Private Sector Tenants’ Rights: End 2 Month Notice Period

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Right to own property

So many young people cannot afford a property due to a culture of objection to new building, meanwhile older more affluent people and buy to letters have been buying up portfolios of houses driving costs up prohibitively and caused a pricing bubble that burst.

 

Lets build more houses.

 

Owning a property needs to become a right as it causes social damage (people living with people they don't want to for longer, not being able to start a family until later, stopping people from settling etc)

A step taxation system for 3rd property owners needs to be introduced to make each subsequent property that they own less profitable. 

Why is this idea important?

So many young people cannot afford a property due to a culture of objection to new building, meanwhile older more affluent people and buy to letters have been buying up portfolios of houses driving costs up prohibitively and caused a pricing bubble that burst.

 

Lets build more houses.

 

Owning a property needs to become a right as it causes social damage (people living with people they don't want to for longer, not being able to start a family until later, stopping people from settling etc)

A step taxation system for 3rd property owners needs to be introduced to make each subsequent property that they own less profitable. 

Remove Unnecessary Restrictions on Householders

The Government wants individuals to do more for themselves and be less dependent on the State. Householders should be encouraged to clear snow from outside their homes. It would mean they could do it as soon as the snow falls and prevent it becoming compacted and more treacherous. Councils cannot deal with snow clearance in the whole of their area and certainly not without significant delays. At present householders are discouraged from doing this as present regulations mean that any householder who has cleared snow can be sued if someone slips on that area. Councils should fund insurance to cover liability in these instances.

Why is this idea important?

The Government wants individuals to do more for themselves and be less dependent on the State. Householders should be encouraged to clear snow from outside their homes. It would mean they could do it as soon as the snow falls and prevent it becoming compacted and more treacherous. Councils cannot deal with snow clearance in the whole of their area and certainly not without significant delays. At present householders are discouraged from doing this as present regulations mean that any householder who has cleared snow can be sued if someone slips on that area. Councils should fund insurance to cover liability in these instances.

An “Engishman’s” (or anyone elses) home is his castle

It should not be possible for anyone to be criminalised for defending his home or property or person against anyone physically infringing on his personal or property rights. There is a fear that to fight back would result in a charge against the person whose rights were being violated, whereas the violater should, by reason of his action, automatically lose his.

Why is this idea important?

It should not be possible for anyone to be criminalised for defending his home or property or person against anyone physically infringing on his personal or property rights. There is a fear that to fight back would result in a charge against the person whose rights were being violated, whereas the violater should, by reason of his action, automatically lose his.

Equal rights for Newton St Loe

In Britain today, anyone who owns their house or flat on a long lease has the right to buy the freehold. Unless they live in Newton St Loe, a tiny village in Somerset. Why are these people discriminated against? Simply because their freeholder is the Duchy of Cornwall. It may seem too trivial to change a law that only affects a few people, but isn't it about time we showed that everyone is entitled to the same rights? Britain is not a feudal society. The Prince of Wales has no need of this special law to do his job. Equal rights for Newton St Loe!

Why is this idea important?

In Britain today, anyone who owns their house or flat on a long lease has the right to buy the freehold. Unless they live in Newton St Loe, a tiny village in Somerset. Why are these people discriminated against? Simply because their freeholder is the Duchy of Cornwall. It may seem too trivial to change a law that only affects a few people, but isn't it about time we showed that everyone is entitled to the same rights? Britain is not a feudal society. The Prince of Wales has no need of this special law to do his job. Equal rights for Newton St Loe!

Warrant cards only to be used by police and not planning officers or enforcement officers

Remove warrant cards from councils so that they cannot just turn up on your property  take photo's and leave with out giving a reason while nobody is present in the home. All planning departments to work to a set time scale and acknowledge a complaint with in a set time limit not 18 months later after the complaint is made and no notification to the person the complaint is about  until 18 months after the work has being completed.

Why is this idea important?

Remove warrant cards from councils so that they cannot just turn up on your property  take photo's and leave with out giving a reason while nobody is present in the home. All planning departments to work to a set time scale and acknowledge a complaint with in a set time limit not 18 months later after the complaint is made and no notification to the person the complaint is about  until 18 months after the work has being completed.

Remove the Green Belt restrictions

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.

Why is this idea important?

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.

Unfair shorthold tenancy agreements

Shorthold tenancies were supposed to aid both tenant and landlord. They do not. In the most important aspect of all, that of disclosure, they aid only the landlord.

Currently both parties sign a shorthold tenancy agreement. Once a tenant moves in, if the they discover something which makes living in the property unbearable, the tenant cannot move out without financial penalty unless they find a replacement tenant. This is wrong. There should be a one month cooling-off period where the tenant can leave the property without penalty (provided of course they have paid rent for the month) if they discover something which was not disclosed to them. Whether the landlord was aware or not. It is the landlords duty to ensure the property is habitable both physically and otherwise.

Why is this idea important?

Shorthold tenancies were supposed to aid both tenant and landlord. They do not. In the most important aspect of all, that of disclosure, they aid only the landlord.

Currently both parties sign a shorthold tenancy agreement. Once a tenant moves in, if the they discover something which makes living in the property unbearable, the tenant cannot move out without financial penalty unless they find a replacement tenant. This is wrong. There should be a one month cooling-off period where the tenant can leave the property without penalty (provided of course they have paid rent for the month) if they discover something which was not disclosed to them. Whether the landlord was aware or not. It is the landlords duty to ensure the property is habitable both physically and otherwise.

Remove the requirement to change use of property from C3 to C4.

From April 2010, anyone with a house which they wished to let to more than 3 unrelated people, had to change their planning from C3 to C4. What a way to kill the buy to let housing market!! Personally, its made moving to Leeds a nightmare as i want to share with friends and i'm sure that the same issue occurs all over the country! As a landlady myself, i'm reluctant to let to families, because i lose my right to lend to more than three unrelate people!

Why is this idea important?

From April 2010, anyone with a house which they wished to let to more than 3 unrelated people, had to change their planning from C3 to C4. What a way to kill the buy to let housing market!! Personally, its made moving to Leeds a nightmare as i want to share with friends and i'm sure that the same issue occurs all over the country! As a landlady myself, i'm reluctant to let to families, because i lose my right to lend to more than three unrelate people!

Repeal stamp duty on house purchases

What does the government give me for  my stamp duty? Most of us move residences out of necessity, either because our families have outgrown our current living conditions or because we need to relocate for work purposes (as suggested by the government!). Yet to perform this necessary action the government stings me, and seeing that it's hard to find a residence below £250k in many parts of the country, one has to find at least £7.5k to simply hand over to the chancellor. The lost revenue can be recovered more fairly, and uniformly, either through VAT and/or income tax.

Why is this idea important?

What does the government give me for  my stamp duty? Most of us move residences out of necessity, either because our families have outgrown our current living conditions or because we need to relocate for work purposes (as suggested by the government!). Yet to perform this necessary action the government stings me, and seeing that it's hard to find a residence below £250k in many parts of the country, one has to find at least £7.5k to simply hand over to the chancellor. The lost revenue can be recovered more fairly, and uniformly, either through VAT and/or income tax.

Reduce Planning Permission Bureaucracy & Restrictions

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Why is this idea important?

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Repeal Squatters rights NOW!

Many citizens spend most of their working life paying their mortgage down and lots of HMG taxes only to find that very little protection exists whenever anybody decides to access your home, usually by breaking in and then making repairs then change the locks and then deny any forced entry, only to find that our 'so called police' stand well back and quote 'this is a civil issue' not a police matter.  Squatters rights must be repealled forthwith to ensure a fair balance between working and blatant theft. The home owner has to stand by whilst their home is systematically destroyed whilst waiting months for a court order to evict squatters.  Come on Britain!  an Englishmans home is supposed to be his castle not a free for all.

Bigace49

Why is this idea important?

Many citizens spend most of their working life paying their mortgage down and lots of HMG taxes only to find that very little protection exists whenever anybody decides to access your home, usually by breaking in and then making repairs then change the locks and then deny any forced entry, only to find that our 'so called police' stand well back and quote 'this is a civil issue' not a police matter.  Squatters rights must be repealled forthwith to ensure a fair balance between working and blatant theft. The home owner has to stand by whilst their home is systematically destroyed whilst waiting months for a court order to evict squatters.  Come on Britain!  an Englishmans home is supposed to be his castle not a free for all.

Bigace49

Remove the “Right to Life” Tenancy Agreements for ALL Current Social Housing Tenants NOW

I am very concerned about the lack of  Social Housing in this country and the continued blight of Homelessness and the increasing number people waiting on the Council's Social Housing Waiting Lits.

The facts are these:  TODAY there are a considerable number of people currently living in Social Housing and Council owned property who have had a considerable change in both their Personal and Financial Circumstances since they were first allocated their Social Housing Property/Council Home many years previously.  Indeed if these CURRENT tenants were to NOW apply for a Social Housing property their application would be automatically rejected as they cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be classified as being in real financial need due to the fact that they either have enough money to buy their own private property  (or at least apply for a Mortgage or apply under the Part Own/Part Rent scheme)  or – and for me this is the most sickening thing of all – after many years in their social housing propety they have now actually become Private Property Owners themselves, whether in the UK,  abroad or sometimes even both. This is simply SCANDALOUS and an insult to all the Homesless people in the UK and those people who have been waiting to be rehoused for a considerable number of years.

From my own investigations I have discovered that there are some social tenants who are living in Housing Association or Council-owned property WHILE acting as Landlords themselves for properties that they, rather than a private tenant, could be living in instead.  While others only use their Social Housing home as a "London Base", which means that it is empty most of the time, while the rest of the time they live in their second, privately owned home in the country or abroad. 

I think it is SCANDALOUS that Social Housing Tenants can also be Landlords for other properties that they own.  I also think it is SCANDALOUS that people can REMAIN Social Housing and Council House Tenants even though they have other privately ownded property both in the UK and Abroad.  Meanwhile Homeslessness among really Vulnerable people is on the increase and not enough new social housing projects are being built.

These people have slipped through the net because they are not being actually committing any fraud.  What they are doing isn't illegal under their current tenancy agreement.  However I believe that it is morally wrong that such people can continue to benefit from a system that was set up to help people in genuine need and also to address Homeslessness and also the Housing waiting list.

In order to ensure that Social Housing is allocated to those in REAL NEED NOW and to ensure that Current Tenant STILL fulfil the Needs and Points system criteria of today, I believe that there needs to be a Task Force set up.  This Task Force, jointly run by the Councils and the Housing Association,  should now REVIEW the Financial and Personal circumstances of all their  CURRENT Social Housing/Council Housing Tenantsay in order to check whether they would still be eligible to remain in Social Housing today. .

In future this Review should then be undertaken every 20 years for ,ALL e Social Housing and Local Council Tenant should be reinterviewed after at 20 years occupancy.  I also think that the "Right to Inherit" should also be removed UNLESS the person or persons hoping to inherit would actually be able to justify this because of a real Need, have qualified under the Points system AND, more importantly, they do not own other property or are not in a financial position to buy property. 

PLEASE NOTE: if it is revealed that the current Tenant/s of a Social Housing or Council Housing property does NOT actually own another private property themselves BUT their financial circumstances have changed quite considerably that they now are more financially secure and thus in a position to purchase a property, or at least apply for a mortgage, I think that the Government should consider giving these Tenants a choice: either apply for the Right to Buy their current social housing property (whether outright or under the Part Buy, Part Rent scheme) or RETURN THE KEYS and buy their own property.  The proceeds of any Sale, or part buy, of such Social Housing and Council properties could them be pumped back into Local Government so that New Social Housing Home can be built. 

Giving Current Tenants a Right to Buy would also boast the housing market by getting alot of First Time Buyers on the housing ladder.  However Tax Breaks and Incentives should be given to such Tenants so as to encourage them to lmake this step.

Sorry this is so long.  I feel so passionately about this subject.  I am myself a Social Housing Tenant and Homelessness, and the long waiting list for people waiting to be rehoused, troubles me deeply and I just want to do something about it. 

Why is this idea important?

I am very concerned about the lack of  Social Housing in this country and the continued blight of Homelessness and the increasing number people waiting on the Council's Social Housing Waiting Lits.

The facts are these:  TODAY there are a considerable number of people currently living in Social Housing and Council owned property who have had a considerable change in both their Personal and Financial Circumstances since they were first allocated their Social Housing Property/Council Home many years previously.  Indeed if these CURRENT tenants were to NOW apply for a Social Housing property their application would be automatically rejected as they cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be classified as being in real financial need due to the fact that they either have enough money to buy their own private property  (or at least apply for a Mortgage or apply under the Part Own/Part Rent scheme)  or – and for me this is the most sickening thing of all – after many years in their social housing propety they have now actually become Private Property Owners themselves, whether in the UK,  abroad or sometimes even both. This is simply SCANDALOUS and an insult to all the Homesless people in the UK and those people who have been waiting to be rehoused for a considerable number of years.

From my own investigations I have discovered that there are some social tenants who are living in Housing Association or Council-owned property WHILE acting as Landlords themselves for properties that they, rather than a private tenant, could be living in instead.  While others only use their Social Housing home as a "London Base", which means that it is empty most of the time, while the rest of the time they live in their second, privately owned home in the country or abroad. 

I think it is SCANDALOUS that Social Housing Tenants can also be Landlords for other properties that they own.  I also think it is SCANDALOUS that people can REMAIN Social Housing and Council House Tenants even though they have other privately ownded property both in the UK and Abroad.  Meanwhile Homeslessness among really Vulnerable people is on the increase and not enough new social housing projects are being built.

These people have slipped through the net because they are not being actually committing any fraud.  What they are doing isn't illegal under their current tenancy agreement.  However I believe that it is morally wrong that such people can continue to benefit from a system that was set up to help people in genuine need and also to address Homeslessness and also the Housing waiting list.

In order to ensure that Social Housing is allocated to those in REAL NEED NOW and to ensure that Current Tenant STILL fulfil the Needs and Points system criteria of today, I believe that there needs to be a Task Force set up.  This Task Force, jointly run by the Councils and the Housing Association,  should now REVIEW the Financial and Personal circumstances of all their  CURRENT Social Housing/Council Housing Tenantsay in order to check whether they would still be eligible to remain in Social Housing today. .

In future this Review should then be undertaken every 20 years for ,ALL e Social Housing and Local Council Tenant should be reinterviewed after at 20 years occupancy.  I also think that the "Right to Inherit" should also be removed UNLESS the person or persons hoping to inherit would actually be able to justify this because of a real Need, have qualified under the Points system AND, more importantly, they do not own other property or are not in a financial position to buy property. 

PLEASE NOTE: if it is revealed that the current Tenant/s of a Social Housing or Council Housing property does NOT actually own another private property themselves BUT their financial circumstances have changed quite considerably that they now are more financially secure and thus in a position to purchase a property, or at least apply for a mortgage, I think that the Government should consider giving these Tenants a choice: either apply for the Right to Buy their current social housing property (whether outright or under the Part Buy, Part Rent scheme) or RETURN THE KEYS and buy their own property.  The proceeds of any Sale, or part buy, of such Social Housing and Council properties could them be pumped back into Local Government so that New Social Housing Home can be built. 

Giving Current Tenants a Right to Buy would also boast the housing market by getting alot of First Time Buyers on the housing ladder.  However Tax Breaks and Incentives should be given to such Tenants so as to encourage them to lmake this step.

Sorry this is so long.  I feel so passionately about this subject.  I am myself a Social Housing Tenant and Homelessness, and the long waiting list for people waiting to be rehoused, troubles me deeply and I just want to do something about it. 

Bureaucracy in the planning system

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

First time buyers

Young people are paying high rents ,when they could be paying less if it were going towards a mortgage instead!

My son has to pay £700.00 for private rented accommodation when it could be paying off a mortgage, but he can not do this due to the huge deposit needed to get on the housing ladder.

My idea would be for the government to lend them the money with interest payable,so that they would have an affordable home  and the government could use that money to build more affordable homes for young people.

In effect the mortgage lender would be the government which would generate more money for housing   and also generate more jobs for the people by way of building more affordable homes.

Why is this idea important?

Young people are paying high rents ,when they could be paying less if it were going towards a mortgage instead!

My son has to pay £700.00 for private rented accommodation when it could be paying off a mortgage, but he can not do this due to the huge deposit needed to get on the housing ladder.

My idea would be for the government to lend them the money with interest payable,so that they would have an affordable home  and the government could use that money to build more affordable homes for young people.

In effect the mortgage lender would be the government which would generate more money for housing   and also generate more jobs for the people by way of building more affordable homes.

Replace the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) and Forfeiture

I posted elsewhere on this web about my personal experience of property managers sending false accounts, refusing to produce accounts compliant with s21 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (prosecuting body local councils have only a discretion to intervene) and disregarding County Court Orders regarding repairs and accounts with total impunity.   If you look at the website for CARL and for SELCHA – two grass roots organisations of victims of rogue property managers/freeholders you will see that there is a massive problem in the South East and probably throughout UK with freeholders and their agents sending false accounts (police wont prosecute) and misappropriating service charge funds and pocketting the difference between actual expenditure and stated expenditure (sometimes 1000% – one thousand percent – markup).    In 1985 Parliament passed legislation to help the flat-owners, presumably acknowledging problems accessing county court for breach of covenant it gave local authorities powers.   Parliament also acknowledged the problem when creating the LVT, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which has the power to remove a rogue property manager and to check the service charges.  Sadly the LVT has earned itself a reputation for being corrupt, and I can happily give details of evidence of this should you like.    CARL and SELCHA may also display details on their websites.  They suggest the LVT be replaced by a housing ombudsman.     I dont know how much the LVT costs the taxpayer, how much its adjudicators cost, but they should return the money because the are not discharging their duties and constistently disregarding Article 8. As they are a 'poor man's court' they know few can mount a Judicial Review or appeal to the Lands Tribunal.  The LVT is taking taxpayers money and not discharging its duties as set out in the Human Rights Act (I can give full details if asked).    

The problem seems to arise from the principle of Forfeiture which arises from The Law of Property Act 1925 (I think it may be section 146).  Forfeiture is almost uniquely English it is not known in Europe or in most other countries.   Forfeiture is where a freeholder/landlord can take someone's flat (home) from them without paying them a penny in compensation.   Most people who purchase their flats obtain a mortgage and pay it off over 25 years, making sacrificest o own their own home.   If the have paid £120,000 for their flat and they do not pay their £5 ground rent (or their freeholder denies receiving it) the freeholder can then simply change the locks and take this person's home for themselves, and not have to pay a penny.  He can then sell it for £120,000 and not pay the homeowner a penny.  This gives an incentive to villans to become freeholders/property managers and target people in their homes with false accounts, threatening forfeiture if they are not paid within 7days.  Sometimes the freeholders come across someone like me who queries their accounts but usually people pay up or get out quickly before they cannot leave. 

If s146 Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed, then it would bring us in line with most other countries, and it would not make it so easy and lucrative for freeholders to send false accounts.   

If the LVT was replaced with a  bona fide institution that would save the taxpayer loads of money and help homeowners as at the moment rogue freeholders boast about how bias the LVT is and how it is pointless going there as it will only cost the homeowner money and they wont get a fair hearing, so they may as well pay the false accounts as its cheaper.

Please help – pleae look at CARL's website and that of SELCHA.

 

Why is this idea important?

I posted elsewhere on this web about my personal experience of property managers sending false accounts, refusing to produce accounts compliant with s21 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (prosecuting body local councils have only a discretion to intervene) and disregarding County Court Orders regarding repairs and accounts with total impunity.   If you look at the website for CARL and for SELCHA – two grass roots organisations of victims of rogue property managers/freeholders you will see that there is a massive problem in the South East and probably throughout UK with freeholders and their agents sending false accounts (police wont prosecute) and misappropriating service charge funds and pocketting the difference between actual expenditure and stated expenditure (sometimes 1000% – one thousand percent – markup).    In 1985 Parliament passed legislation to help the flat-owners, presumably acknowledging problems accessing county court for breach of covenant it gave local authorities powers.   Parliament also acknowledged the problem when creating the LVT, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which has the power to remove a rogue property manager and to check the service charges.  Sadly the LVT has earned itself a reputation for being corrupt, and I can happily give details of evidence of this should you like.    CARL and SELCHA may also display details on their websites.  They suggest the LVT be replaced by a housing ombudsman.     I dont know how much the LVT costs the taxpayer, how much its adjudicators cost, but they should return the money because the are not discharging their duties and constistently disregarding Article 8. As they are a 'poor man's court' they know few can mount a Judicial Review or appeal to the Lands Tribunal.  The LVT is taking taxpayers money and not discharging its duties as set out in the Human Rights Act (I can give full details if asked).    

The problem seems to arise from the principle of Forfeiture which arises from The Law of Property Act 1925 (I think it may be section 146).  Forfeiture is almost uniquely English it is not known in Europe or in most other countries.   Forfeiture is where a freeholder/landlord can take someone's flat (home) from them without paying them a penny in compensation.   Most people who purchase their flats obtain a mortgage and pay it off over 25 years, making sacrificest o own their own home.   If the have paid £120,000 for their flat and they do not pay their £5 ground rent (or their freeholder denies receiving it) the freeholder can then simply change the locks and take this person's home for themselves, and not have to pay a penny.  He can then sell it for £120,000 and not pay the homeowner a penny.  This gives an incentive to villans to become freeholders/property managers and target people in their homes with false accounts, threatening forfeiture if they are not paid within 7days.  Sometimes the freeholders come across someone like me who queries their accounts but usually people pay up or get out quickly before they cannot leave. 

If s146 Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed, then it would bring us in line with most other countries, and it would not make it so easy and lucrative for freeholders to send false accounts.   

If the LVT was replaced with a  bona fide institution that would save the taxpayer loads of money and help homeowners as at the moment rogue freeholders boast about how bias the LVT is and how it is pointless going there as it will only cost the homeowner money and they wont get a fair hearing, so they may as well pay the false accounts as its cheaper.

Please help – pleae look at CARL's website and that of SELCHA.

 

CLARIFY HOUSEHOLDER PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: the planning permission you’ve already got.

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.

Why is this idea important?

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

amend bat protection laws

domestic homes were originally excluded from  wildlife protection laws preventing renovation work on any building where bats may have ever been present, However domestic residences were recently included.

This is very onerous, and can prevent home owners living in the country from carrying out basic repairs, maintenance and modernisation of  their homes. It also involves them in bills amounting to potentially tens of thousands of pounds.

The law requires ecologists to be employed who often charge hundreds of pounds an hour to  draw up mitigation. If the home owner attempts to draw mitigation themselves, it is refused.

The law seems more designed to protect ecologists' professional fees than protect bats.

Many experts believe it is not working as intended where ordinary home owners are concerned, who are being treated most unfairly

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

domestic homes were originally excluded from  wildlife protection laws preventing renovation work on any building where bats may have ever been present, However domestic residences were recently included.

This is very onerous, and can prevent home owners living in the country from carrying out basic repairs, maintenance and modernisation of  their homes. It also involves them in bills amounting to potentially tens of thousands of pounds.

The law requires ecologists to be employed who often charge hundreds of pounds an hour to  draw up mitigation. If the home owner attempts to draw mitigation themselves, it is refused.

The law seems more designed to protect ecologists' professional fees than protect bats.

Many experts believe it is not working as intended where ordinary home owners are concerned, who are being treated most unfairly

 

 

 

Repeal the Housing Act 1988

To abolish Schedule II of the Housing Act of 1988 where a court is required by virtue of the mandatory nature of schedule II to order possession of a property in favour of a landlord seeking possession with the aim to evict and permanently displace the tenant irrespective whether the tenant is disabled or vulneralbe.

To abolish the social housing regime and  close down registered social landlords as they are an impediment to the progress of 5 million people in England and Wales held hostage in social housing and preemptively arrested in development.

To abolish the 'one' and 'only' / principle home policy so to enable social housing tenants to live in and/or own several properties if they so wish to do so.

Why is this idea important?

To abolish Schedule II of the Housing Act of 1988 where a court is required by virtue of the mandatory nature of schedule II to order possession of a property in favour of a landlord seeking possession with the aim to evict and permanently displace the tenant irrespective whether the tenant is disabled or vulneralbe.

To abolish the social housing regime and  close down registered social landlords as they are an impediment to the progress of 5 million people in England and Wales held hostage in social housing and preemptively arrested in development.

To abolish the 'one' and 'only' / principle home policy so to enable social housing tenants to live in and/or own several properties if they so wish to do so.

Compulsory micro-generation for new detached homes.

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.

Why is this idea important?

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.