Create opportunities for voluntary relocation to free people trapped by the state

Enable pooling of a proportion of social housing at the national level to allow people to voluntarily relocate from deprived areas. 

Use the scheme to help provide employment opportunities to long term unemployed families.

Why is this idea important?

Enable pooling of a proportion of social housing at the national level to allow people to voluntarily relocate from deprived areas. 

Use the scheme to help provide employment opportunities to long term unemployed families.

Get rid of all Councils.

Replace all council activities and allow the home and business owners to organize all their services through private contractors. Tasks such as rubbish collection and  road repairs can be organized directly through private contrators who bill the homeowners directly. This idea is simply an extention of the private companies, such as water and power authotities, dealing directly with the public.

Why is this idea important?

Replace all council activities and allow the home and business owners to organize all their services through private contractors. Tasks such as rubbish collection and  road repairs can be organized directly through private contrators who bill the homeowners directly. This idea is simply an extention of the private companies, such as water and power authotities, dealing directly with the public.

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Planning Inspectorate

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Why is this idea important?

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Revoke unneccessary planning conditions

Planning conditions such as 'holiday use' or 'agricultural worker' reduce the supply of affordable housing, distort the housing market, hamper business flexibility to change direction, and encourage illegal occupation in breach of planning laws.

Houses that have been built to building regulations (as opposed to temporary structures such as caravans) should be available to live in, or rent as holiday accommodation according to market conditions.

This idea is to offer the owners of properties suffering from these conditions the opportunity to revoke these conditions in exchange for a payment to the goverment.

 

Why is this idea important?

Planning conditions such as 'holiday use' or 'agricultural worker' reduce the supply of affordable housing, distort the housing market, hamper business flexibility to change direction, and encourage illegal occupation in breach of planning laws.

Houses that have been built to building regulations (as opposed to temporary structures such as caravans) should be available to live in, or rent as holiday accommodation according to market conditions.

This idea is to offer the owners of properties suffering from these conditions the opportunity to revoke these conditions in exchange for a payment to the goverment.

 

Commercial Leases. Landlord & Tenant Act Review

The present Act states that the outgoing tenant of business premises is liable for the rent for the duration of the lease if the new tenant defaults. It also states that the tenant is required to pay all the Landlords costs. We sold our catering business with a new 15 year lease. According to the terms of this lease ( a copy of the old one started about 30 years ago) we are responsible for the rent until we are 72.  The Landlord would not allow us to have a AGA The current rent is 22k a year. We are also responsible for all dilapidations throughout the lease if any of the tenants do not fulfill their responsibilities. In the 21st century this law is outdated. The Federation of Small Business's have tried many times to get this Act altered. It is weighed solely in the Landlords favour. We had to pay 15k for repairs to the landlords building, even though we had only been tenants for 2 years. FRI leases should be abolished. It is the Landlords building, he owns it, and in the long term benefits from repairs his tenants are made to pay for. Business rents should not be tied to the cost of the building. In Cornwall the rents are becoming so high due to the inflated cost of the premises. Business's are unable to keep raising their prices to pay for the rent.

Why is this idea important?

The present Act states that the outgoing tenant of business premises is liable for the rent for the duration of the lease if the new tenant defaults. It also states that the tenant is required to pay all the Landlords costs. We sold our catering business with a new 15 year lease. According to the terms of this lease ( a copy of the old one started about 30 years ago) we are responsible for the rent until we are 72.  The Landlord would not allow us to have a AGA The current rent is 22k a year. We are also responsible for all dilapidations throughout the lease if any of the tenants do not fulfill their responsibilities. In the 21st century this law is outdated. The Federation of Small Business's have tried many times to get this Act altered. It is weighed solely in the Landlords favour. We had to pay 15k for repairs to the landlords building, even though we had only been tenants for 2 years. FRI leases should be abolished. It is the Landlords building, he owns it, and in the long term benefits from repairs his tenants are made to pay for. Business rents should not be tied to the cost of the building. In Cornwall the rents are becoming so high due to the inflated cost of the premises. Business's are unable to keep raising their prices to pay for the rent.

Cut down Health & Safety Regulations – Cemeteries and graveyards

Local Councils (for Cemeteries) and Churches (for graveyards) are required to conduct an regular "test" on every gravestone in their cemetery or graveyard. (I think it is annually).

The test involves pulling and pushing the stone to ensure it will not topple.  If it is found to be slightly loose, it is then pulled over completely and laid flat.

The purpose of this test is to ensure that no-one gets hurt by a falling gravestone and that the authorities can't be sued.

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils (for Cemeteries) and Churches (for graveyards) are required to conduct an regular "test" on every gravestone in their cemetery or graveyard. (I think it is annually).

The test involves pulling and pushing the stone to ensure it will not topple.  If it is found to be slightly loose, it is then pulled over completely and laid flat.

The purpose of this test is to ensure that no-one gets hurt by a falling gravestone and that the authorities can't be sued.

End Selective Licencing – Housing Act 2004

The Housing Act 2004 allowed local authorities to designate areas as being subject to selective licencing. This means landlords cannot let properties out unless they get a licence and it is one licence per property. This punishes people who have been successful and got large portfolios.

I would like to see Selective Licencing abolished & councils encouraged to use their exisiting powers to deal with dodgy landlords.

Why is this idea important?

The Housing Act 2004 allowed local authorities to designate areas as being subject to selective licencing. This means landlords cannot let properties out unless they get a licence and it is one licence per property. This punishes people who have been successful and got large portfolios.

I would like to see Selective Licencing abolished & councils encouraged to use their exisiting powers to deal with dodgy landlords.

Abolish the AONB boards

A few years ago it was decided that AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) should each have some form of board, invoving a staff, website, publications, meetings, input into planning decisions etc. These were duly formed and now are staffed up and eating money and wasting time.  

The planning functions can be discharged by locally elected bodies eg councils who have due regard to AONB status when looking at applications.  Everything else they do is a complete waste of time including handing out tiny grants to local bodies – councils can, and do, this already.  Basically they are an extra layer of non-accountable cost which duplicates council functions.  No-one asked for them and no-one would miss them.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago it was decided that AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) should each have some form of board, invoving a staff, website, publications, meetings, input into planning decisions etc. These were duly formed and now are staffed up and eating money and wasting time.  

The planning functions can be discharged by locally elected bodies eg councils who have due regard to AONB status when looking at applications.  Everything else they do is a complete waste of time including handing out tiny grants to local bodies – councils can, and do, this already.  Basically they are an extra layer of non-accountable cost which duplicates council functions.  No-one asked for them and no-one would miss them.

Reduce multiple handling and therefore administration in social care/housing.

 I work for a small charity providing sheltered housing in one house and registered care in two others. All serve the elderly and we have 31 residents in all. Currently we are responsible to:
1. the Charity Commission to whom we supply annual accounts and a return

2. Companies Register               – ditto –

3. Care Quality Commission to whom we supply annual accounts and monthly NMDS returns and by whom we are inspected regularly

4. TSA  to whom we supply annual accounts – what was 'RSR'  – and now the highly involved NROSH procedure which in all candour  works very badlyf or small providers

5. Supporting People to whom we monthly submit Client Details interface and Performance Indicators on top of annual renewals of contract and maintaining accreditation

6. Our local authorities with whom we have [loss-making] contracts but who also require regular inputs

7. Environmental Health who make periodic physical checks


8. The local Adult Safeguarding Authority

We also have to approach the CRB for just about anyone who comes near our premises.

This is an onerous list for a small charity with part time staff and three properties housing just 31 persons. The level of control and its overlapping of function consume almost 65% of our staff time. It was for this reason – reduction of administrative burden where possible – that we have been considering deregistration as an RSL [registered social landlord]: the advent of the hugely unwieldy NROSH was the last straw. 

Breaking it down it is difficult to understand why the dominant authority – in our case the Care Quality Commission who inspect us physically – may not issue a 'passport' for use by the other authorities [assuming they are all necessary] and  share the information concerning our status. There is  a tendency moreover for officials to act ultra vires and I have on a number of occasions challenged the authorities as to the legality of certain actions and always won. Recently four anonymous complaints were received over a period of a year by CQC. All were thoroughly investigated and found totally groundless. This consumed masses of time and caused a grave loss of morale among staff. It seemed clear that the anonymous writer was malicious and mischievous but CQC insisted on detailed reports: the local safeguarding authority had to be involved and then the local authority contracts team. Assuming that it was sensible to investigate some of the complaints surely one of the authorities might have liaised with the others and shared with our  proven clean bill of health. The CQC refused us sight of the original complaint letter despite there being evidence of malice so we were unable to see the precise allegations – merely the CQC's 'take' on the contents. This is totally unjust: it is a cardinal principle of British law that one knows the detail of an accusation.

I turn to Supporting People: I understand that this was set up largely to stem fraudulent use of Housing Benefits. In this it has clearly failed and become a self-serving paper factory. Additionally it removed the confidentiality that a recipient had previously enjoyed. I would submit that abolition of Supporting People would have no detrimental effect. Administration – with enhanced checks on abuse – could revert to Housing Benefits.

The Housing Corporation had become unmanageable and has been succeeded by the TSA and HCA. I have been waiting for information from TSA since November and have only now – in June – secured replies after repeated reminders and ultimately a formal complaint.
 

Why is this idea important?

 I work for a small charity providing sheltered housing in one house and registered care in two others. All serve the elderly and we have 31 residents in all. Currently we are responsible to:
1. the Charity Commission to whom we supply annual accounts and a return

2. Companies Register               – ditto –

3. Care Quality Commission to whom we supply annual accounts and monthly NMDS returns and by whom we are inspected regularly

4. TSA  to whom we supply annual accounts – what was 'RSR'  – and now the highly involved NROSH procedure which in all candour  works very badlyf or small providers

5. Supporting People to whom we monthly submit Client Details interface and Performance Indicators on top of annual renewals of contract and maintaining accreditation

6. Our local authorities with whom we have [loss-making] contracts but who also require regular inputs

7. Environmental Health who make periodic physical checks


8. The local Adult Safeguarding Authority

We also have to approach the CRB for just about anyone who comes near our premises.

This is an onerous list for a small charity with part time staff and three properties housing just 31 persons. The level of control and its overlapping of function consume almost 65% of our staff time. It was for this reason – reduction of administrative burden where possible – that we have been considering deregistration as an RSL [registered social landlord]: the advent of the hugely unwieldy NROSH was the last straw. 

Breaking it down it is difficult to understand why the dominant authority – in our case the Care Quality Commission who inspect us physically – may not issue a 'passport' for use by the other authorities [assuming they are all necessary] and  share the information concerning our status. There is  a tendency moreover for officials to act ultra vires and I have on a number of occasions challenged the authorities as to the legality of certain actions and always won. Recently four anonymous complaints were received over a period of a year by CQC. All were thoroughly investigated and found totally groundless. This consumed masses of time and caused a grave loss of morale among staff. It seemed clear that the anonymous writer was malicious and mischievous but CQC insisted on detailed reports: the local safeguarding authority had to be involved and then the local authority contracts team. Assuming that it was sensible to investigate some of the complaints surely one of the authorities might have liaised with the others and shared with our  proven clean bill of health. The CQC refused us sight of the original complaint letter despite there being evidence of malice so we were unable to see the precise allegations – merely the CQC's 'take' on the contents. This is totally unjust: it is a cardinal principle of British law that one knows the detail of an accusation.

I turn to Supporting People: I understand that this was set up largely to stem fraudulent use of Housing Benefits. In this it has clearly failed and become a self-serving paper factory. Additionally it removed the confidentiality that a recipient had previously enjoyed. I would submit that abolition of Supporting People would have no detrimental effect. Administration – with enhanced checks on abuse – could revert to Housing Benefits.

The Housing Corporation had become unmanageable and has been succeeded by the TSA and HCA. I have been waiting for information from TSA since November and have only now – in June – secured replies after repeated reminders and ultimately a formal complaint.
 

Protect school playing fields

School playing fields are essential for school children and the wider local community, which has paid for them through its taxes: they affect their rights to a full education and to the peaceful enjoyment of their family life.  But controls over the disposal of playing fields as development land are not working.

The Government should amend the School Standards and Frameworks Act 1998 to ensure that all consents granted so far for the disposal of school playing fields, and all future consents, should lapse five years after they have been granted, as is the case with planning permission; and should strengthen the presumptions (i) that open-air playing fields should be retained unless there is genuinely no further need for them, and (ii) that the full proceeds of any disposals that are so justified should be returned to public funds at local or national government level. 

It should declare as its policy that the expansion of the academies programme to which it is committed will not in any way prejudice the need to retain playing fields in the public interest, or the way in which the necessary controls over disposals of playing fields are exercised. 

Why is this idea important?

School playing fields are essential for school children and the wider local community, which has paid for them through its taxes: they affect their rights to a full education and to the peaceful enjoyment of their family life.  But controls over the disposal of playing fields as development land are not working.

The Government should amend the School Standards and Frameworks Act 1998 to ensure that all consents granted so far for the disposal of school playing fields, and all future consents, should lapse five years after they have been granted, as is the case with planning permission; and should strengthen the presumptions (i) that open-air playing fields should be retained unless there is genuinely no further need for them, and (ii) that the full proceeds of any disposals that are so justified should be returned to public funds at local or national government level. 

It should declare as its policy that the expansion of the academies programme to which it is committed will not in any way prejudice the need to retain playing fields in the public interest, or the way in which the necessary controls over disposals of playing fields are exercised. 

Housing Act 2004 – Revision of Tenants Deposit Protection (TDP) Legislation

 

To revoke the provisions of The Housing Act 2004 as they relate to tenants deposit protection (TDP). In particular the current structure that compels CLG to need to license two types of scheme – 'insured' & 'custodial'. This should be replaced with amended clauses to enable circumstances that would allow for CLG to procure and license a single authority / scheme provider, who may if they choose, offer both types of scheme from a single administrative / ADR base. Further, that the ‘custodial’ element to be provided by that single authority, though normally free to use, will be empowered to charge a fee for usage in circumstances where, at times of low interest rates, the income generated were deemed to be insufficient to cover the operating costs of the scheme.

Why is this idea important?

 

To revoke the provisions of The Housing Act 2004 as they relate to tenants deposit protection (TDP). In particular the current structure that compels CLG to need to license two types of scheme – 'insured' & 'custodial'. This should be replaced with amended clauses to enable circumstances that would allow for CLG to procure and license a single authority / scheme provider, who may if they choose, offer both types of scheme from a single administrative / ADR base. Further, that the ‘custodial’ element to be provided by that single authority, though normally free to use, will be empowered to charge a fee for usage in circumstances where, at times of low interest rates, the income generated were deemed to be insufficient to cover the operating costs of the scheme.

engage the third sector in active repeal of housing construction regulations that hinder the building low cost affordable housing

A few years ago OXFAM and other NGOS were asked how long it would take them to supply low cost housing for the homeless in UK.

The answer was not long,but UK legislation on construction would not allow this.

After the war,the pre fab may have been utility,but it supplied housing starts for millions of UK citizens.

When landlord supplied via welfare and temporary housing is so costly, and not fitted for the role of supplying a home,why do we not turn to the organisations who manage to supply housing to the worlds worst housing crisis situations, by allowing them to work in the UK. or allowing their expertise to be used.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago OXFAM and other NGOS were asked how long it would take them to supply low cost housing for the homeless in UK.

The answer was not long,but UK legislation on construction would not allow this.

After the war,the pre fab may have been utility,but it supplied housing starts for millions of UK citizens.

When landlord supplied via welfare and temporary housing is so costly, and not fitted for the role of supplying a home,why do we not turn to the organisations who manage to supply housing to the worlds worst housing crisis situations, by allowing them to work in the UK. or allowing their expertise to be used.

Another money wasting Labour QANGO

The Jobcentreplus is supposed to personally advise those people on health related benefits; however, now, one has to go to a company named 'ingeus' who provide, free of charge, a personal advisor; expert health advice (what's my GP for?); return to work credit; financial assistance; expert job-hunting advice;workshops; free job-hunting facilities & continuing support. All of the above, with the exception of the expert health advice, used to be provided by Jobcentreplus. How much is this costing the country?

Why is this idea important?

The Jobcentreplus is supposed to personally advise those people on health related benefits; however, now, one has to go to a company named 'ingeus' who provide, free of charge, a personal advisor; expert health advice (what's my GP for?); return to work credit; financial assistance; expert job-hunting advice;workshops; free job-hunting facilities & continuing support. All of the above, with the exception of the expert health advice, used to be provided by Jobcentreplus. How much is this costing the country?

House holders to be represented when regulations formulated

An example is the Building regulation changes. These now dictate that if a gas boiler is replaced then a more efficient condensing boiler must be used; that seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the householder having to pay for additional work (plumbing and decoration) required to meet the separate heating zone requirements. The householder is poorly represented when new regulations are being formulated compared to the companies that make money out of such regulations.

Why is this idea important?

An example is the Building regulation changes. These now dictate that if a gas boiler is replaced then a more efficient condensing boiler must be used; that seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the householder having to pay for additional work (plumbing and decoration) required to meet the separate heating zone requirements. The householder is poorly represented when new regulations are being formulated compared to the companies that make money out of such regulations.

Overhaul , review and simplify the town planning process

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

Why is this idea important?

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

Loud Music

We need to change thw law on live music in pubs,we are now being taken to court for loud live bands,we dont think is that loud and we keep it down since first complaint.We are well known for our youg and up coming metal bands,were as not alot of people let bands like these play. But now we have to stop this because of council.(Lord Nelson ph Lowestoft)

Why is this idea important?

We need to change thw law on live music in pubs,we are now being taken to court for loud live bands,we dont think is that loud and we keep it down since first complaint.We are well known for our youg and up coming metal bands,were as not alot of people let bands like these play. But now we have to stop this because of council.(Lord Nelson ph Lowestoft)

stop £15.00 top up under LHA rules

stop paying up to £15.00 top up under LHA rules – if a claimants rent is paid in full – why pay them up to a further £15.00 top up – this rule hasn't helped to bring rents down or encouraged people to find cheaper properties –  mainly just given more money to people already in cheaper properties  

Why is this idea important?

stop paying up to £15.00 top up under LHA rules – if a claimants rent is paid in full – why pay them up to a further £15.00 top up – this rule hasn't helped to bring rents down or encouraged people to find cheaper properties –  mainly just given more money to people already in cheaper properties  

creating jobs

the UK seems to be so congested its almost at a standstill.

we need to create a lot more cheaper parking, slash the price of public transport and car fuel.  this will allow people to move around the country more freely and bring out those who could not afford to leave their homes  (i for one would visit more places in the UK if this happened) and have a bit more money to spend wherever they visit be it for holiday or shopping.  retail etc would be busier which of course leads to more employment in retail and hopefully expansion which would create even more jobs which will have a knock on effect on other employment in offices, factories etc and if we brought the VAT back to 15% to help things along and hopefully we will all benefit.  

at the moment i feel we are trapped.  congestion charge to get into London which stops alot of people coming in to spend as what is the fun of going on a train with a load of bags so then people spend less.  people who work in London have to already spend money on expensive fuel and put mileage on their cars and then pay congestion charge.  so this is to force us onto public transport.  Great!!!  expensive, dirty and unreliable.

Why is this idea important?

the UK seems to be so congested its almost at a standstill.

we need to create a lot more cheaper parking, slash the price of public transport and car fuel.  this will allow people to move around the country more freely and bring out those who could not afford to leave their homes  (i for one would visit more places in the UK if this happened) and have a bit more money to spend wherever they visit be it for holiday or shopping.  retail etc would be busier which of course leads to more employment in retail and hopefully expansion which would create even more jobs which will have a knock on effect on other employment in offices, factories etc and if we brought the VAT back to 15% to help things along and hopefully we will all benefit.  

at the moment i feel we are trapped.  congestion charge to get into London which stops alot of people coming in to spend as what is the fun of going on a train with a load of bags so then people spend less.  people who work in London have to already spend money on expensive fuel and put mileage on their cars and then pay congestion charge.  so this is to force us onto public transport.  Great!!!  expensive, dirty and unreliable.

Protection of landlord property from fraudulant housing benefit applications for purposes of property misappropriation

Currently central Government issues only guidelines for the processing of Housing Benefit applications to local Councils. These are not implemented uniformly with respect of protecting property owners rights and in the worst cases can leave the property owner exposed to their property being 'taken over' by a Housing Benefit claimant(s). The requirement to check with the true owner of the property that the application is valid is never made.

The claimant or someone wanting to commit the fraud simply has to tick the box stating that they are the owner, or alternatively submit contracts drawn up in the fraudsters name stating that they are the owner or landlord. All of this can be done without the true owners knowledge or consent. Once the application has been approved if the fraudster can gain entry to the property then the true owner cannot get the Housing Benefit Claimants out because their tennancy is protected by the terms of the contract drawn up, irrespective of whether the contract was drawn up with the owners knowledge or not.

In no part of this process is the applicants form verified for factual information about who the owner or landlord of the property is. This can be done via the land registry but I believe for reasons more connected with housing claimants, it is not in the interests of Councils to make these checks as their primary requirement is to house claimants, not check with owners that they have agreed to this.

Why is this idea important?

Currently central Government issues only guidelines for the processing of Housing Benefit applications to local Councils. These are not implemented uniformly with respect of protecting property owners rights and in the worst cases can leave the property owner exposed to their property being 'taken over' by a Housing Benefit claimant(s). The requirement to check with the true owner of the property that the application is valid is never made.

The claimant or someone wanting to commit the fraud simply has to tick the box stating that they are the owner, or alternatively submit contracts drawn up in the fraudsters name stating that they are the owner or landlord. All of this can be done without the true owners knowledge or consent. Once the application has been approved if the fraudster can gain entry to the property then the true owner cannot get the Housing Benefit Claimants out because their tennancy is protected by the terms of the contract drawn up, irrespective of whether the contract was drawn up with the owners knowledge or not.

In no part of this process is the applicants form verified for factual information about who the owner or landlord of the property is. This can be done via the land registry but I believe for reasons more connected with housing claimants, it is not in the interests of Councils to make these checks as their primary requirement is to house claimants, not check with owners that they have agreed to this.

Cut FREE boilers and central heating installations

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to see you scrap the current warmfront/Eaga goverment contracts that give free boilers and/or central heating installations.

Having worked for and outside of companies involved in this particular contract I have to say millions are egtting spent on people who do not need free central heating boilers.

Landlords are buying up properties without central heating then moving tenants in telling them to claim for free central heating. Then because they are on benefits they contact Eaga/Warmfront and several weeks later one of the designated companies come along and install for free!

It is a waste of money is several aspects. Many people shouldn't qualify for free boilers in the first place but baiscally scam the system to get a free boiler when they should be paying. Only a select few business are allowed to work on these contracts and are charging inflated costs to carry the work out.

I started my own central heating business two years ago now after working in this sector for the last 15 years. I loose track of the amount of times we went to give quotes for new boilers last winter when customers had been told by friends "don't buy a boiler off them you can get one for free from the goverment".

Last winter I lost count on how many households I went into in Bradford that had an Ideal Combination boiler installed by an Eaga/warmfront regsitered company.

I urge you to look at this massive amount of spending. I find it amazing that you have not seen what is going on in this industry when you are so desperate to look to make money saving opportunities.

By cutting the warmfront/Eaga free boilers you will help local plumbers and heating engineers a like. People will no longer get boilers for free who don't deserve them, they will simply have to pay like the rest of us.

If anyone would like to discuss this matter with me I am happy to do so as there is only so much one can say on a forum like this.

Thank you for listening.

Repeal the new part g of building regulations

This new approved document contains some of the most rediculous legal requirements yet.

Introduced in April this year you have got to wonder what the coalition parties were doing in opposition. For those that arnt familiar the new partG includes a requirement for all new houses to have temperature restrictors on baths to stop people from jumpinginto hot water and scalding themselves. I know that this will happen to some people BUT surely we are educated enough in this country to be able to run a bath without government interfearence. IF not it is education we need to be looking at, not the plumbing system.

Another requirement is that somebody works out how much water a new house will use, but this is based on the number of appliances not the number of people as I understand it. The saving in water that this is aimed at would be better addressed by simply controling the manufactured appliances.

But perhaps the best bit of part G is the bit about greenhouses. Greenhouses are exempt from the regulations but now if you draw off water from a source shared with a dwelling at the greenhouse suddenly the building regs apply and the water has to be wholesome. Meaning that the building reg process including inspections  and fee is necessary if you connect a hose to the tap in your kitchen and use it to water your tomatoes.

Of course the regs are only to ensure that the water is wholesome but as they only apply when you draw off water from your dwelling, the same stuff you make your tea with the assumtion is that it will be wholesome withot the need for a man from the council checking.

This is new regulation April 2010 not some old nonsense ,it is also the law, what was that somone said about the law being an ass?

Why is this idea important?

This new approved document contains some of the most rediculous legal requirements yet.

Introduced in April this year you have got to wonder what the coalition parties were doing in opposition. For those that arnt familiar the new partG includes a requirement for all new houses to have temperature restrictors on baths to stop people from jumpinginto hot water and scalding themselves. I know that this will happen to some people BUT surely we are educated enough in this country to be able to run a bath without government interfearence. IF not it is education we need to be looking at, not the plumbing system.

Another requirement is that somebody works out how much water a new house will use, but this is based on the number of appliances not the number of people as I understand it. The saving in water that this is aimed at would be better addressed by simply controling the manufactured appliances.

But perhaps the best bit of part G is the bit about greenhouses. Greenhouses are exempt from the regulations but now if you draw off water from a source shared with a dwelling at the greenhouse suddenly the building regs apply and the water has to be wholesome. Meaning that the building reg process including inspections  and fee is necessary if you connect a hose to the tap in your kitchen and use it to water your tomatoes.

Of course the regs are only to ensure that the water is wholesome but as they only apply when you draw off water from your dwelling, the same stuff you make your tea with the assumtion is that it will be wholesome withot the need for a man from the council checking.

This is new regulation April 2010 not some old nonsense ,it is also the law, what was that somone said about the law being an ass?