|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 12:22:00 GMT
Minister: Losing your house may be a good thing A minster has told thousands of people who face losing their homes that it might be the ‘best thing’ for them. Housing minister John Healey’s remarks came as repossessions hit a 14-year high. About 46,000 people lost their homes last year – up 15 per cent on 2008. Mr Healey said: ‘In some cases, it is the best thing for people who are struggling with their mortgage. Sometimes it’s impossible for people to maintain the mortgage commitment they have. It may be the best thing in those circumstances.’ www.metro.co.uk/news/812929-minis....be-a-good-thing
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 12:33:09 GMT
to all the people who are non uk citizens on this board
take note please of our caring sharing socialist labour governments attitude to those who lose their homes because of this governments mismanagement of uk affairs see the difference between the money poured ..nay...thrown at banks and emerging nuclear countries [lol] like india..china..[millions here and millions there].and those whose homes are being repossed isnt it wonderful the concern,,the help...losing your home may be good for you...... what an unspeakable crass remark...
and the man who gave this opinion has been happy to have the tax payer supliment his income via expences totally unrelated to him carrying out his duties as an mp
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2010 12:58:26 GMT
Mouse, I clicked your link but no joy....is there any chance of reposting it?
The government has put into place several schemes to help people keep their homes; we operate one from where I work, though I have to admit that its scope is limited.
Also remember it was Maggie Thatcher who wanted to encourage everyone to be a home owner, started the sale of council houses and put a moritorium on building new homes, then ended mortgage tax relief which sent thousands of home owners into negative equity as property prices fell (not a bad thing I have to admit - the falling house prices I mean, not the negative equity!).
It is to the shame of this government that they have not built far more social housing; private renting does not offer the security that ownership does, but a rented home with security of tenure probably offers the best solution of all to most of us.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 12, 2010 13:12:59 GMT
Of course in some circumstances giving up your home is the best option. I heard this remark and it didn't sound like a big deal to me, because some people have mortgages they cannot hope to pay back and trying to will only leave them further in debt than they can ever hope to repay. Far better in the long term to cut your losses.
The best bet of course, long term would be for Government to buy these houses and let the ex-owners to live in them as tenents, but that would interfere with 'the market' and New Labour are unlikely to to do that.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 14:13:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2010 18:26:29 GMT
No luck again, but here is the story as reported by the IndependentIt was a daft and pointless remark to make. It is hardly worth stating that people will feel a sense of relief when the inevitable happens...but it is sad when people mortgage themselves to the hilt, then lose their homes when something goes wrong. The problem, surely, is that house prices have just spiralled out of control. Where the blame lies I don't know; a shortage of homes, successive government policies, the mania to make money out of buy-to-let - possibly even mortgage lenders who, by offering mortgages at ridiculously high salary multiples, just encourage price wars in a sellers' market? Random V, I'm sure housing authorities so (or at least did) have the power to buy houses and re-let them again to families they would only have to re-house if they became homeless. But you never hear of them actually doing it, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 12, 2010 19:54:35 GMT
I've been holding back on posting about this particular subject because my views on it are so politically incorrect and anything but mainstream and moderate that I don't expect to find anyone on the board who agrees with me.
In the first place, it's typically irresponsible and insensitive of a government minister who has NO danger of losing their own home to make light of the misery of other people.
That's not a party political thing either - apart from the fact that I'm a floating voter there have been equally stupid and insensitive things said by Tory politicians. Margaret Thatcher's notorious comment 'if it isn't hurting it isn't working' was maybe the best known but Michael Howard, Michael Portillo and John Redwood all made other comments which showed no empathy at all with the people who were suffering under their economic policies.
Now let's analyse the problem and put forward a few solutions.
In the first place all the banks should be nationalised and only the government should be able to give mortgages to people.
Secondly, no one should ever face repossession for failure to pay their mortgage. The government could take one simple step which would make a difference right away.
At the moment, if you lose your job you have to wait six months before you can claim mortgage support from the social security system. This is crazy and it's right at the beginning that you need the help - to say nothing of the fact that it positively discourages people from getting back into work quickly.
Now let's look at the bigger picture. Here is where my views will be considered VERY extreme by most people.
I'd abolish ALL council housing and privatise the entire housing stock presently owned by them.
I'd give people just TWO options - private renting or private ownership.
For extreme emergencies people can be put up in temporary hostels till they get into permanent accommodation.
I'd also abolish all benefits and replace them with a negative income tax and a national minimum income.
If we introduced all the measures that I think are necessary I'm sure that we'd get rid of most of the problems that we're facing right now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2010 20:17:45 GMT
I've been holding back on posting about this particular subject because my views on it are so politically incorrect and anything but mainstream and moderate that I don't expect to find anyone on the board who agrees with me. In the first place, it's typically irresponsible and insensitive of a government minister who has NO danger of losing their own home to make light of the misery of other people. That's not a party political thing either - apart from the fact that I'm a floating voter there have been equally stupid and insensitive things said by Tory politicians. Margaret Thatcher's notorious comment 'if it isn't hurting it isn't working' was maybe the best known but Michael Howard, Michael Portillo and John Redwood all made other comments which showed no empathy at all with the people who were suffering under their economic policies. Now let's analyse the problem and put forward a few solutions. In the first place all the banks should be nationalised and only the government should be able to give mortgages to people. Secondly, no one should ever face repossession for failure to pay their mortgage. The government could take one simple step which would make a difference right away. At the moment, if you lose your job you have to wait six months before you can claim mortgage support from the social security system. This is crazy and it's right at the beginning that you need the help - to say nothing of the fact that it positively discourages people from getting back into work quickly. Now let's look at the bigger picture. Here is where my views will be considered VERY extreme by most people. I'd abolish ALL council housing and privatise the entire housing stock presently owned by them. I'd give people just TWO options - private renting or private ownership. For extreme emergencies people can be put up in temporary hostels till they get into permanent accommodation. I'd also abolish all benefits and replace them with a negative income tax and a national minimum income. If we introduced all the measures that I think are necessary I'm sure that we'd get rid of most of the problems that we're facing right now. You're right - I disagree with most of that. Firstly, the six month wait period before mortgage interest was paid has now been scrapped. Secondly, as I said before, private renting offers tenants no security. Most landlords offer six month assured shorthold tenancies which, once expired, allow them to get a court order without having to give any reason. Hardly an incentive to families to take pride in their homes. If you don't like the idea of council housing (and I'm not sure why) , what about housing associations, charities which provide social housing for those on the local council's lists? And thirdly, if no-one could lose their home because of mortgage arrears, surely no-one would ever pay their mortgage?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 12, 2010 21:41:55 GMT
I've been holding back on posting about this particular subject because my views on it are so politically incorrect and anything but mainstream and moderate that I don't expect to find anyone on the board who agrees with me. In the first place, it's typically irresponsible and insensitive of a government minister who has NO danger of losing their own home to make light of the misery of other people. That's not a party political thing either - apart from the fact that I'm a floating voter there have been equally stupid and insensitive things said by Tory politicians. Margaret Thatcher's notorious comment 'if it isn't hurting it isn't working' was maybe the best known but Michael Howard, Michael Portillo and John Redwood all made other comments which showed no empathy at all with the people who were suffering under their economic policies. Now let's analyse the problem and put forward a few solutions. In the first place all the banks should be nationalised and only the government should be able to give mortgages to people. Secondly, no one should ever face repossession for failure to pay their mortgage. The government could take one simple step which would make a difference right away. At the moment, if you lose your job you have to wait six months before you can claim mortgage support from the social security system. This is crazy and it's right at the beginning that you need the help - to say nothing of the fact that it positively discourages people from getting back into work quickly. Now let's look at the bigger picture. Here is where my views will be considered VERY extreme by most people. I'd abolish ALL council housing and privatise the entire housing stock presently owned by them. I'd give people just TWO options - private renting or private ownership. For extreme emergencies people can be put up in temporary hostels till they get into permanent accommodation. I'd also abolish all benefits and replace them with a negative income tax and a national minimum income. If we introduced all the measures that I think are necessary I'm sure that we'd get rid of most of the problems that we're facing right now. You're right - I disagree with most of that. Firstly, the six month wait period before mortgage interest was paid has now been scrapped.OK, I didn't know that. Finally some common sense from the people supposedly in charge! Secondly, as I said before, private renting offers tenants no security. Most landlords offer six month assured shorthold tenancies which, once expired, allow them to get a court order without having to give any reason. Hardly an incentive to families to take pride in their homes.Speaking as someone who makes my living buying, doing up, renting out and eventually selling property, I have to say that the stereotypical view of landlords irritates the hell out of me. We are providing a service and we've had a string of bad tenants who've wrecked the place and cost us thousands in doing them up again after they've gone. If people want security they should BUY their home. If you don't like the idea of council housing (and I'm not sure why) , what about housing associations, charities which provide social housing for those on the local council's lists? It's the same soap whether you sanitise it via housing association, Peabody buildings and so on. It all boils down to perpetuating the class system. There is NOTHING that does MORE to keep 'them' on top and 'us' on the bottom of the pile than so-called 'social housing.' Private housing is freedom and responsibility; 'social' housing is about control and parasitism. Council tenants are the ULTIMATE capitalists! And thirdly, if no-one could lose their home because of mortgage arrears, surely no-one would ever pay their mortgage?You're forgetting all the other economic changes I'd want brought in to make it work. Maybe I ought to post a thread of my own economic policies for Britain. Last year I seriously contemplated starting my own political party but eventually decided it would cost too much money to make it worth while. For what it's worth, there wouldn't BE a problem about paying the mortgage if we had a negative income tax and a national minimum income. (I DID warn you that my politics defy description, let alone categorisation! Why, only a few months ago I was called a 'political maverick' on another board!)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 21:53:52 GMT
i disagree also.. council housing should return to what it was intended..to provide housing for the working who couldnt aford private rents or a morgage...not for the idle public housing for those on low wages.. there were some great council houses/estates..and with no stigma attached..now mention council housing and one thinks of areas of hoodies and the idle etc etc ...and that is a great shame on the decent people there should be NO sale of public housing stock
bring back that people must prove an ability to repay any morgage they are granted on a sliding scale of income and that in job loss [not voluntary redundency] they are allowed time 1 or 2 yrs to look for and get another job if possible before any talk of repossestion..money lenders[morgage companies] make enough proffit to do this and re-possed housing must be sold at market value so homeless people are not required to carry on paying or be responsible for morgage on a home they do not own
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 22:07:33 GMT
[ Speaking as someone who makes my living buying, doing up, renting out and eventually selling property, I have to say that the stereotypical view of landlords irritates the hell out of me. We are providing a service and we've had a string of bad tenants who've wrecked the place and cost us thousands in doing them up again after they've gone. If people want security they should BUY their home. ) then you are part of the problem ...although i dont have a sterio typical view of landlords[been there done that] your say your providing a service..mm actually your making money the service is a by product to your proffit..which is why you got into buying and renting...you dint do it to be of service you did it to make money...lets be very honest here and yes tennents trash places...one has to be very careful who one rents out to... an employers refference is not a bad idea...but to say that if people want security they should buy their home is a little unrealistic in these days of short term contracts..pay cuts and closures its also unrealistic in that many hard working people DONT earn enough to buy..farm labourers for eg...hospital cleaners..care workers etc ..all of which society needs...and those people need secure and decent housing in places fairly near their work places
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 12, 2010 22:12:47 GMT
It all boils down to perpetuating the class system. There is NOTHING that does MORE to keep 'them' on top and 'us' on the bottom of the pile than so-called 'social housing.' Private housing is freedom and responsibility; 'social' housing is about control and parasitism. exactly how did you come up with that lin ? it depends on the social housing and who society is housing...if its the mathews type sure its the bottom of the pile...council housing needs to be more selective...and for the working...not the dross wastes of space...of whom even hogarth would raise hands in horror
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2010 7:57:42 GMT
Of course there are good landlords and bad landlords, but unless you let your properties under assured tenancies (not shorthold) you are offering no security. You can't rely on the "good" landords to suddenly decide one day they have had enough of renting and decide to sell up, or chuck the tenants out because their son or daughter returns from abroad with nowhere to live. Like Mouse, I don't have a "sterotypical" view of landlords either but I've dealt with tenancy relations as part of my job, and now deal with potentially homeless in my volunteer work, so have a rough idea of how things work.
People do want security and that's partly why they commit themselves to huge mortgages they can barely afford when they have good jobs, and which they have no hope of repaying once their income drops. Many people have had a to take a big drop in salary to keep a job. Although those on benefits no longer have to wait six months for their interest to be paid, it only covers mortgages up to £100,000.
Houses are just too expensive; I don't care how many times I repeat it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2010 8:05:12 GMT
It all boils down to perpetuating the class system. There is NOTHING that does MORE to keep 'them' on top and 'us' on the bottom of the pile than so-called 'social housing.' Private housing is freedom and responsibility; 'social' housing is about control and parasitism. exactly how did you come up with that lin ? it depends on the social housing and who society is housing...if its the mathews type sure its the bottom of the pile...council housing needs to be more selective...and for the working...not the dross wastes of space...of whom even hogarth would raise hands in horror Perhaps it needs to be less selective! Social housing is allocated on need, and the "mathews type" may well be given priority over a working family who stands a chance of getting a decent house in the private rental sector. I vaguely rememer a time when councils were separating the "difficult " tenants into sub-standard accommodation, but this doesn't happen any more. Remember "Cathy come home?"
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 13, 2010 10:18:15 GMT
yes i remeber that sky...and broadly agree with what you say and yes housing is far too expensive..stupidly so and one thing which has driven the market is the buy to sell and buy to let....and excess proffits expected i rember rackham too...there has to be a medium road...and the dross types should be filtered out leaving decent people to live decent lives
it only takes two apples to ruin a barral
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 13, 2010 15:47:01 GMT
Of course there are good landlords and bad landlords, but unless you let your properties under assured tenancies (not shorthold) you are offering no security.
Not true. Assured shorthold tenancies guarantee the tenant a minimum occupancy term of 6 months or a year and they're renewable indefinitely in theory and usually in practice.
Most landlords are like me, in it for the long haul, and they buy up and rent out properties sometimes for many years. I started in the property game nine years ago and in that time we've bought four properties in London, three in Shropshire and two in Yorkshire. We've had tenants staying in our places for as long as five years and a lot of landlords are equally prepared, even if they only have one spare bit of prop, to do the same.
You can't rely on the "good" landords to suddenly decide one day they have had enough of renting and decide to sell up, or chuck the tenants out because their son or daughter returns from abroad with nowhere to live. Like Mouse, I don't have a "sterotypical" view of landlords either but I've dealt with tenancy relations as part of my job, and now deal with potentially homeless in my volunteer work, so have a rough idea of how things work.
Tenants don't get chucked out; you're living in the past with that one. It's actually quite difficult to get rid of a bad tenant; I know, I've had to do it three times.
Homeless people are a quite separate issue and they ought to be dealt with by being placed in hostels and offered help to get back into the housing market.
People do want security and that's partly why they commit themselves to huge mortgages they can barely afford when they have good jobs, and which they have no hope of repaying once their income drops. Many people have had a to take a big drop in salary to keep a job. Although those on benefits no longer have to wait six months for their interest to be paid, it only covers mortgages up to £100,000.
Well, anyone who takes out a bigger mortgage than that is either an idiot or else a multimillionaire.
Houses are just too expensive; I don't care how many times I repeat it!
Yes, they are, but that's no reason for allowing council tenants to live in parasitic luxury.
They don't pay economic rents; they have BETTER cars than most of the private homeowners; they have a culture of selfishness, parasitism and using people that makes me sick!
Privatise ALL the council and housing association stock and make them live in the REAL world.
Council tenants are the ultimate capitalists!
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 13, 2010 16:06:15 GMT
Houses are just too expensive; I don't care how many times I repeat it! Yes, they are, but that's no reason for allowing council tenants to live in parasitic luxury. They don't pay economic rents; they have BETTER cars than most of the private homeowners; they have a culture of selfishness, parasitism and using people that makes me sick! I feel that comment is incredibly crass, it's also insulting to those who live/have lived in council houses and work damn hard to maintain a healthy and happy lifestyle. Obviously as a private landlord you are looking to feather your own nest so the comment should be read in that context but damning a whole sector of society because of where they live is a remarkable feat of prejudice of a scale I have rarely seen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2010 16:12:21 GMT
Lin, security for six months is no big deal and nowadays it doesn't even have to be that long!
When that period is up there is nothing to compel a landlord to renew the tenancy. If s/he chooses not to it will trundle on as a statutory tenancy, and a possession order will be granted under the accelerated procedure with no questions asked, other than a check to see if the correct procedure has been followed.
As a landlord you will know this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2010 16:43:08 GMT
Just to add to June's (very true) reply, the rent gap between social and private housing has narrowed, and I dare say has disappeared entirely in some areas. Social housing rents will never be above housing benefit levels though, unlike some private rented properties.
The downside of security is that it can be difficult to get bad tenants out, as Lin said. Councils and housing associations can now offer trial periods before making the tenancy more permanant, but they are still faced with a problem with those who then become "bad apples", who make the lives of their neighbours hell.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 13, 2010 22:06:07 GMT
[ They don't pay economic rents; they have BETTER cars than most of the private homeowners; they have a culture of selfishness, parasitism and using people that makes me sick! I feel that comment is incredibly crass, it's also insulting to those who live/have lived in council houses and work damn hard to maintain a healthy and happy lifestyle. [/quote]...a hard working woman mother of four..worked as an auxillary nurse until retirement...at weekends..and worked on a taxi phone the other four days a week and did a cleaning job[mine] as well...brought her children up well...could never have aforded to buy a house...and couldnt aford the rent in the private sector..i know she couldnt aford private sector because i helped her look for some where and there are so many like her[and no she couldnt aford a car] all council housde tennants are not alike..the majority are good people to sugest otherwise is rather defeating your angst when gypsys are condemed...wouldnt you say ?? this person never earned enough to pay an economic rent and bring up her children decently...but she is exactly the type of person who should be entitled to council housing...low paid workers need decent housing too
|
|