unnecessary parts of the Housing Act 2004 – HMO’s rent repayment

Under the Housing Act 2004, tenants can claim back rent paid if they were living in an un-licenced HMO. This is a dis-incentive to reporting an un registered HMO landlord – the longer they live there, the more rent they'd get back. The process of trying to prove this through the courts probably costs a lot more than the state would get back through a housing benefit refund, if the rent had been paid by housing benefit. There is already recourse to court for tenants who have suffered due to poor accommodation, and there is already a fine for those operating un-licenced HMO's. Has this part of the law ever actually been used?

Why is this idea important?

Under the Housing Act 2004, tenants can claim back rent paid if they were living in an un-licenced HMO. This is a dis-incentive to reporting an un registered HMO landlord – the longer they live there, the more rent they'd get back. The process of trying to prove this through the courts probably costs a lot more than the state would get back through a housing benefit refund, if the rent had been paid by housing benefit. There is already recourse to court for tenants who have suffered due to poor accommodation, and there is already a fine for those operating un-licenced HMO's. Has this part of the law ever actually been used?

Reduce the remit of the GLA

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

Why is this idea important?

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

Fighting fire with fire (figuratively)

If the Daily Mail is allowed to outright lie to the public without reprimand then we, the public should be FREE to lie to whoever we want without reprimand i.e. the police, the tax office and immigration.

Why is this idea important?

If the Daily Mail is allowed to outright lie to the public without reprimand then we, the public should be FREE to lie to whoever we want without reprimand i.e. the police, the tax office and immigration.

Apply full VAT to new build on green land

The present VAT system needs to be reversed: at present new build is zero rated while work to existing buildings attracts full VAT. New build on GREENFIELD SITES should have full VAT applied – developers love greenfield because it is cheaper so their profit margins are greater. Introduce a sliding scale of VAT: reduced rate on brownfield development and refurbishment of derelect property, zero rate for 'green' initiatives, lower rates for householders employing certified builders doing the work, to stop the cowboys, cash in hand.  There's lots that could be done with a radical rethink in this area. Properly planned, this could generate more VAT revenue with smaller amounts but coming in from more sources.

Why is this idea important?

The present VAT system needs to be reversed: at present new build is zero rated while work to existing buildings attracts full VAT. New build on GREENFIELD SITES should have full VAT applied – developers love greenfield because it is cheaper so their profit margins are greater. Introduce a sliding scale of VAT: reduced rate on brownfield development and refurbishment of derelect property, zero rate for 'green' initiatives, lower rates for householders employing certified builders doing the work, to stop the cowboys, cash in hand.  There's lots that could be done with a radical rethink in this area. Properly planned, this could generate more VAT revenue with smaller amounts but coming in from more sources.

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.

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Amendment of the planning process leading to a more appropriate housing stock for future society.

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Why is this idea important?

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Get rid of covert surveillance on innocent citizens; Repeal Regulatory Investigatory powers act

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

Why is this idea important?

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Why is this idea important?

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Abolish the ban on the burial of fallen livestock on the farm

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Abolish most change of use restrictions for non-residential properties

Current planning law classifies non-residential properties into a multitude of use classes, and in most cases planning permission is required for change of use from one class to another. Local councils use these use classes as a way of reserving certain properties for uses they consider appropriate, but often without clear links to actual needs or to what the market can bear. Thus many properties remain empty for years because there is no viable use in the class the property has been assigned to, whereas others who want to use the property are not allowed to for no good reason. This has a damaging effect on small businesses and on community groups. For example, in cases I know of personally, a community organisation was refused permission to open a former shop as a cafe (because a neighbouring shop had been given this change of use permission but was in fact still in use as a shop) and in two separate cases (one overturned on appeal, another currently subject to appeal) permission was refused for industrial buildings that had been empty for years to be used by churches. Some restrictions on change of use of premises may still be needed e.g. to control fast food premises, but these might be better handled by licensing authorities rather than planning officials.

Why is this idea important?

Current planning law classifies non-residential properties into a multitude of use classes, and in most cases planning permission is required for change of use from one class to another. Local councils use these use classes as a way of reserving certain properties for uses they consider appropriate, but often without clear links to actual needs or to what the market can bear. Thus many properties remain empty for years because there is no viable use in the class the property has been assigned to, whereas others who want to use the property are not allowed to for no good reason. This has a damaging effect on small businesses and on community groups. For example, in cases I know of personally, a community organisation was refused permission to open a former shop as a cafe (because a neighbouring shop had been given this change of use permission but was in fact still in use as a shop) and in two separate cases (one overturned on appeal, another currently subject to appeal) permission was refused for industrial buildings that had been empty for years to be used by churches. Some restrictions on change of use of premises may still be needed e.g. to control fast food premises, but these might be better handled by licensing authorities rather than planning officials.

Abolish the TV licence and the associated enforcement bodies

The TV licence is no longer appropriate as only a small proportion of available television is supplied by the BBC and increasingly content is distributed by other means than terrestial wireless. It is basically a tax and should be treated as such. The present collection and enforcement schemes are a very inefficient way of collecting tax. The BBC could be funded from the treasury as we can afford and the money collected through any of the many current schemes withou additional cost. The enforcment schemes are expensive, draconian and do not contribute to the quality of our society.

Why is this idea important?

The TV licence is no longer appropriate as only a small proportion of available television is supplied by the BBC and increasingly content is distributed by other means than terrestial wireless. It is basically a tax and should be treated as such. The present collection and enforcement schemes are a very inefficient way of collecting tax. The BBC could be funded from the treasury as we can afford and the money collected through any of the many current schemes withou additional cost. The enforcment schemes are expensive, draconian and do not contribute to the quality of our society.

Repeal all laws that were introduced to “send a message”

Many laws have been introduced in recent years in order to "send a message" to certain members of society that a particular form of behaviour, or worse, holding certain beliefs, is considered unacceptable by "right thinking" people. All such laws should be repealed unless it can be shown that they have resulted in a significant number of convictions.

Why is this idea important?

Many laws have been introduced in recent years in order to "send a message" to certain members of society that a particular form of behaviour, or worse, holding certain beliefs, is considered unacceptable by "right thinking" people. All such laws should be repealed unless it can be shown that they have resulted in a significant number of convictions.

Exportable Disability Benefits and ECJ ruling

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.
 

Why is this idea important?

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.
 

What’s the purpose of Benefit contact centres? are they a total waste of money

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

HOW TO IMPROVE HOUSING MARKET FAST WITH A BETTER CONVEYANCING SYSTEM (i.e., take a leaf from North of the Border!)

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

Why is this idea important?

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

Tax Foreign Lorries

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

PHARMACY PNAS, CONTROL OF ENTRY RULES and GP COMMISSIONING

I work in Birmingham and feel as many others do in the pharmacy industry that:

 

1. PNAs – Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment is a good idea but this assessment should allow for central governement funding as PCTS always say we have NO MONEY. Thus pharmacy cannot offer. What a waste of tax payers money on such a useless exercise.

 

2. COntrol of Entry rules should be tightened as they were prior to 100 hour exemptions etc immediately and the desirable and necessary test implemented within the PNAs. Also Appeals to the NHS litigation should remain as New proposed measures will not allow this and Judicial review from the applicant will be required to the Courts. Ludicrous but wont this cost the NHS more money than having a NHS litigation board as exists.

 

3. GP Commissioning – wow. Well what about Pharmacy Commissioning. Let an Pharmacy do the same as what GPs are being given power to do.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I work in Birmingham and feel as many others do in the pharmacy industry that:

 

1. PNAs – Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment is a good idea but this assessment should allow for central governement funding as PCTS always say we have NO MONEY. Thus pharmacy cannot offer. What a waste of tax payers money on such a useless exercise.

 

2. COntrol of Entry rules should be tightened as they were prior to 100 hour exemptions etc immediately and the desirable and necessary test implemented within the PNAs. Also Appeals to the NHS litigation should remain as New proposed measures will not allow this and Judicial review from the applicant will be required to the Courts. Ludicrous but wont this cost the NHS more money than having a NHS litigation board as exists.

 

3. GP Commissioning – wow. Well what about Pharmacy Commissioning. Let an Pharmacy do the same as what GPs are being given power to do.

 

 

Bank reform

It is not a lie that banks in UK provide substantial cashflow in the treasury. However,  separating customer service banking (including investments in local economy i.e. loans to small and middle businesses etc) from the pure betting on financial markets (derivatives) can facilitate the creation of a mechanism of control from whithin the structure (bank). The responsibility for failed "bets" will remain largely in the institution that has taken the risks and this includes the shareholders that have agreed their assets to be used in such ways on the financial markets.

I believe such separation in the banking can ensure more liability and thus can possibly prevent future financial crisis. It will not stop gambling, but will attach more responsibility to it.

Let me give you an example:

If I go to a casino, and I know that I can bet as much as I want…because my father will pay it all unconditionally (father = taxpayer, ref. last financial market failure), it may be very hard for me to restrict myself in my games. However, if I know that I am liable to repay nearly every cent of the money I spent, I will ensure I set boundaries to my betting behaviour, I will make sure I take less risks or at least I take risks less often. This I believe can be called "regulation from whithin".

Why is this idea important?

It is not a lie that banks in UK provide substantial cashflow in the treasury. However,  separating customer service banking (including investments in local economy i.e. loans to small and middle businesses etc) from the pure betting on financial markets (derivatives) can facilitate the creation of a mechanism of control from whithin the structure (bank). The responsibility for failed "bets" will remain largely in the institution that has taken the risks and this includes the shareholders that have agreed their assets to be used in such ways on the financial markets.

I believe such separation in the banking can ensure more liability and thus can possibly prevent future financial crisis. It will not stop gambling, but will attach more responsibility to it.

Let me give you an example:

If I go to a casino, and I know that I can bet as much as I want…because my father will pay it all unconditionally (father = taxpayer, ref. last financial market failure), it may be very hard for me to restrict myself in my games. However, if I know that I am liable to repay nearly every cent of the money I spent, I will ensure I set boundaries to my betting behaviour, I will make sure I take less risks or at least I take risks less often. This I believe can be called "regulation from whithin".

Planning Reform

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

Why is this idea important?

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

stop paying fines to brussels

we should stop paying fines to brussels for non compliance with new EU directive based laws. Brussels is a law making machine churning out thousands of unwanted new laws which need b eurocrats to enforce them (at tax payers expense) which acheive very little. if we dont comply with these new laws then the outcome is that the UK pays fines to brussels. By constantly changing the rules, the EU in Brussels is assured of getting more money from its member states. 

Why is this idea important?

we should stop paying fines to brussels for non compliance with new EU directive based laws. Brussels is a law making machine churning out thousands of unwanted new laws which need b eurocrats to enforce them (at tax payers expense) which acheive very little. if we dont comply with these new laws then the outcome is that the UK pays fines to brussels. By constantly changing the rules, the EU in Brussels is assured of getting more money from its member states. 

freedom to marry anywhere in england without living in area

To remove the restrictions that require someone from Scotland/NI having to set up residency for 8 days in the English/Welsh district they wish to register their intention to marry. 

Myself and fiance want to get married in England but due to ancient  outdated laws we have to live there for 8 days and register our intention on 9th day. We are having a registry wedding in a hotel. You should be able to get married outdoors also.

Why is this idea important?

To remove the restrictions that require someone from Scotland/NI having to set up residency for 8 days in the English/Welsh district they wish to register their intention to marry. 

Myself and fiance want to get married in England but due to ancient  outdated laws we have to live there for 8 days and register our intention on 9th day. We are having a registry wedding in a hotel. You should be able to get married outdoors also.