Restore fairness to housing lists by eliminating corruption and abuse.

Rigourous independant checks are required of council workers and council waiting lists along with introduction of regular re-visitation of personal circumstances of those afforded such accomodation to prevent systemic abuse of the housing system.

Why is this idea important?

Rigourous independant checks are required of council workers and council waiting lists along with introduction of regular re-visitation of personal circumstances of those afforded such accomodation to prevent systemic abuse of the housing system.

Abolish the regulation that prevents councils paying Housing Benefit directly to private landlords

The last Government prevented council paying housing benefits directly to private landlords even if the tenant wanted that. The result is that many landlords are not getting the rent because some tenants are dishonest or just unable to handle money correctly. Worse still, the benefits have to be paid into a bank account and are then snatched by the greedy banks claiming "charges" and "arrears."

This regulation was supposed to be applied to housing associations and councils as well, but they rebelled fearing massive extra arrears and costs.

It is not only landlords that suffer but also tenants who are evicted for arrears. Let the tenants choose if they want to have benefits paid directly to landlords. It gives most of them peace of mind.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The last Government prevented council paying housing benefits directly to private landlords even if the tenant wanted that. The result is that many landlords are not getting the rent because some tenants are dishonest or just unable to handle money correctly. Worse still, the benefits have to be paid into a bank account and are then snatched by the greedy banks claiming "charges" and "arrears."

This regulation was supposed to be applied to housing associations and councils as well, but they rebelled fearing massive extra arrears and costs.

It is not only landlords that suffer but also tenants who are evicted for arrears. Let the tenants choose if they want to have benefits paid directly to landlords. It gives most of them peace of mind.

 

 

Home ownership potential = multiple benefits

The biggest threat to home ownership is high quantity investors. People must not be allowed to generate huge profits at the exclusion of those who need the commodity in question, in this case homes.

Increasing the level of stamp duty in a progressive manner according to the total value of all properties owned would help to resolve this. It would also encourage investors to stop 'investing' at a lower level than they otherwise would.

Additionally, what about charging landlords an additional landlord tax? Naturally this will be passed on to tenants, but it could be used to support single ownership buyers, so will make buying a home cheaper. And we all know that home ownership has multiple benefits, including better appreciation and responsibility of ones surroundings, so it could lead to lower crime and better social responsibility.

Why is this idea important?

The biggest threat to home ownership is high quantity investors. People must not be allowed to generate huge profits at the exclusion of those who need the commodity in question, in this case homes.

Increasing the level of stamp duty in a progressive manner according to the total value of all properties owned would help to resolve this. It would also encourage investors to stop 'investing' at a lower level than they otherwise would.

Additionally, what about charging landlords an additional landlord tax? Naturally this will be passed on to tenants, but it could be used to support single ownership buyers, so will make buying a home cheaper. And we all know that home ownership has multiple benefits, including better appreciation and responsibility of ones surroundings, so it could lead to lower crime and better social responsibility.

Letwise City Council (Housing)

Why is it that, when you let out your property to Letwise ie City Council, all prevlance is given to the tennant instead of the Landlord who after all is letting out their property to tennants that might never have had the chance to move to a lovely area, or would never have got the chance to live in a beautiful house with a garden, and a chance for their kids to go to a good school. Instead Letwise and the City Council with the help of Labour who gave tennants the right to pay rent to the landlords bank account, Also if the house is not up to standard then the tennant can inform Environmental Health about the standard of the property, even though the tennant might have caused damage. Then the landlord is told by Letwise that there is £500.00 bond that can be claimed after the tennant leaves the property. What good is that for the Landlord, even if  the Lanlord tries to evict the tennant after damaging the property it will still take 2 months, and even if they dont leave you might still need to go to court. Please change this bombastic law made by Labour and give Landlords the right to have some control of their homes.

Why is this idea important?

Why is it that, when you let out your property to Letwise ie City Council, all prevlance is given to the tennant instead of the Landlord who after all is letting out their property to tennants that might never have had the chance to move to a lovely area, or would never have got the chance to live in a beautiful house with a garden, and a chance for their kids to go to a good school. Instead Letwise and the City Council with the help of Labour who gave tennants the right to pay rent to the landlords bank account, Also if the house is not up to standard then the tennant can inform Environmental Health about the standard of the property, even though the tennant might have caused damage. Then the landlord is told by Letwise that there is £500.00 bond that can be claimed after the tennant leaves the property. What good is that for the Landlord, even if  the Lanlord tries to evict the tennant after damaging the property it will still take 2 months, and even if they dont leave you might still need to go to court. Please change this bombastic law made by Labour and give Landlords the right to have some control of their homes.

Affordable Housing

Like all local council services, affordable housing is anathema to Conservative ideology, whether it is good or bad, council services must go and be replaced by the private sector.  Council services themselves are viewed as second rate public sector services behind nursing, teaching, the armed forces etc and therefore, when faced with the average 25% cut, council services and in particluar those such as affordable housing will face significantly higher cuts.  Is this right?  Do councils do a bad job? Can society exist without good quality affordable housing?  Can the private scetor deliver?  The answer all these have in common is No.  Without good quality affordable housing, the economy cannot function and history tells us that cutting expenditure in this sector wil have dire consequences for affordability and therefore on productivity.  What is needed?  Well, I for one as a housing professional believe the Labour Government had it right (and by the way I did not vote Labour in the General Election).  You need regional planning with tragets that councils, housing associations and the private sector can achieve.  Without such a framework you have chaos and NIMBYism abound.  In other words nothing will get done.  Added to this a cut from the budget of 40%, a reduction in HB and threats of reducing benefit even though the jobs will not be available, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

When did the public sector become the enemy?  The world is coming out of a banking induced recession one in which the public sector played no part.  The UK was at the forefront of the global economic recovery with the majority (yes THE majority) of economists praising the former Prime Minister.  The UK debt was built up bailing out the banks and sustaining ecomionc growth.  All statistics show this to have been the right thing, with current debt lower than forecast and falling faster, unemployment falling, the economy improving ~ and all under Labour's watch.  Cut, cut, cut, the mantra of the coalition will result in hundreds of thousands more unemployed ~ its no wonder VAT has been increased as this hits everyone even the unemployed, while to raise Income Tax (the most progressive and cheapes form of tax) would result in falling revenue as unemployment rises. 

 

My solution?  Fairly basic and obvious really.  The Lib Dems should cut and run before it is too late.  It probably already is, but you may just be in time.  Force another general election and let the people decide.  The current agenda is not what anyone in this country voted for regardless of whether they are on the right, left or centre of politics!    

Why is this idea important?

Like all local council services, affordable housing is anathema to Conservative ideology, whether it is good or bad, council services must go and be replaced by the private sector.  Council services themselves are viewed as second rate public sector services behind nursing, teaching, the armed forces etc and therefore, when faced with the average 25% cut, council services and in particluar those such as affordable housing will face significantly higher cuts.  Is this right?  Do councils do a bad job? Can society exist without good quality affordable housing?  Can the private scetor deliver?  The answer all these have in common is No.  Without good quality affordable housing, the economy cannot function and history tells us that cutting expenditure in this sector wil have dire consequences for affordability and therefore on productivity.  What is needed?  Well, I for one as a housing professional believe the Labour Government had it right (and by the way I did not vote Labour in the General Election).  You need regional planning with tragets that councils, housing associations and the private sector can achieve.  Without such a framework you have chaos and NIMBYism abound.  In other words nothing will get done.  Added to this a cut from the budget of 40%, a reduction in HB and threats of reducing benefit even though the jobs will not be available, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

When did the public sector become the enemy?  The world is coming out of a banking induced recession one in which the public sector played no part.  The UK was at the forefront of the global economic recovery with the majority (yes THE majority) of economists praising the former Prime Minister.  The UK debt was built up bailing out the banks and sustaining ecomionc growth.  All statistics show this to have been the right thing, with current debt lower than forecast and falling faster, unemployment falling, the economy improving ~ and all under Labour's watch.  Cut, cut, cut, the mantra of the coalition will result in hundreds of thousands more unemployed ~ its no wonder VAT has been increased as this hits everyone even the unemployed, while to raise Income Tax (the most progressive and cheapes form of tax) would result in falling revenue as unemployment rises. 

 

My solution?  Fairly basic and obvious really.  The Lib Dems should cut and run before it is too late.  It probably already is, but you may just be in time.  Force another general election and let the people decide.  The current agenda is not what anyone in this country voted for regardless of whether they are on the right, left or centre of politics!    

Cut planning and conservation rules

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Why is this idea important?

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Maintenance of Common Areas in Blocks of Flats

Landlords should have more power to compel tenants to maintain their properties (and vice versa) – particularly for common areas in blocks of flats. The law in this area is weak and ought to be strengthened.

Why is this idea important?

Landlords should have more power to compel tenants to maintain their properties (and vice versa) – particularly for common areas in blocks of flats. The law in this area is weak and ought to be strengthened.

Housing in the UK is a disgrace FIX IT

Give folk the opportunity to rent or buy an affordable home by firstly BUILD new homes then REGULATE ALL RENTS EVERYWHERE to protect folk from ripoffs in the rented market.

Why is this idea important?

Give folk the opportunity to rent or buy an affordable home by firstly BUILD new homes then REGULATE ALL RENTS EVERYWHERE to protect folk from ripoffs in the rented market.

Reduce Planning Bureaucracy

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

Why is this idea important?

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

PLANNING LAWS TO BE MORE PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

Why is this idea important?

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

Allowing low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Allow low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Window Scrappage Scheme – Housing Association Share

I am a shared owner (50%) of a flat with Thames Valley Charitable Housing Association.  If I have the money to purchase the whole property, I would not opt for this scheme.   

Shared owners pay monthly rent to Housing Associations and owned a percentage of their properties.  Now, with the window scrappage scheme, the Housing Association is leaving to us to bear up the cost of changing the windows.  Is there a law on housing associations operations – shared costs in improvement to go along with the government's energy saving plans – subsidy of £2,500?  Housing Associations should maintain the building including windows – consider extermal parts of a property.  It is unfair when the Housing Associations are not paying full or part of the costs.  They have the priority to sell the property when we give up anytime before we can purchase 100% of the property.

Why is this idea important?

I am a shared owner (50%) of a flat with Thames Valley Charitable Housing Association.  If I have the money to purchase the whole property, I would not opt for this scheme.   

Shared owners pay monthly rent to Housing Associations and owned a percentage of their properties.  Now, with the window scrappage scheme, the Housing Association is leaving to us to bear up the cost of changing the windows.  Is there a law on housing associations operations – shared costs in improvement to go along with the government's energy saving plans – subsidy of £2,500?  Housing Associations should maintain the building including windows – consider extermal parts of a property.  It is unfair when the Housing Associations are not paying full or part of the costs.  They have the priority to sell the property when we give up anytime before we can purchase 100% of the property.

Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Why is this idea important?

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Central Heating boilers

Thanks to the previous government, all new boilers fitted in the UK now have to be energy-efficient condensing boilers.

Since this came into effect I have noticed the following drawbacks raised by people getting new boilers via various messageboards & news comment websites.

 

  • Quotes of between £1200 to £5000 to fit the new boilers, depending on how much work needs to be done.
  • The new design boilers required by law only last 8yrs compared to around 25yrs for a conventional boiler.
  • At least one report seen in the comments section of a news website of someone not being able to use their Central Heating for several days during the extreme winter of 2009/2010 because the outlet pipe for their condensing boiler had frozen up (defeats the point of having a boiler somewhat I'd say).
  • Another report I heard involved a couple in London losing the use of the food cupboard in their already cramped kitchen because that's where their social housing landlord wanted to stick their new boiler.

Why is this idea important?

Thanks to the previous government, all new boilers fitted in the UK now have to be energy-efficient condensing boilers.

Since this came into effect I have noticed the following drawbacks raised by people getting new boilers via various messageboards & news comment websites.

 

  • Quotes of between £1200 to £5000 to fit the new boilers, depending on how much work needs to be done.
  • The new design boilers required by law only last 8yrs compared to around 25yrs for a conventional boiler.
  • At least one report seen in the comments section of a news website of someone not being able to use their Central Heating for several days during the extreme winter of 2009/2010 because the outlet pipe for their condensing boiler had frozen up (defeats the point of having a boiler somewhat I'd say).
  • Another report I heard involved a couple in London losing the use of the food cupboard in their already cramped kitchen because that's where their social housing landlord wanted to stick their new boiler.

Remove the restriction barring Objectors from appealing a Planning decision.

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Why is this idea important?

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Make it easier to get rid of bad tenants

The laws in this country make it incredibly difficult and expensive to get rid of tenants who won't pay or trash a landlord's property.  Whilst tenants should, of course, be protected the current laws are far too restrictive and need to be modified to be fairer to landlords.

Why is this idea important?

The laws in this country make it incredibly difficult and expensive to get rid of tenants who won't pay or trash a landlord's property.  Whilst tenants should, of course, be protected the current laws are far too restrictive and need to be modified to be fairer to landlords.

Reduce and simplify Planning Laws and |Regulations

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Replace Planning Permission with Zoning

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

Abuse by long leaseholders of domestic property

Many people own their homes on 999 year leases. They pay a small annual rent and the leaseholder has a technical interest in the land because the land will eventually be returned to him. The home owner is legally a tennant.

Increasingly leaseholders are coming up with ways of generating income at the expense of home owners. They ask to be told when property insurance is moved to a new insurer and charge an administration fee. They also get involved when property extensions are proposed and again charge a fee to review the plans.

The leaseholder has no realistic expectation of ever gaining a full interest in the house or other structures on the land. I would like to see a law passed to prevent landlords having any right to be consulted over matters such as insurance and extensions where a lease has more than 100 years to run.

There is a further measure I would like to see implemented in this area.  Where a property is long leasehold or subject to a chief rent or the like, I would like to see homeowners having a right to purchase the freehold free from any fetter for a fixed fee equivalent to 10 years rental. Again, this right should only exist in the case of a lease where that lease has at least 100 years to run. This right should be capable of being exercised without legal costs by the use of govenment generated documents made available on a website.

Why is this idea important?

Many people own their homes on 999 year leases. They pay a small annual rent and the leaseholder has a technical interest in the land because the land will eventually be returned to him. The home owner is legally a tennant.

Increasingly leaseholders are coming up with ways of generating income at the expense of home owners. They ask to be told when property insurance is moved to a new insurer and charge an administration fee. They also get involved when property extensions are proposed and again charge a fee to review the plans.

The leaseholder has no realistic expectation of ever gaining a full interest in the house or other structures on the land. I would like to see a law passed to prevent landlords having any right to be consulted over matters such as insurance and extensions where a lease has more than 100 years to run.

There is a further measure I would like to see implemented in this area.  Where a property is long leasehold or subject to a chief rent or the like, I would like to see homeowners having a right to purchase the freehold free from any fetter for a fixed fee equivalent to 10 years rental. Again, this right should only exist in the case of a lease where that lease has at least 100 years to run. This right should be capable of being exercised without legal costs by the use of govenment generated documents made available on a website.

Housing, Benefits & Jobs

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Why is this idea important?

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Abolish introductory and demoted tenancies

Introductory and demoted tenancies are two species of tenancies granted by local housing authorities to their tenants under the Housing Act 1996. They should be abolished in order to simplify the law and so make it easier to manage local authority housing stock.

Why is this idea important?

Introductory and demoted tenancies are two species of tenancies granted by local housing authorities to their tenants under the Housing Act 1996. They should be abolished in order to simplify the law and so make it easier to manage local authority housing stock.