Some much needed good news

A lot of private landlords in England are likely to sell up even with the current proposals wwm. It’s not realistic to expect them to be unable even to cover their costs,

County councils don’t deal with residential planning applications Dinahmo. Outside metropolitan boroughs, this is the responsibility of district councils. Local authority lawyers are not highly paid, as with most other public sector employees they are on pay scales. This doesn’t attract high calibre lawyers and my experience of working in a county council legal department is that they are very focused on working set hours rather than getting a job done. The money would be far better spent contracting work out to private practice, as is sometimes done, where the focus is on getting a job done quickly and efficiently.

The community infrastructure levy has been operating for years Enid. It was introduced in 2008 and works alongside s106.

gsm so given your legal knowledge, what and how do you think this crises can be resolved?

Re you idea about contracting out to private practice. I’m afraid my son (works for EA) would not agree. He oversees stuff produced by private contractors including legal stuff, and is always tearing his hair out at the shoddiness of the work for which the tax payer pays dearly.

I am quite certain there is good and bad in all of it.

Legal work has to be contracted out to the right firms, not those who charge the least who will invariably turn out shoddy work. It’s false economy, exactly like people using cut-price conveyancers. You get what you pay for and a good lawyer can do a good job both quickly and profitably. Unfortunately when work is put out to tender the bottom line is usually what wins.

As regards what should be done - well, we need much more public sector rental housing, whether it be provided by councils or housing associations. They need to be given the funds to provide it. Very often the overriding local need is for affordable rented housing rather than shared ownership or low-cost market housing, but developers are reluctant to provide it amongst private housing because many have had their fingers burned by the antisocial behaviour of some renters and private purchasers don’t want to live next to them. I have seen some shocking misuse of brand new rented properties at first hand. So leave the public sector to provide and police rental accommodation, with developers providing cash for that purpose, which is always ringfenced and repayment can be demanded if it hasn’t been spent in a given period. Developers can still provide some shared ownership houses for housing associations (they get paid for them, the housing is by no means provided for free) but I believe the most urgent requirement is for public sector rented accommodation and the abolition of right to buy, which has been an unmitigated disaster save for those who have taken advantage of the ridiculously high discounts. We have placed too much reliance on private sector rentals for too long, and that situation will only get worse if private landlords are squeezed further.

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

So you will be pleased to know that I’ve persuaded HQ to take down the offending thread as well as the vapour comment.

They seem reluctant to take down threads which I must say surprised me as I thought it happens not frequently but certainly not unknown?

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

That I think is what Labour want to change.

That I think is what Labour want to change.

Changing it won't be any use without giving LAs more money. They just can't be selling enough houses under Right To Buy to be able to build replacements and, with their budgets cut to the bone, I'd assume that whatever they are getting from RTB is used immediately for other services.

This is where those silly 'fiscal rules' are going to scupper Labour.

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Right to buy was disastrous because sometimes the houses were sold way below their value and also because there should have been provision put in place to ensure that Councils used that money to build new homes.

IIRC, Callistemon, councils weren't allowed to use the money to build new homes. It was all part of Thatcher's war on the State.

Yes, I know.

It was a disastrous policy.

MaizieD

^That I think is what Labour want to change^.

Changing it won't be any use without giving LAs more money. They just can't be selling enough houses under Right To Buy to be able to build replacements and, with their budgets cut to the bone, I'd assume that whatever they are getting from RTB is used immediately for other services.

This is where those silly 'fiscal rules' are going to scupper Labour.

But aren’t they releasing more grant money, by changing the rules - I thought that is what had been announced?

Whitewavemark2

So you will be pleased to know that I’ve persuaded HQ to take down the offending thread as well as the vapour comment.

They seem reluctant to take down threads which I must say surprised me as I thought it happens not frequently but certainly not unknown?

I asked for one of my own posts to be taken down the other day and then again because I was concerned about a link in it, but it was still there days later.

As from last year, councils can retain 100% of the proceeds of RTB sales. I guess that action by the government didn’t get a lot of publicity. But they will need more money in order to properly address the shortfall in affordable rental properties.

Thanks for taking the other thread down wwm. It is appreciated.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

So you will be pleased to know that I’ve persuaded HQ to take down the offending thread as well as the vapour comment.

They seem reluctant to take down threads which I must say surprised me as I thought it happens not frequently but certainly not unknown?

I asked for one of my own posts to be taken down the other day and then again because I was concerned about a link in it, but it was still there days later.

They asked me to give them reasons why I think it should be taken down. I wrote a small essay😄😄😄

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks for taking the other thread down wwm. It is appreciated.

🙂 you are welcome

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

So you will be pleased to know that I’ve persuaded HQ to take down the offending thread as well as the vapour comment.

They seem reluctant to take down threads which I must say surprised me as I thought it happens not frequently but certainly not unknown?

I asked for one of my own posts to be taken down the other day and then again because I was concerned about a link in it, but it was still there days later.

They asked me to give them reasons why I think it should be taken down. I wrote a small essay😄😄😄

I also said that I was very relaxed about whether they took it down or not, but felt on balance it is better not to offend.

Taking this thread down is a good idea wwm2 but please don’t replace it with another nasty dig at people who don’t vote the same way as you.

Why DO the Left always have to use foul language or really offensive name calling? If I scan though stuff on here and see nasty stuff I just know it’s coming from the Left. It must come from their frustration but it’s not big or clever to show yourself up like that and I am sure a lot of people just stop reading.

Who is James O’Brien anyway? Never heard of him.

Germanshepherdsmum

As from last year, councils can retain 100% of the proceeds of RTB sales. I guess that action by the government didn’t get a lot of publicity. But they will need more money in order to properly address the shortfall in affordable rental properties.

Yes I do remember that.

But I assume that Labour are talking about more money on top of that. I must read some more.

IMO developers can and should be required to contribute appropriate sums for the building of housing by local authorities and housing associations. They make handsome, often obscene, profits. But they would doubtless reflect the additional contribution in the price they pay for land. That doesn’t exactly make me weep - landowners receive eye watering sums for development land.

Here ,in Scotland ,councils are given money for housebuilding .IF its not used then its taken back and given to a local authority that has used its allocation as specified.
My area is awash with new homes .The SNP .I know you all believe they've been a disaster BUT contrary to what you may have heard have overseen the building of over 120 000 new homes over three quarters of which are local authority .Thats old figures ,last years isn't included yet LABOURS LAST YEAR IN POWER they built just 6 ...not 6k ...6 singular SIX!!
Heres another OLD figure .Labours* siesmic win * was actually by a lower number than they had in 2019 .When they had over 18k votes from a total of @68k .NOT quite as seismic as Starmer would like you to believe ...and thats WITH the tory vote going to them
Dont believe the lies from the unionist parties ,its all they can do to make you think its headed their way ,its not .Labour has doubled its westminster seats said the BBC .....it didn't say from ONE ...to TWO !

Labour has doubled its westminster seats said the BBC .....it didn't say from ONE ...to TWO !

I did assume that was tongue-in-cheek as we all knew that, didn't we? If not why not!!

It was a very low turnout. Less votes than not just in 2019 but less than in 2017 when Labour last won the seat.

Ilovecheese

It was a very low turnout. Less votes than not just in 2019 but less than in 2017 when Labour last won the seat.

Yes, 36% turnout I read somewhere.