Living in a temporary dwelling on your own land

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Why is this idea important?

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Rights to establish a static caravan as a permanent home on your own landW

We have bought a building plot but after establishing the services and servitude to access a private road and after paying solicitor, engineer re flood risk assessment and builder etc we cannot afford to do the new build. We can only afford to upgrade our static caravan to make it a permanent residence. My husband can make it look to blend in with our surroundings as he is a retired builder. However the council will not allow us to do this. We are so disillusioned by this as we have made the plot look neat and presentable where before it was a rough overgrown plot.

Why is this idea important?

We have bought a building plot but after establishing the services and servitude to access a private road and after paying solicitor, engineer re flood risk assessment and builder etc we cannot afford to do the new build. We can only afford to upgrade our static caravan to make it a permanent residence. My husband can make it look to blend in with our surroundings as he is a retired builder. However the council will not allow us to do this. We are so disillusioned by this as we have made the plot look neat and presentable where before it was a rough overgrown plot.

Land cut of by roads to small to farm

Land that has been cut by pass’s and other roads and then to small to farm should be made available for Eco living and perhaps for locals at affordable prices this could be done all most straight away instead of letting the land go to waste. Let’s make land work

Why is this idea important?

Land that has been cut by pass’s and other roads and then to small to farm should be made available for Eco living and perhaps for locals at affordable prices this could be done all most straight away instead of letting the land go to waste. Let’s make land work

Change stamp duty

Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.

Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.

The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.

For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.

That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.

In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.

Why is this idea important?

Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.

Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.

The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.

For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.

That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.

In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.

Help Property Investors

The world of property investment has long been the source of personal wealth for many and a driving force in the economy. Recent changes to the Council of Mortgage Lenders guidelines has meant traditional property investors have been "shut out" and the only lending is being given to those that can fulfil the requirements of the Council of Mortgage Lender's Check List i.e. owner/occupiers.

This needs to be stopped right now. If I buy a car that is worth £20,000 for £10,000 and sell it for £20,000, no one bats an eyelid. But if I buy a house for £100,000 that is actually worth £150,000, I'm not allowed to sell that house for six months and even then, the sale price would be governed by the fact that I paid £100,000 for it. Valuers should be trained to value properties for what they are actually worth using type of construction, square footage, part of town, local amenities, schools, hospitals, accessibility for commuting, etc, not relying solely on local area comparisons. They should certainly be totally independent of the lenders (None of this "Times are tough. Devalue everything by 10%" that was going on two years ago).

As we (the taxpayers) still own a large proprtion of the lending institutions, we should force these lenders to provide one or two good quality mortgage products aimed at investors. (Whilst the bank base rate was down around half-a-percent, many buy to let mortgages were still running at around 7%. It's no wonder these organizations recovered as quickly as they did!) These mortgage products should take into account that a good entrepreneur can actually buy a property at one price one day and it is worth much more, even as the sale at that lower price is going through. If we wait until everyone fits into the CML criteria, we won't have a property investment industry to speak of.

Why is this idea important?

The world of property investment has long been the source of personal wealth for many and a driving force in the economy. Recent changes to the Council of Mortgage Lenders guidelines has meant traditional property investors have been "shut out" and the only lending is being given to those that can fulfil the requirements of the Council of Mortgage Lender's Check List i.e. owner/occupiers.

This needs to be stopped right now. If I buy a car that is worth £20,000 for £10,000 and sell it for £20,000, no one bats an eyelid. But if I buy a house for £100,000 that is actually worth £150,000, I'm not allowed to sell that house for six months and even then, the sale price would be governed by the fact that I paid £100,000 for it. Valuers should be trained to value properties for what they are actually worth using type of construction, square footage, part of town, local amenities, schools, hospitals, accessibility for commuting, etc, not relying solely on local area comparisons. They should certainly be totally independent of the lenders (None of this "Times are tough. Devalue everything by 10%" that was going on two years ago).

As we (the taxpayers) still own a large proprtion of the lending institutions, we should force these lenders to provide one or two good quality mortgage products aimed at investors. (Whilst the bank base rate was down around half-a-percent, many buy to let mortgages were still running at around 7%. It's no wonder these organizations recovered as quickly as they did!) These mortgage products should take into account that a good entrepreneur can actually buy a property at one price one day and it is worth much more, even as the sale at that lower price is going through. If we wait until everyone fits into the CML criteria, we won't have a property investment industry to speak of.

Close all bail hostels

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

Bat regulation

Bat regulation must be amended to enable listed building house owners (particularly Grade 2*) to carry out essential repairs.  Repair of roofs  with holes in them and water descending three floors  have been held up for 18 months because of bat regulations.  The bat observers charge £10,000 and threaten the law if one repairs the roof. 

Why is this idea important?

Bat regulation must be amended to enable listed building house owners (particularly Grade 2*) to carry out essential repairs.  Repair of roofs  with holes in them and water descending three floors  have been held up for 18 months because of bat regulations.  The bat observers charge £10,000 and threaten the law if one repairs the roof. 

scap bidding system on housing

To stop people bidding on housing it is not a fair system and causing over crowding some people are getting house unfairley . Every week thousand of people bid on houses thinking theres hope saddly most people are disaponted which causes people to be depressed an low.

Its like a lottery draw which it shouldnt be these are peoples lives some of which live in difficult living conditions.Why not do it the old way at least then people hopes get crushed.

Why is this idea important?

To stop people bidding on housing it is not a fair system and causing over crowding some people are getting house unfairley . Every week thousand of people bid on houses thinking theres hope saddly most people are disaponted which causes people to be depressed an low.

Its like a lottery draw which it shouldnt be these are peoples lives some of which live in difficult living conditions.Why not do it the old way at least then people hopes get crushed.

homes government to save money 300,000,000

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Why is this idea important?

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Remove the need for electrical registration for Part P

If electrical work which falls under Part P of the building regulaions is being carried out, why cannot the householder just inform the Building Control (for a small fee), then the department can randomly check projects.

Why is this idea important?

If electrical work which falls under Part P of the building regulaions is being carried out, why cannot the householder just inform the Building Control (for a small fee), then the department can randomly check projects.

end the ‘right to buy’ council housing

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Why is this idea important?

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Providing quality affordable housing

Please bare with me while I give reasoning for my idea. I wish to outline some causes of the housing problem and my solution.

Housing expenses (mortgages and rents) are the biggest drain on peoples monetary resources so if this expense can be reduced it will benefit everyone.  The first part of the plan is to reduce housing inflation and the second to provide affordable housing at minimal cost to the government. 

Much of todays problems have occurred due to housing crisis which started in the USA but spread worldwide. If house prices were restricted from rising so quickly many of the sub-prime mortgages would not have been approved. Poor lending practices from banks assumed that house price inflation would cover for default loans. This. of course, was false. 

This was also fueled by people using residential property as a wealth creation tool. This needs to change. The buy-to-let owners need to be reined in and more restrictions put in place to prevent the quick buying and selling of residential property to make a 'fast buck'. 

The following, admittedly simplistic argument, outlines part of the problem.

Presently home ownership is roughly 60%. That means for every 100 houses that a buy-to-let person or company owns, roughly 60 houses have been taken out of the market for the ordinary person to buy. The buy-to-letters can often afford to pay over the odds as they are generally not looking for a quick return and are building a portfolio. The other 40 houses are then fought over by the 60 ordinary buyers. This of course inflates the prices more. There are many buy-to-letters out there with hundreds of houses. This is ridiculous. More residential property needs to available for the ordinary person.

Negative gearing and other tax benefits should only be allowed for one rental property… or possibly two at the most.  High deposits or no loans for 3rd properties (as the Chinese have instigated) should be brought in here. High capital gains taxes on the sale of properties if sold within a year. The tax to be reduced until near zero after 15 years of ownership. This includes primary residences.

There are ways to build property wealth with only one or two properties, but that is another issue that I won't cover.

These measures will help slow the house price inflation, which at the moment isn't a problem but will occur again eventually.

The following provides a solution to many other problems as well as the housing shortage:

A government scheme to encourage private investment in the development of quality affordable housing should be introduced. A scheme like this is currently in place in NZ. Private investors pay for the building of a small number of  council run houses in each new development. The investor owns the property which is then leased back to the government, which in turn rents it to people on the council house waiting list. This provides for a large number of council houses to be build which is funded by the tax payer and not by the government.

 The council have strict policing of the properties to maintain their standard. Every 3 months they are inspected and one warning issued for any breaches of standard (either to neighbours or the property). If another breach occurs the tenants are moved out. Due to many of the tenants never having lived in quality housing before there is a 95% success rate of tenants looking after the property.

These properties are rented at market rates, which is agreed to by the owner and council. The council pays this rent to the owner and then is reimbursed by the tenant through rent and/or housing benefit.  Even if there is not a tenant the owner still receives the rent. It is very rare that a tenent is not there, except for repair work. This means the income is 100% government/council guaranteed which is a huge plus for the banks that people borrow from.

The houses can be bought and sold as per any other property with the caviat that the new owner must re-lease the property back to the council. The tenants do not need know of any change of ownership. The properties are maintained by the council to a high degree.

These investment properties should be further encouraged with tax incentives, and as many of these properties can bought by buy-to-letters without tax penalties, which should be in contrast to tax on multiple private dwellings that are not part of these schemes.

Why is this idea important?

Please bare with me while I give reasoning for my idea. I wish to outline some causes of the housing problem and my solution.

Housing expenses (mortgages and rents) are the biggest drain on peoples monetary resources so if this expense can be reduced it will benefit everyone.  The first part of the plan is to reduce housing inflation and the second to provide affordable housing at minimal cost to the government. 

Much of todays problems have occurred due to housing crisis which started in the USA but spread worldwide. If house prices were restricted from rising so quickly many of the sub-prime mortgages would not have been approved. Poor lending practices from banks assumed that house price inflation would cover for default loans. This. of course, was false. 

This was also fueled by people using residential property as a wealth creation tool. This needs to change. The buy-to-let owners need to be reined in and more restrictions put in place to prevent the quick buying and selling of residential property to make a 'fast buck'. 

The following, admittedly simplistic argument, outlines part of the problem.

Presently home ownership is roughly 60%. That means for every 100 houses that a buy-to-let person or company owns, roughly 60 houses have been taken out of the market for the ordinary person to buy. The buy-to-letters can often afford to pay over the odds as they are generally not looking for a quick return and are building a portfolio. The other 40 houses are then fought over by the 60 ordinary buyers. This of course inflates the prices more. There are many buy-to-letters out there with hundreds of houses. This is ridiculous. More residential property needs to available for the ordinary person.

Negative gearing and other tax benefits should only be allowed for one rental property… or possibly two at the most.  High deposits or no loans for 3rd properties (as the Chinese have instigated) should be brought in here. High capital gains taxes on the sale of properties if sold within a year. The tax to be reduced until near zero after 15 years of ownership. This includes primary residences.

There are ways to build property wealth with only one or two properties, but that is another issue that I won't cover.

These measures will help slow the house price inflation, which at the moment isn't a problem but will occur again eventually.

The following provides a solution to many other problems as well as the housing shortage:

A government scheme to encourage private investment in the development of quality affordable housing should be introduced. A scheme like this is currently in place in NZ. Private investors pay for the building of a small number of  council run houses in each new development. The investor owns the property which is then leased back to the government, which in turn rents it to people on the council house waiting list. This provides for a large number of council houses to be build which is funded by the tax payer and not by the government.

 The council have strict policing of the properties to maintain their standard. Every 3 months they are inspected and one warning issued for any breaches of standard (either to neighbours or the property). If another breach occurs the tenants are moved out. Due to many of the tenants never having lived in quality housing before there is a 95% success rate of tenants looking after the property.

These properties are rented at market rates, which is agreed to by the owner and council. The council pays this rent to the owner and then is reimbursed by the tenant through rent and/or housing benefit.  Even if there is not a tenant the owner still receives the rent. It is very rare that a tenent is not there, except for repair work. This means the income is 100% government/council guaranteed which is a huge plus for the banks that people borrow from.

The houses can be bought and sold as per any other property with the caviat that the new owner must re-lease the property back to the council. The tenants do not need know of any change of ownership. The properties are maintained by the council to a high degree.

These investment properties should be further encouraged with tax incentives, and as many of these properties can bought by buy-to-letters without tax penalties, which should be in contrast to tax on multiple private dwellings that are not part of these schemes.

Local Housing Allowance

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Why is this idea important?

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Social Housing

The Right to buy Thatcherism should be scrapped.  The stock that used to be under Council/Housing Association control should gradually be bought from the home owners, and used for desperate families who need these homes.  Also to help single unemployed people to get work should only pay 20 per cent of council tax, to stop this poverty among the people trying to get to work.

Why is this idea important?

The Right to buy Thatcherism should be scrapped.  The stock that used to be under Council/Housing Association control should gradually be bought from the home owners, and used for desperate families who need these homes.  Also to help single unemployed people to get work should only pay 20 per cent of council tax, to stop this poverty among the people trying to get to work.

Abandon the South East Plan and local Core Strategies

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Why is this idea important?

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Affordable Housing

It is the right of every citizen to have access to affordable housing. However, due to the mismanagement of social housing and the continued discrimination of landlords/estate agents benefit claimants, this is not the case.

Here are some suggestions to alleviate this growing crisis in our country.

1. Landlords/Estate Agents must accept benefit claimants if they can pay the necessary deposit/fees and are of good character/credit.

2. If a Council/Association cannot house an applicant after a given time (i.e 18 months or 2 years) then the applicant should be given the necessary monies to rent privately. This should include 1 months deposit (LHA equivalent), 1 months rent in advance (LHA equivalent), administration cost (standard of the area). It can be difficult for those on low-incomes to raise this money aswell as buy furniture, tv licence, and all the other necessary costs of setting up home.

3. Ensure that Local Housing Allowance rates do reflect the actual cost of private rent in a given area. In some areas the rate seriously falls short, which means that people either have to apply for social housing or move to another area of the country away from family and friends.

4. Revise Social Housing Allocations. At present, allocations are generally made on a needs basis rather than a time-waiting basis. This means that many people, especially single people, are perpetually at the bottom of the list. Allocations should be split between needs basis and time-waiting i.e. 70% of allocations made on a needs basis and 30% on a time-waiting basis. Even if only 1 in 5 properties were allocated on a time-waiting basis, then those at the bottom of the list would eventually move up.

5. Right to buy has its merits but also problems. Sold stock should be replaced. If it cannot be, due to financial constraints on the Council/Association or lack of land, then right-to-buy should be restricted in that area.

6. Build more social housing!

Why is this idea important?

It is the right of every citizen to have access to affordable housing. However, due to the mismanagement of social housing and the continued discrimination of landlords/estate agents benefit claimants, this is not the case.

Here are some suggestions to alleviate this growing crisis in our country.

1. Landlords/Estate Agents must accept benefit claimants if they can pay the necessary deposit/fees and are of good character/credit.

2. If a Council/Association cannot house an applicant after a given time (i.e 18 months or 2 years) then the applicant should be given the necessary monies to rent privately. This should include 1 months deposit (LHA equivalent), 1 months rent in advance (LHA equivalent), administration cost (standard of the area). It can be difficult for those on low-incomes to raise this money aswell as buy furniture, tv licence, and all the other necessary costs of setting up home.

3. Ensure that Local Housing Allowance rates do reflect the actual cost of private rent in a given area. In some areas the rate seriously falls short, which means that people either have to apply for social housing or move to another area of the country away from family and friends.

4. Revise Social Housing Allocations. At present, allocations are generally made on a needs basis rather than a time-waiting basis. This means that many people, especially single people, are perpetually at the bottom of the list. Allocations should be split between needs basis and time-waiting i.e. 70% of allocations made on a needs basis and 30% on a time-waiting basis. Even if only 1 in 5 properties were allocated on a time-waiting basis, then those at the bottom of the list would eventually move up.

5. Right to buy has its merits but also problems. Sold stock should be replaced. If it cannot be, due to financial constraints on the Council/Association or lack of land, then right-to-buy should be restricted in that area.

6. Build more social housing!

Social Housing Tenants To Live Rent Free after 25 years of rental Payment.

This proposal would allow social housing tenants to live in social housing rent free after a total of 25 years of rent payments.

After the tenant dies, the rent payments would then continue, even if the tenancy is taken over by family members.

This would bring Social Housing tenants inline with Mortgage holders, but still of course at a disadvantage because obviously the mortgage holders would own the property at the end of 25 years and this proposal would mean the Social Housing home would still remain the property of the landlord at the end of 25 years but allow the tenant to live a rent free retirement.

I think this would be fair on the tenant as they would of paid a lot of money over 25 years and with the current situation they get nothing back. This proposal gives them something back and it would probably improve rent payments amongst the tenants as their would be something to aim for.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal would allow social housing tenants to live in social housing rent free after a total of 25 years of rent payments.

After the tenant dies, the rent payments would then continue, even if the tenancy is taken over by family members.

This would bring Social Housing tenants inline with Mortgage holders, but still of course at a disadvantage because obviously the mortgage holders would own the property at the end of 25 years and this proposal would mean the Social Housing home would still remain the property of the landlord at the end of 25 years but allow the tenant to live a rent free retirement.

I think this would be fair on the tenant as they would of paid a lot of money over 25 years and with the current situation they get nothing back. This proposal gives them something back and it would probably improve rent payments amongst the tenants as their would be something to aim for.

LHA RATES DISABLED CHILDREN

Currently there is no financial help for disabled children within private rented homes. The LHA states that children regardless of disability have to share with their siblings if under the age of 10. My child has complex and severe learning disabilities and sharing a room with his younger sibling could be fatal due to the none understanding the world around him. I strongly feel that this needs to be looked into as a matter of urgency due to the high risk element.

Local OT could assess disabled children's needs and award an extra bedroom where needed after assessment. This would help disabled children and their families find more affordable accommodation rather than being forced to pay out the extra for the extra room or even more worrying forcing children with learning disabilities to share.

Why is this idea important?

Currently there is no financial help for disabled children within private rented homes. The LHA states that children regardless of disability have to share with their siblings if under the age of 10. My child has complex and severe learning disabilities and sharing a room with his younger sibling could be fatal due to the none understanding the world around him. I strongly feel that this needs to be looked into as a matter of urgency due to the high risk element.

Local OT could assess disabled children's needs and award an extra bedroom where needed after assessment. This would help disabled children and their families find more affordable accommodation rather than being forced to pay out the extra for the extra room or even more worrying forcing children with learning disabilities to share.

Ombudsman given powers to investigate housing associations

I think ombudman should be given the same powers to investige housing associations and other quango.s as they have to investigate maladministration or illegal activity ,   for  local authorities . If  you live in a housing association property and your service charge suddenly rises more than a hundred percent in one year, you suspect that some thing is not right, possible some thing illegal going on ,who can you turn to ,to check these are bodies acting legally , who are they accountable to?

Why is this idea important?

I think ombudman should be given the same powers to investige housing associations and other quango.s as they have to investigate maladministration or illegal activity ,   for  local authorities . If  you live in a housing association property and your service charge suddenly rises more than a hundred percent in one year, you suspect that some thing is not right, possible some thing illegal going on ,who can you turn to ,to check these are bodies acting legally , who are they accountable to?

Local Housing Allowance

Direct payment of Housing Benefit to Tenants for onward payment to Landlords should be scrapped.  As a small property letting business it has been a disastrous Govenment ruling.  As stated in other postings relating to this topic it is always private landlords who lose out and when the tenant doesn't pay it is 8 weeks before the Landlord is allowed to apply to the local council to have the rent paid direc to themt!  Even then the Council can elect not to pay direct to the Landlord. 

Another  issue is that this ruling does not apply to Council of Housing Association lettings.  In these circumstances the rent is paid direct to the Landlord.  Why one rule for them and another for the private landlord?

As a private landlord we expect rents to be paid by a tenant 1 month in advance to facilitate payment of mortgages etc.  Housing Benefit was always  paid four weekly in arrears when the housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord.  Furthermore if, as a Landlord, you have several tenants on housing benefit then the Council can  make one payment per month for all those tenants.  Under the current LHA each and every one of those tenants are made a payment every two weeks by the Council.  This makes lots of extra paperwork and expense both for the Council and the Landlord, if in deed the tenant bothers to pay you!  Also if the LHA level set by the local Council is more than the figure the Landlord has set for the rent then this additional money is paid to the tenant!!  Why shuld a tenant be paid this additional money out of government money – ie: our taxes?

Why is this idea important?

Direct payment of Housing Benefit to Tenants for onward payment to Landlords should be scrapped.  As a small property letting business it has been a disastrous Govenment ruling.  As stated in other postings relating to this topic it is always private landlords who lose out and when the tenant doesn't pay it is 8 weeks before the Landlord is allowed to apply to the local council to have the rent paid direc to themt!  Even then the Council can elect not to pay direct to the Landlord. 

Another  issue is that this ruling does not apply to Council of Housing Association lettings.  In these circumstances the rent is paid direct to the Landlord.  Why one rule for them and another for the private landlord?

As a private landlord we expect rents to be paid by a tenant 1 month in advance to facilitate payment of mortgages etc.  Housing Benefit was always  paid four weekly in arrears when the housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord.  Furthermore if, as a Landlord, you have several tenants on housing benefit then the Council can  make one payment per month for all those tenants.  Under the current LHA each and every one of those tenants are made a payment every two weeks by the Council.  This makes lots of extra paperwork and expense both for the Council and the Landlord, if in deed the tenant bothers to pay you!  Also if the LHA level set by the local Council is more than the figure the Landlord has set for the rent then this additional money is paid to the tenant!!  Why shuld a tenant be paid this additional money out of government money – ie: our taxes?

Ban Group Tenancies for Properties with Over 4 People

I believe a ban should be placed on group tenancies for properties with over 4 people.

 

The idea is given birth from a situation I experienced as a student renting for the first time at university. In order to find accommodation at a reasonable price and in time for the following year, myself and three friends rented a 10 person house with a few unknowns and another group that we were briefly acquainted with.

Much to our surprise when it came time to signing the tenancy contract (by now it was too late to find alternate accommodation) we realised that the contract was worded for a single tenant and that simply by placing the names of all tenants on this one contract, we became treated as a single entity by law. We confirmed that this was common practise so thought nothing of it.

Later I left university during the middle of the year. Following my contractual agreement continuing to pay rent for the entire year and I paid off any outstanding and statutory bills out of good will to other housemates.

It turned out that a housemate had failed to pay rent and bills for many months and that several thousands of pounds were now being asked for from the other tenants, including myself, by the estate agent that managed the property.

Why is this idea important?

I believe a ban should be placed on group tenancies for properties with over 4 people.

 

The idea is given birth from a situation I experienced as a student renting for the first time at university. In order to find accommodation at a reasonable price and in time for the following year, myself and three friends rented a 10 person house with a few unknowns and another group that we were briefly acquainted with.

Much to our surprise when it came time to signing the tenancy contract (by now it was too late to find alternate accommodation) we realised that the contract was worded for a single tenant and that simply by placing the names of all tenants on this one contract, we became treated as a single entity by law. We confirmed that this was common practise so thought nothing of it.

Later I left university during the middle of the year. Following my contractual agreement continuing to pay rent for the entire year and I paid off any outstanding and statutory bills out of good will to other housemates.

It turned out that a housemate had failed to pay rent and bills for many months and that several thousands of pounds were now being asked for from the other tenants, including myself, by the estate agent that managed the property.