Yup. If any part of a person's rent will be made up by benefits in addition to a salary they're going to struggle to find a landlord who will take them, unfortunately. There are plenty of people who can afford to rent without benefits, and properties almost always receive enough interest and offers for the landlord to be able to pick and choose a tenant.
Thanks for the clarification.Up until now I'd presumed the stigma only applied to those who were entirely dependent on benefits.
There might be a housing bubble which might burst, which I think to an extent is needed. Not to mention the lack of council homes on the market, fraudsters who are also buying them and selling them and not living in them. The whole right to buy needs to be changed, while it's a good idea, I think tenants need to have lived in the house for a certain period of time.
Not to mention all these new builds are well not affordable at all, many are just investment properties for the rich, and the criteria which forces developers to put aside a certain amount of homes as affordable aren't really affordable.
Yeah I wouldn't class the new builds in my area going up in my area as affordable. One beds are regularly advertised with starting prices from "only" £340,000.
Thanks for the clarification.Up until now I'd presumed the stigma only applied to those who were entirely dependent on benefits.
Yeah I wouldn't class the new builds in my area going up in my area as affordable. One beds are regularly advertised with starting prices from "only" £340,000.
I do thoroughly blame the lax rules in place which force developers to make "affordable" homes, there's a bunch set aside, though in reality its way above the average earners budget. There really needs to be a change in these rules, and what defines as affordable by looking at the average working adults wage.
As well as looking into home ownership, and whether the house is being bought as an investment rather than to live in, while I understand that it leads to money coming into the UK, however if the house isn't being used, rented or anything, there needs to be a cost to it, like those councils trying to get double the normal tax which should be set aside specifically to go towards housing.
I do thoroughly blame the lax rules in place which force developers to make "affordable" homes, there's a bunch set aside, though in reality its way above the average earners budget. There really needs to be a change in these rules, and what defines as affordable by looking at the average working adults wage.
As well as looking into home ownership, and whether the house is being bought as an investment rather than to live in, while I understand that it leads to money coming into the UK, however if the house isn't being used, rented or anything, there needs to be a cost to it, like those councils trying to get double the normal tax which should be set aside specifically to go towards housing.
So you're saying these 340k one bed apartments are seen as developers responding to the request to create affordable housing? It's pretty clear that these builds aren't for your average 30k earner. They're aimed at high earning yuppies who want quick access to areas like Canary Wharf and foreign investors looking to add another property to their collection.
Just been looking around on local development company websites and noticed several advertisments for newly built flats in my area mention the availability of Chinese interpreters and solicitors. Says it all really.
So you're saying these 340k one bed apartments are seen as developers responding to the request to create affordable housing? It's pretty clear that these builds aren't for your average 30k earner. They're aimed at high earning yuppies who want quick access to areas like Canary Wharf and foreign investors looking to add another property to their collection.
Just been looking around on local development company websites and noticed several advertisments for newly built flats in my area mention the availability of Chinese interpreters and solicitors. Says it all really.
Not sure if its those, but it could be potentially be :/ Which is why its so ridiculous and theres even been developments where Boris allowed some to scale back the number of supposed "affordable" housing.
It's completely silly and unfair.....some areas are going through some serious gentrification processes. There was a development near an old housing block, they compared them through the night, the number of lights coming to show the extent of whether people lived in them.
Not sure if its those, but it could be potentially be :/ Which is why its so ridiculous and theres even been developments where Boris allowed some to scale back the number of supposed "affordable" housing.
It's completely silly and unfair.....some areas are going through some serious gentrification processes. There was a development near an old housing block, they compared them through the night, the number of lights coming to show the extent of whether people lived in them.
this is wrong, people shouldn't have to move away from the community they grew up in just because the government thought it would be a good idea to pay hundreds of thousands of third worlders £20k+ a year to live in London and drive out the native population.
If people were having to leave London for organic reasons (i.e. costs had increased naturally and they could no longer afford it) then that would be fine - sad for them perhaps, but natural and understandable. However this is absolutely not what happened - the London housing crisis is an artificial situation created by decades of terrible government policy.
The long term solution is to stop the natalist post-war policies, and low-quality immigration. In short term, perhaps enforcing a vacant property tax.