheexplorer]

On 06/01/2023 at 14:10, David Mack said:

But equally, if it wasn't for private landlords, many more people would have nowhere to live.  Public sector rented housing has been decimated over the last 4 decades. BTL landlords may have had a small upward impact on house prices, but even without that many people would be unable to buy for financial reasons or because they are at a stage of life when the commitment of a mortgage and property responsibilities are not right for them.

Stories of bad landlords - private, council and housing association - make the headlines, but you don't hear about the thousands of landlords and tenants who have satisfactory experiences.

Can you back this up with evidence?  The housing markets shifts according to demand.  If letting privately had never been economically advantageous, other options would have increased.  For example, housing associations adopting and building homes is done according to demand.  And contrary to popular opinion, Councils still do buy a small number of properties for council housing, which would have been done more extensively if the private sector letting sector did not exist.  Any other approach would be madness. 

 

The number of private landlords who are motivated by public good and not wealth is vanishingly small.  Having said that, I don't blame people for buying houses on a buy to let basis when it's the most sensible way to spend a lump of money, but a system in which providing roofs over heads is the most financially advantageous compared to almost any other kind of investment, is a broken system and will inevitably lead to the broken housing system we have in this country today.  This is relevant to boaters because it's what's led to the overcrowding issues on some parts of the network, which are entirely correlated with high house price areas.

 

I see shelter, warmth and security as a basic human right, so I find it entirely appropriate for large amounts of public sector housing to be available at affordable rent so as to provide those basic rights.  In doing so it helps to suppress housing prices generally which is an added benefit.  Sadly, the political direction of this country has gone in the opposite direction for the last 40 years or so, with the obvious and predicatable outcomes we see.

 

Of course, if you meant the if all privately rented property was taken off the market tomorrow, then yes you're right, a lot of people would be instantly homeless.

[Arthur Marshall]

31 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Can you back this up with evidence?  The housing markets shifts according to demand.  If letting privately had never been economically advantageous, other options would have increased.  For example, housing associations adopting and building homes is done according to demand.  And contrary to popular opinion, Councils still do buy a small number of properties for council housing, which would have been done more extensively if the private sector letting sector did not exist.  Any other approach would be madness. 

 

The error here is in the understanding of how markets work. Generally, they work to maximise profit. The housing market is therefore not governed by the demand for housing, but by the amount of profit that can be made by building and subsequently renting houses.

And that is done not by building "affordable" homes, seeing as how it doesn't cost much more in bricks and labour to build a whacking great mansion, especially when you're sitting on huge amounts of land bought when it was cheap, which is what the big housebuilding companies are doing. The latter is useful because it stops other builders undercutting them, or providing houses where they are really needed, thus reducing prices all round. There's more profit, for both builders and landlords, in restricting supply than in satisfying demand.

When looking at supply and demand economics,  you have to ensure you're looking at who is defining the demand, and what it's for. It often isn't the apparent product - if it was, CRT would be providing a lot more moorings at a rate the pseudo CC mob could afford, in places they want to be, rather than raising prices by auctions and spending money in pursuing those who would probably prefer being legal (some of them, anyway). Maybe the moves at Llangollen are an indication this has finally sunk in. There's probably a future for the system as an adjunct to the housing system, very little as a navigation.

[doratheexplorer]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The error here is in the understanding of how markets work. Generally, they work to maximise profit. The error here is considering only those markets which function under free-market capitalism.  Obviously in a capitalist system, the generation of profit is the key driver.  Introducing another housing option into the market (eg social housing) ensures that the market functions differently to some extent. The housing market is therefore not governed by the demand for housing, but by the amount of profit that can be made by building and subsequently renting houses. Both those things are inextricably linked.

And that is done not by building "affordable" homes, seeing as how it doesn't cost much more in bricks and labour to build a whacking great mansion, this just isn't true (if you're comparing an affordable home with a mansion, but that's not clear in what you've written) especially when you're sitting on huge amounts of land bought when it was cheap, which is what the big housebuilding companies are doing. The latter the latter of what? is useful because it stops other builders undercutting them, or providing houses where they are really needed, thus reducing prices all round. There's more profit, for both builders and landlords, in restricting supply than in satisfying demand. Agreed up to a point, although many small builders would disagree with this.  Scale is important here.  It also matters who is doing the restricting.

When looking at supply and demand economics, I though you said earlier that demand wasn't relevant to the housing market? you have to ensure you're looking at who is defining the demand, and what it's for. It often isn't the apparent product - if it was, CRT would be providing a lot more moorings at a rate the pseudo CC mob could afford, in places they want to be, rather than raising prices by auctions and spending money in pursuing those who would probably prefer being legal (some of them, anyway). You assume CRT's decisions are based on logic.  Evidence points the other way. Maybe the moves at Llangollen are an indication this has finally sunk in. There's probably a future for the system as an adjunct to the housing system, very little as a navigation.

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The number of private landlords who are motivated by public good and not wealth is vanishingly small. 

 

Can you back this up with evidence please? 

[doratheexplorer]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Can you back this up with evidence please? 

My comment was based on personal experience and simple common sense.  For example, if someone genuinely wanted to use their money altruistically, there are far better ways of doing it than buying property to let out.  If a landlord was really doing it to be charitable, then he or she would apply for charitable status and ensure they made no profit from their endeavour, but then they wouldn't be a private landlord would they?

 

So I'll ask you, please provide me with any evidence of a single private landlord who doesn't seek to increase their wealth through being a landlord.

 

Obviously none of this means there aren't any good landlords, but doing 'good' isn't the reason why they do it.  To suggest otherwise is laughable.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

My comment was based on personal experience and simple common sense.  For example, if someone genuinely wanted to use their money altruistically, there are far better ways of doing it than buying property to let out.  If a landlord was really doing it to be charitable, then he or she would apply for charitable status and ensure they made no profit from their endeavour, but then they wouldn't be a private landlord would they?

 

So I'll ask you, please provide me with any evidence of a single private landlord who doesn't seek to increase their wealth through being a landlord.

 

Obviously none of this means there aren't any good landlords, but doing 'good' isn't the reason why they do it.  To suggest otherwise is laughable.

You seem to be suggesting that wanting to get a reasonable return on your capital and being a good landlord are mutually exclusive.

 

And not all landords let property out to increase their wealth. As a young single man I took a job overseas and let the flat I owned at the time, because I didn't want it left empty and I wanted an income to cover the mortgage and other outgoings, until the time I returned home and resumed living there. As it turned out the tenants buggered off before the end of their tenancy, having failed to pay the last month's rent, and thereby recovered their deposit without paying for some damage that was done - fortunately not too serious. Over the period concerned I increased my wealth by earning more overseas than I would have done at home, and the flat increased in value by just as much as it would have done if I had carried on living in it, but the actual letting cost me money in the end.

Edited January 9, 2023 by David Mack

[nbfiresprite]

More than half of the class of 83 attended the funeral in Broadstone, So he had a good sendoff and the funds left over were given to the local food bank to help with energy costs.  

Getting back on subject, I had a chat with Jackie about what her council had been told by Whitehall. She has since got back to me with the information that she has.

 

Energy Bills Support Scheme (EBSS) Alternative Funding.

The criteria for this funding is:

• The household that support is being claimed for is the main or only home address of the person to receive the support.

• The resident or applicant is responsible for paying the household energy bill. This means either as part of a service charge, rent, or other arrangement and may have had the impact of increased energy bills costs passed on to them between 1 October 2022 - 31 March 2023.

• The household is not already receiving EBSS payments in whole or in part.

• The household is not a business premises or other form of non-domestic premises. It must be used solely or mainly for domestic purposes.

following people are eligible: 

• care home residents

• residents of park homes

• tenants in certain private and social rented homes

• homes supplied via private grid

• residents of houseboats on registered moorings

• residents of caravans on registered sites

• farmers living in domestic farmhouses

• off-grid households

• Travellers on registered sites

The Council will make the support payments to applicants bank accounts once appropriate checks have been made. First payments expected to be made by the emd of the month.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Who’s Jackie?

 

Sorry this thread has got so long and gone off tangent enough times that I’ve skipped a lot

[nbfiresprite]

Just now, Goliath said:

Who’s Jackie?

 

Sorry this thread has got so long and gone off tangent enough times that I’ve skipped a lot

Someone I went to school with long ago.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Someone I went to school with long ago.

Right on 👍

 

I went to school with Michelle long ago, I’ll ask her experience.  

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, nbfiresprite said:

Someone I went to school with long ago.

Good to know Jackie still has her finger on the pulse. If it was the class of '83, that not so long ago, I attended the class of  '53, now that's going back a bit!  I can only remember one classmate, Susan Jones, and only because we both had pigtails!

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Good to know Jackie still has her finger on the pulse. If it was the class of '83, that not so long ago, I attended the class of  '53, now that's going back a bit!  I can only remember one classmate, Susan Jones, and only because we both had pigtails!

 

By ‘83 she’d have had combed back hair. 

[doratheexplorer]

18 hours ago, David Mack said:

You seem to be suggesting that wanting to get a reasonable return on your capital and being a good landlord are mutually exclusive. I'm not no.

 

And not all landords let property out to increase their wealth. I never said 'all'.  But your example is the minority I was referring to.  The problem you had with your tenant is one of the reasons why people are reluctant to let out property unless they get a reasonable return As a young single man I took a job overseas and let the flat I owned at the time, because I didn't want it left empty and I wanted an income to cover the mortgage and other outgoings, until the time I returned home and resumed living there. As it turned out the tenants buggered off before the end of their tenancy, having failed to pay the last month's rent, and thereby recovered their deposit without paying for some damage that was done - fortunately not too serious. Over the period concerned I increased my wealth by earning more overseas than I would have done at home, and the flat increased in value by just as much as it would have done if I had carried on living in it, but the actual letting cost me money in the end.

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Renting out a home that you normally live in while you're not there is a very different case to most landlords, including the good ones on this forum as well as the bad ones elsewhere... 😉

 

Anybody who buys properties other than their main one to rent out is doing it as an investment and a way to make money; denying this is simply ignoring reality. They may well see it as the only way to ensure a secure retirement for themselves because pensions are crap, but unless the rent at least covers the running and finance costs (and they then benefit from long-term rises in house prices) they wouldn't be doing it -- if they really wanted to be altruistic and help people as the main objective, there are far better (and less profitable) uses for their money than BTL/renting, however nice they are to their tenants.

 

Yes there is a need for rental properties, and some landlords do treat their tenants well -- but the inescapable fact it that with the way housing market in the UK works renting over a lifetime costs a lot more than buying, and effectively transfers money out of the pockets of renters (often poorer) into those of landlords (often richer) -- who may well be providing a useful service, but fundamentally are doing it to make money. Come on guys, it's not Brexit, man up and own the issue instead of denying it 🙂

 

You could of course say that any job is essentially a way of moving money from somebody else's pockets to yours, often with a negative effect on the people doing the paying -- but doing this with something as fundamental as a safe warm secure place to live doesn't exactly put landlords at the top of the morality tree, does it?