New Homes To Be Detached and Have Sufficient Land For Parking and Gardens

That all new houses built should be detached properties with at least enough land to park up to  three cars in the front or, better, sides, of each property. The properties should also have sufficient land for a garden of suitable size in the rear and to a lesser extent to the front of the property. The exact size of land to be a subject for consultation but at least a quarter of an acre.

Why is this idea important?

That all new houses built should be detached properties with at least enough land to park up to  three cars in the front or, better, sides, of each property. The properties should also have sufficient land for a garden of suitable size in the rear and to a lesser extent to the front of the property. The exact size of land to be a subject for consultation but at least a quarter of an acre.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

IMMIGRATION the subject we’re not allowed to comment on!

This was the healine in todays Daily Mail!

SOMALI ASYLUM SEEKER FAMILY OF 9 GIVEN 2 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE IN KENSINGTON AFTER COMPLAINING 5 BEDROOMED HOUSE THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN WAS IN "A BAD AREA".

WHEN is this madness going to end? Why have the British people been Forced not only into unwanted membership of the eu but into taking every Tom, Dick and Abdul that takes it into his/her head to come to Britain and live like leeches on the backs of the taxpaying public.

This family is only one of millions who heard about our benefit system and our seemingly endlessly open purse which allows them to live the life of Riley and never have to do a days work for it.

IT HAS TO STOP!!

This once proud nation is the laughing stock of the world and a magnet to criminals, terrorists and the workshy in the world. If other nations need help let that help be in the form of teams going to their countries and giving instruction on how to improve it, how to get water, how to grow their own food etc.   We CANNOT and WILL NOT continue to be browbeaten and taxed so that these people can come here and speak the magic words "aslyum seeker' and be given benefits the indiginous population cannot get. It's unfair, and what kind of country are we turning into for our own children? we have nothing left, liebour saw to that by allowing this unfettered immigration, our resources once set up for the British citizens are being sacked daily and our governments are doing nothing to stop it. 

This is the subject we want to talk about Mr Cameron/Clegg this and continued so called 'membership' of the eu.

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

This was the healine in todays Daily Mail!

SOMALI ASYLUM SEEKER FAMILY OF 9 GIVEN 2 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE IN KENSINGTON AFTER COMPLAINING 5 BEDROOMED HOUSE THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN WAS IN "A BAD AREA".

WHEN is this madness going to end? Why have the British people been Forced not only into unwanted membership of the eu but into taking every Tom, Dick and Abdul that takes it into his/her head to come to Britain and live like leeches on the backs of the taxpaying public.

This family is only one of millions who heard about our benefit system and our seemingly endlessly open purse which allows them to live the life of Riley and never have to do a days work for it.

IT HAS TO STOP!!

This once proud nation is the laughing stock of the world and a magnet to criminals, terrorists and the workshy in the world. If other nations need help let that help be in the form of teams going to their countries and giving instruction on how to improve it, how to get water, how to grow their own food etc.   We CANNOT and WILL NOT continue to be browbeaten and taxed so that these people can come here and speak the magic words "aslyum seeker' and be given benefits the indiginous population cannot get. It's unfair, and what kind of country are we turning into for our own children? we have nothing left, liebour saw to that by allowing this unfettered immigration, our resources once set up for the British citizens are being sacked daily and our governments are doing nothing to stop it. 

This is the subject we want to talk about Mr Cameron/Clegg this and continued so called 'membership' of the eu.

 

 

 

 

Stop spurious village green applications halting housing development

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

Human Rights in Housing, the Dysfunctional Nanny State.

I think it is a great mistake to house people at random under one roof without consideration for the consequences as housing organisations do . People with grave mental problems or addictions can create big problems to their neighbours but housing organisations are less concerned about this than they should be and I'm not the first to say this! Why must somebody who is violent and very aggressive to his or her near neighbours, for example, be suffered and given more legal rights over so called normal people who might just want to live their lives in peace? It is very hard to evict them or to be protected from their behaviour, no matter what they do, for the law states that, because they have 'mental health problems' they have more rights than the other residents, which means rights to create absolute hell for other people and not be evicted. The Nanny State branch of the N.H.S…. or is it the social services, called the 'Community Mental Health Team' ( who really would be best dispensed with altogether!) act like a hysterical bunch of do badder do gooders by foisting their bizarre services often at the whim of a faceless bureaucrat in a housing association on the wrong people and leaving the really ill folk seriously alone. I think it was Harriet Harman ? who insisted everyone should come out of the hospitals, and what a great idea, but there is no provision made to ensure the affliction of their problems onto those around them does not occur. If they go to prison heaven help their neighbour or neighbours when they come out again! I don't want to sound cruel but I know instances where this has happened and the whole system in housing appears somewhat dysfunctional, to say the least. In Holland there is a separate housing policy which works well for everybody!!

Why is this idea important?

I think it is a great mistake to house people at random under one roof without consideration for the consequences as housing organisations do . People with grave mental problems or addictions can create big problems to their neighbours but housing organisations are less concerned about this than they should be and I'm not the first to say this! Why must somebody who is violent and very aggressive to his or her near neighbours, for example, be suffered and given more legal rights over so called normal people who might just want to live their lives in peace? It is very hard to evict them or to be protected from their behaviour, no matter what they do, for the law states that, because they have 'mental health problems' they have more rights than the other residents, which means rights to create absolute hell for other people and not be evicted. The Nanny State branch of the N.H.S…. or is it the social services, called the 'Community Mental Health Team' ( who really would be best dispensed with altogether!) act like a hysterical bunch of do badder do gooders by foisting their bizarre services often at the whim of a faceless bureaucrat in a housing association on the wrong people and leaving the really ill folk seriously alone. I think it was Harriet Harman ? who insisted everyone should come out of the hospitals, and what a great idea, but there is no provision made to ensure the affliction of their problems onto those around them does not occur. If they go to prison heaven help their neighbour or neighbours when they come out again! I don't want to sound cruel but I know instances where this has happened and the whole system in housing appears somewhat dysfunctional, to say the least. In Holland there is a separate housing policy which works well for everybody!!

Prior to Sp

It is often easer to take something down than to provide it in the first place, prior to Sp there was transitional housing benefit, no control of provision, quality, certainly not client focused, the rackman landlord eara "proffit above everything" !!!

SP has and continues to deliver Needy clients with opertunity to have stable lives,be valued in our comunity's through the delivery network ensure those that access support have valued lives.

SP ensure accountabilit governance audited quality and value for money.

Need outways present provision SP reqiure addittional funding

A Staffordshire survey evedences the saving to the community,  for every pound spent by SP saves the community over £3 

Why is this idea important?

It is often easer to take something down than to provide it in the first place, prior to Sp there was transitional housing benefit, no control of provision, quality, certainly not client focused, the rackman landlord eara "proffit above everything" !!!

SP has and continues to deliver Needy clients with opertunity to have stable lives,be valued in our comunity's through the delivery network ensure those that access support have valued lives.

SP ensure accountabilit governance audited quality and value for money.

Need outways present provision SP reqiure addittional funding

A Staffordshire survey evedences the saving to the community,  for every pound spent by SP saves the community over £3 

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!

why cant i live in my camper van

if its parked on private land i have to move after 28 days. if i park in a lay by im told by numerous signs,, no camping. no cooking no overnight sleeping. etc. this sign is everywhere. if i drive my camper to the pub. i drink too much. i get in my bed in the van in pub car park. i will be arrested for having the keys to my van on the premises. this means im  about to drive my van. well no. im in my bed. should i throw my keys out of the window?

Why is this idea important?

if its parked on private land i have to move after 28 days. if i park in a lay by im told by numerous signs,, no camping. no cooking no overnight sleeping. etc. this sign is everywhere. if i drive my camper to the pub. i drink too much. i get in my bed in the van in pub car park. i will be arrested for having the keys to my van on the premises. this means im  about to drive my van. well no. im in my bed. should i throw my keys out of the window?

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.

 

£45 per week maximum housing benefit.

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

that housing law shall consist only of clear facts that disprove their own opposites

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Why is this idea important?

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Give Planning Enforcement Departments power to act quickly

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

Why is this idea important?

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

Squatters Rights

The laws granting rights to squatters are an affront. Few people see the basis of this 'right' to occupy property to which you have no proper right and whatever historical reasoning there is should be challenged and removed.

Why is this idea important?

The laws granting rights to squatters are an affront. Few people see the basis of this 'right' to occupy property to which you have no proper right and whatever historical reasoning there is should be challenged and removed.

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.

Redundant Farm Buildings Conversion

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Why is this idea important?

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Abolish Part P of Building Regulations

Abolish Part P of the Building Regulations. 

Most parts of current Building Regulations are very sensible but one clear exception is Part P Electrical Wiring Regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish Part P of the Building Regulations. 

Most parts of current Building Regulations are very sensible but one clear exception is Part P Electrical Wiring Regulations.

Planning Appeals System

Please look again at the Planning Appeals System located in Bristol. It may be good to have a system of appeal for any decision, but in building planning the appeals system is far too one sided.

  We have, and pay for, democratically elected councillors who know the local area and who are asked to make local judgements on whether new building-work should go ahead. Only the builder can use the Appeal System. If one person – the Inspector – says the building can go ahead, (even if all the coucillors object) that is the final decision: no appeals proceedure exists for those not wanting development.

  People not wanting building in their area may not even know that a developer has gone to appeal. They are merely told that the building-work will go ahead. The system tramples over peoples rights, local democracy and makes a mockery of why we pay for and support elected representitives.

  I know people who have had their homes and gardens spoiled and blighted by the decision of the Inspector; a government official who only sees one side because the system does not allow both sides equal appeals rights; a system where the the Inspector visits only the appelant, with the council planning officer who approved the building in the first place. This is blatantly unfair.

  If we are going to have a system for planning appeals, let us have a fair system; one that keeps everyone properly informed and is impartial.  Make the appelant, rather than the coucil pay for any appeal, and thereby save tax-payer money at the same time.

  I was so disgusted and horrified at what happened to friend's homes and loved local buildings after the anonymous Inspector called, despite a 'no' vote by concillors to proposed building, I wondered why anyone would bother to vote in a local election! 

Why is this idea important?

Please look again at the Planning Appeals System located in Bristol. It may be good to have a system of appeal for any decision, but in building planning the appeals system is far too one sided.

  We have, and pay for, democratically elected councillors who know the local area and who are asked to make local judgements on whether new building-work should go ahead. Only the builder can use the Appeal System. If one person – the Inspector – says the building can go ahead, (even if all the coucillors object) that is the final decision: no appeals proceedure exists for those not wanting development.

  People not wanting building in their area may not even know that a developer has gone to appeal. They are merely told that the building-work will go ahead. The system tramples over peoples rights, local democracy and makes a mockery of why we pay for and support elected representitives.

  I know people who have had their homes and gardens spoiled and blighted by the decision of the Inspector; a government official who only sees one side because the system does not allow both sides equal appeals rights; a system where the the Inspector visits only the appelant, with the council planning officer who approved the building in the first place. This is blatantly unfair.

  If we are going to have a system for planning appeals, let us have a fair system; one that keeps everyone properly informed and is impartial.  Make the appelant, rather than the coucil pay for any appeal, and thereby save tax-payer money at the same time.

  I was so disgusted and horrified at what happened to friend's homes and loved local buildings after the anonymous Inspector called, despite a 'no' vote by concillors to proposed building, I wondered why anyone would bother to vote in a local election! 

Abolish chancel repair liability

Chancel repair liability is an ancient power that gives the Church of England the right to charge a resident for the upkeep of a church if their home is found to be on land that was formerly owned by the church.  Such charges may exceed the value of the land and home, and may also bankrupt the home owner.  I would like to see chancel repair liability abolished.

Why is this idea important?

Chancel repair liability is an ancient power that gives the Church of England the right to charge a resident for the upkeep of a church if their home is found to be on land that was formerly owned by the church.  Such charges may exceed the value of the land and home, and may also bankrupt the home owner.  I would like to see chancel repair liability abolished.

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

Why is this idea important?

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

Abolish LHA Direct Payments to Tenants

This regulation should be abolished as it costing the Government billions of wasted revenue.  LHA ruling is that the Housing Benefit money is paid direct and belongs to the tenant and it is then their responsibility to pay the landlord. However, in the last five years i would estimate that as a small business have lost over £30,000 revenue from non-paid rent, from tenants who have been in receipt of their housing benefit have choosen to spend it on non esstentials, recovering the spent money is impossible.  

Even more bizarre is that the tenant is allowed under LHA regulation to miss 2 monthly payments, 8 weeks arrears before LHA rules will consider paying the Landlord direct. This envitable leads the tenant into huge rent arrears and leaves the landlord no option but to serve notice and eventually evict the tenant.

 It is our experience, and many other landlords we speak to expereince that Housing Benefit officers often mis understand the LHA ruling and mis-manage governments money.  We have written on numerous times informing officers that we feel they should safeguard tenants HB and make a direct payment, but they ignore the regulations. 

 

Why is this idea important?

This regulation should be abolished as it costing the Government billions of wasted revenue.  LHA ruling is that the Housing Benefit money is paid direct and belongs to the tenant and it is then their responsibility to pay the landlord. However, in the last five years i would estimate that as a small business have lost over £30,000 revenue from non-paid rent, from tenants who have been in receipt of their housing benefit have choosen to spend it on non esstentials, recovering the spent money is impossible.  

Even more bizarre is that the tenant is allowed under LHA regulation to miss 2 monthly payments, 8 weeks arrears before LHA rules will consider paying the Landlord direct. This envitable leads the tenant into huge rent arrears and leaves the landlord no option but to serve notice and eventually evict the tenant.

 It is our experience, and many other landlords we speak to expereince that Housing Benefit officers often mis understand the LHA ruling and mis-manage governments money.  We have written on numerous times informing officers that we feel they should safeguard tenants HB and make a direct payment, but they ignore the regulations. 

 

Repeal support schemes housing developers

First time buyer schemes keep house prices artificially high. Developers within these schemes are not keeping prices inline with reality and are using deals such as 'HomeBuy Direct' to advertise these properties at attractive prices due to the equity stake provided by Government (which the potential purchaser has to pay back).

I am a first time buyer and this interferes with my ability to own a house outright – Government should stop these schemes and instead focus on ensuring that mortgages are available to first time buyers at reasonable cost for an affordable amount.

Support the buyer, not the developer.

Why is this idea important?

First time buyer schemes keep house prices artificially high. Developers within these schemes are not keeping prices inline with reality and are using deals such as 'HomeBuy Direct' to advertise these properties at attractive prices due to the equity stake provided by Government (which the potential purchaser has to pay back).

I am a first time buyer and this interferes with my ability to own a house outright – Government should stop these schemes and instead focus on ensuring that mortgages are available to first time buyers at reasonable cost for an affordable amount.

Support the buyer, not the developer.