Repeal the requirement for landlords to have energy rating certificates

Energy rating certificates for housing are pointless.  Noone would change their view as to whether they would either buy or let a property on the basis of the score in the certificate.  It's bad enough that vendors of properties have to provide (and pay for) these useless pieces of paper, but it is truly absurd that landlords have to pay for them as well.  As if any tenant would ever take account of what it says in this report. 

Why is this idea important?

Energy rating certificates for housing are pointless.  Noone would change their view as to whether they would either buy or let a property on the basis of the score in the certificate.  It's bad enough that vendors of properties have to provide (and pay for) these useless pieces of paper, but it is truly absurd that landlords have to pay for them as well.  As if any tenant would ever take account of what it says in this report. 

Freeholders submitting annual reports to Companies House

I live in a Victorian House that has been converted into two flats. We are the owners of the upstairs flat and the neighbours below are the owners of their flat. Together we are, at least in law, all directors of a company that goes by the name of our address. We carry out no trade from these two private dwellings. We share the costs of mutually beneficial work, e.g. getting the outside of the house painted. There are no rents or service charges involved.

Each year we have to file an annual report to Companies House but we have no idea why. Surely no one in Companies House is interested in what we do with the fabric of the property that houses the two flats? Filing these reports costs £30 (or £15 if done online). Presumably this is in part to pay for the officials in Companies House who process our paperwork.

Could the idea that these private, residential properties are companies be scrapped? This would save us some money and time and, if there are many in our situation, create some savings for Companies House.

Why is this idea important?

I live in a Victorian House that has been converted into two flats. We are the owners of the upstairs flat and the neighbours below are the owners of their flat. Together we are, at least in law, all directors of a company that goes by the name of our address. We carry out no trade from these two private dwellings. We share the costs of mutually beneficial work, e.g. getting the outside of the house painted. There are no rents or service charges involved.

Each year we have to file an annual report to Companies House but we have no idea why. Surely no one in Companies House is interested in what we do with the fabric of the property that houses the two flats? Filing these reports costs £30 (or £15 if done online). Presumably this is in part to pay for the officials in Companies House who process our paperwork.

Could the idea that these private, residential properties are companies be scrapped? This would save us some money and time and, if there are many in our situation, create some savings for Companies House.

Allow freedom to build without planning permission outside green belts

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

Why is this idea important?

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

Change Laws Concerning Multiple Occupancy.

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

Abolish law which protects squatters

Owners of property should have the right to call in police to eject squatters as soon as they are discovered.

If you are trespassing on someone elses property it is completely illogical that you can invoke squatter's rights

Why is this idea important?

Owners of property should have the right to call in police to eject squatters as soon as they are discovered.

If you are trespassing on someone elses property it is completely illogical that you can invoke squatter's rights

Avoid estate agents, sell your own home

 

Currently in the UK if a person wants to set up a company to enable individuals to sell their properties online, and then provides those individuals with a 'for sale' board, the company would be classified as an estate agent.

Under section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979,  you are an estate agent if you:

  1. for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to acquire or, as the case may be, dispose of such an interest; and
  2. after such an introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the disposal or, as the case may be, the acquisition of that interest;

Due to an exemption clause this Act does not apply to the publication of advertisements or the dissemination of information (e.g a newspaper), but because the company provides a ‘for sale’ board it is seen as an ‘introduction’ therefore the Estate Agents Act 1979 and Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 apply.

 

As an estate agent you are bound by the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, where you can not ‘make false or misleading statements about specified matters relating to property’, therefore before a property could be entered on your website you would have to verify all its particulars.

An office of fair trading (OFT) study into home buying and selling states that changes to outdated legislation, which has hindered firms hoping to set up online services for people to sell their own home, would help both buyers and sellers.  When the Estate Agents Act came into force a high street estate agent was the primary way to buy and sell properties.  The act needs updating to take into account new technologies, the OFT proposes two options for updating the Estate Agents Act 1979:

  1. define the activities that pose risks to consumers, and link the prohibitions and requirements in the law to those activities. 
  2. frame the law in terms of the agency relationship between the seller and the intermediary – if the intermediary is both marketing the property and negotiating then they should be subject to regulation, whereas if the intermediary is a neutral trading platform that facilitates direct contact between individuals, then they should not. 

Why is this idea important?

 

Currently in the UK if a person wants to set up a company to enable individuals to sell their properties online, and then provides those individuals with a 'for sale' board, the company would be classified as an estate agent.

Under section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979,  you are an estate agent if you:

  1. for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to acquire or, as the case may be, dispose of such an interest; and
  2. after such an introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the disposal or, as the case may be, the acquisition of that interest;

Due to an exemption clause this Act does not apply to the publication of advertisements or the dissemination of information (e.g a newspaper), but because the company provides a ‘for sale’ board it is seen as an ‘introduction’ therefore the Estate Agents Act 1979 and Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 apply.

 

As an estate agent you are bound by the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, where you can not ‘make false or misleading statements about specified matters relating to property’, therefore before a property could be entered on your website you would have to verify all its particulars.

An office of fair trading (OFT) study into home buying and selling states that changes to outdated legislation, which has hindered firms hoping to set up online services for people to sell their own home, would help both buyers and sellers.  When the Estate Agents Act came into force a high street estate agent was the primary way to buy and sell properties.  The act needs updating to take into account new technologies, the OFT proposes two options for updating the Estate Agents Act 1979:

  1. define the activities that pose risks to consumers, and link the prohibitions and requirements in the law to those activities. 
  2. frame the law in terms of the agency relationship between the seller and the intermediary – if the intermediary is both marketing the property and negotiating then they should be subject to regulation, whereas if the intermediary is a neutral trading platform that facilitates direct contact between individuals, then they should not. 

Remove the need for Home Reports in Scotland

I was delighted to see that the New Coalition Government almost immediately removed the requirement to have a Home Report  (HIP) examination and report produced before a home owner could put thir home on the market for sale.  The result was more home were being offered for sale and the market improved slightly.

Sadly for what reason I have no idea,  this was now removed in Scotland – which is a farse.

In Scotland when you sell a home – usually through a solicitors office,  the property is advertised at offers over ££££££££.   At this time the Home Examination is still in place and the report contains a property price that that particular surveyor feels is the value of the property.  I was not happy with our first report value which is not even negotiable even though it cost me over £700 for the survey.   Our solicitor said if we had a second report done with another surveyor then the value could be increased in the second report –  Farse?

One major problem to Home reports in Scotland is that if the value show as being £400,00K for example,  then thi would be the maximum a building society would loan,  and then the  offers over system doesn't work.   The Housing market is very slow in Scotland because of this un-necessary pre-sell expence.   I think the Scottish Ministers should remove the need for an HIP – Home Investigation prior to an owner placing their home FOR SALE.

Once the HIP's in Scotland are removed the housing market will start to flow again,   I know several people who would like to sell for various reasons and some of them can't afford the up front payment to get this report done prior to advertisingand selling.  

Why is this idea important?

I was delighted to see that the New Coalition Government almost immediately removed the requirement to have a Home Report  (HIP) examination and report produced before a home owner could put thir home on the market for sale.  The result was more home were being offered for sale and the market improved slightly.

Sadly for what reason I have no idea,  this was now removed in Scotland – which is a farse.

In Scotland when you sell a home – usually through a solicitors office,  the property is advertised at offers over ££££££££.   At this time the Home Examination is still in place and the report contains a property price that that particular surveyor feels is the value of the property.  I was not happy with our first report value which is not even negotiable even though it cost me over £700 for the survey.   Our solicitor said if we had a second report done with another surveyor then the value could be increased in the second report –  Farse?

One major problem to Home reports in Scotland is that if the value show as being £400,00K for example,  then thi would be the maximum a building society would loan,  and then the  offers over system doesn't work.   The Housing market is very slow in Scotland because of this un-necessary pre-sell expence.   I think the Scottish Ministers should remove the need for an HIP – Home Investigation prior to an owner placing their home FOR SALE.

Once the HIP's in Scotland are removed the housing market will start to flow again,   I know several people who would like to sell for various reasons and some of them can't afford the up front payment to get this report done prior to advertisingand selling.  

Amendment to the leasehold reform act 1993

Amendment to the leasehold reform act 1993

Dear Sirs,

The leasehold reform act 1993 was intended to enfranchise leaseholders by extending to them, amongst other things, the right to purchase a share of the freehold of the premises of which they were leaseholders, provided they met certain criteria.

It was a good idea, but is working against the interests of many leaseholders simply because they do not have an absolute right to join in the enfranchisement process.

As things are, a simple majority of leaseholders are necessary to commence proceedings leading towards enfranchisement, but that majority can, if they wish, block other entitled leaseholders from taking advantage of a law they were all intended to benefit from.

Please consider amending the act, as soon as possible, so that leaseholders may not be excluded should they wish to participate, and in the event that enfranchisement has already taken place that they are entitled as a right to demand participation in the enfranchisement that has taken place.

Suitable arrangements will have to be worked out to financially compensate or allow for those leaseholders who may have already extended their lease by an additional term of 90 years or more, and there may have to be certain exclusions to cater for persons not entitled to become a director of a company because excluded.

There are many people in position to benefit from the proposed change outlined above and who would welcome a favourable change.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully

C R Cowell

Why is this idea important?

Amendment to the leasehold reform act 1993

Dear Sirs,

The leasehold reform act 1993 was intended to enfranchise leaseholders by extending to them, amongst other things, the right to purchase a share of the freehold of the premises of which they were leaseholders, provided they met certain criteria.

It was a good idea, but is working against the interests of many leaseholders simply because they do not have an absolute right to join in the enfranchisement process.

As things are, a simple majority of leaseholders are necessary to commence proceedings leading towards enfranchisement, but that majority can, if they wish, block other entitled leaseholders from taking advantage of a law they were all intended to benefit from.

Please consider amending the act, as soon as possible, so that leaseholders may not be excluded should they wish to participate, and in the event that enfranchisement has already taken place that they are entitled as a right to demand participation in the enfranchisement that has taken place.

Suitable arrangements will have to be worked out to financially compensate or allow for those leaseholders who may have already extended their lease by an additional term of 90 years or more, and there may have to be certain exclusions to cater for persons not entitled to become a director of a company because excluded.

There are many people in position to benefit from the proposed change outlined above and who would welcome a favourable change.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully

C R Cowell

Let Owners Build Big Houses On Own Land – With Garages

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Why is this idea important?

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

restore rights to DIY home improvements

Scrap existing laws that prevent houseowners from carrying out work on their property including

replacing doors and windows and carrying out electrical work (both currently illegal) these are a an infringement of basic rights of individuals to maintain their own property.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap existing laws that prevent houseowners from carrying out work on their property including

replacing doors and windows and carrying out electrical work (both currently illegal) these are a an infringement of basic rights of individuals to maintain their own property.

Repeal the Human Rights Act

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

amendment to the leashold reform act 1993

Dear Sirs,

The leasehold reform act 1993 was intended to enfranchise leaseholders by extending to them, amongst other things, the right to purchase a share of the freehold of the premises of which they were leasholders, provided they met certain criteria.

It was a good idea, but is working against the interests of many leaseholders simply because they do not have an absolute right to join in the enfranchisement process.

As things are, a simple majority of leasholders are necessary to commence proceedings leading towards enfranchisement, but that majority can, if they wish, block other entitled leaseholders fram taking advantage of a law they were all intended to benefit from.

Please consider amending the act, as soon as possible, so that leaseholders may not be excluded should they wish to participate, and in the event that an enfranchisement has already taken place that they are entitled as a right to demand participation in the enfranchisement that has taken place. Suitable arrangements will have to be worked out to financially compensate or allow for those leaseholders who may have already extended their lease by an additional term of 90 years or more, and there may have to be certain exclusions to cater for persons not entitled to become a director of a company because excluded.

There are many people in position to benefit from the proposed change outlined above and who would welcome a favourable change.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully

C R Cowell

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sirs,

The leasehold reform act 1993 was intended to enfranchise leaseholders by extending to them, amongst other things, the right to purchase a share of the freehold of the premises of which they were leasholders, provided they met certain criteria.

It was a good idea, but is working against the interests of many leaseholders simply because they do not have an absolute right to join in the enfranchisement process.

As things are, a simple majority of leasholders are necessary to commence proceedings leading towards enfranchisement, but that majority can, if they wish, block other entitled leaseholders fram taking advantage of a law they were all intended to benefit from.

Please consider amending the act, as soon as possible, so that leaseholders may not be excluded should they wish to participate, and in the event that an enfranchisement has already taken place that they are entitled as a right to demand participation in the enfranchisement that has taken place. Suitable arrangements will have to be worked out to financially compensate or allow for those leaseholders who may have already extended their lease by an additional term of 90 years or more, and there may have to be certain exclusions to cater for persons not entitled to become a director of a company because excluded.

There are many people in position to benefit from the proposed change outlined above and who would welcome a favourable change.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully

C R Cowell

Replace Freehold with Ownership

Currently Freehold on land or property gives the 'owner' certain rights, but true ownership lies with the crown.

I think it's time to give every Englishman, and Scotsman, Welshman, Irishman, and of course women,  the right to actually own their own proporty.

Why is this idea important?

Currently Freehold on land or property gives the 'owner' certain rights, but true ownership lies with the crown.

I think it's time to give every Englishman, and Scotsman, Welshman, Irishman, and of course women,  the right to actually own their own proporty.

Party Wall Act 1998

This is an unnecessary piece of bureaucratic legislation. All it does is give Chartered Surveyors a license to print money for a document stating the same facts that are in the legislation. It sets neighbours against each other.

Why is this idea important?

This is an unnecessary piece of bureaucratic legislation. All it does is give Chartered Surveyors a license to print money for a document stating the same facts that are in the legislation. It sets neighbours against each other.

The Government amend application processes for completing & registering Lasting Power of Attorney (both Property and Financial Affairs & Health and Welfare) AND that registering these should be free

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

Why is this idea important?

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

Home Sharing for Senior Citizens

Allow resident home-owners to share their properties without the requirement to turn their homes into Houses in Multiple Occupation.

As a single woman I have shared my large, six-bedroom, victorian house for over 25 years.

Changes in the Housing Act mean that my property is now classed as a H.M.O. if I wish to share with more than two other people.

Also make it easier for people to turn their homes into flats.  This would allow the Senior Citizen to live on the ground floor, creating a flat or flats above, providing a solution and income for the ageing and accommodation for the young.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Allow resident home-owners to share their properties without the requirement to turn their homes into Houses in Multiple Occupation.

As a single woman I have shared my large, six-bedroom, victorian house for over 25 years.

Changes in the Housing Act mean that my property is now classed as a H.M.O. if I wish to share with more than two other people.

Also make it easier for people to turn their homes into flats.  This would allow the Senior Citizen to live on the ground floor, creating a flat or flats above, providing a solution and income for the ageing and accommodation for the young.

 

 

Adopt the Scottish system for property sales in Britain.

Anyone who has been involved in a property chain in England and Wales will be able to explain the stress and worry from the threat or reality of it collapsing at any moment until completion. In addition to this the extra costs can be unquantifiable throughout. With the Scottish system the buyer and seller agree to be duty bound to complete once the sale price is agreed and accepted – solving most of the issues mentioned. 

Why is this idea important?

Anyone who has been involved in a property chain in England and Wales will be able to explain the stress and worry from the threat or reality of it collapsing at any moment until completion. In addition to this the extra costs can be unquantifiable throughout. With the Scottish system the buyer and seller agree to be duty bound to complete once the sale price is agreed and accepted – solving most of the issues mentioned.