From the BBC:
[Owen] Smith has called for the current funding system to be abolished and replaced with a 1%-2% graduate tax. He also promised a high-level apprenticeship to every 18-year-old who gets the grades…
He also promised to build 50,000 "first homes" a year, earmarked for under-30s, which would be rented to first-time buyers at 80% of the local market rent, with the remaining 20% going into a savings pot.
Student loans are currently repaid via a 9% graduate tax, and even that is only enough to repay about half the loans. Reducing that to 1% or 2% is of course much better, but does not explain where the rest of the money will come from.
We summarised the amounts involved and the obvious way forward in our higher education manifesto.
He also promised to build 50,000 "first homes" a year, earmarked for under-30s, which would be rented to first-time buyers at 80% of the local market rent, with the remaining 20% going into a savings pot.
Aargh! That doesn't even make sense; are tenants supposed to pay 100% of the 'market rent' and be given 20% of it back somehow? It's nowhere near enough either. If everybody is to have a chance of obtaining such a home, they would need to build about 300,000 a year, not just 50,000, which wouldn't even show up as a blip.
YPP housing/planning manifesto here.
Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts
Sunday, 28 August 2016
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
"Housing crisis? What housing crisis?"
It's all the entirely predictable outcome of deliberate and massive changes in UK government policy since the 1980s.
Full article at The Intergenerational Foundation.
Full article at The Intergenerational Foundation.
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
Reader's Letter Of The Day
From The Evening Standard (19 Feb 2014, page 47):
We were delighted by Danny Dorling's endorsement of a land value tax.
The Holy Grail of high wages/low house prices can be achieved by collecting taxes from the rental value of land instead of from earnings and output. Our calculations show that replacing council tax, VAT and National Insurance with a fiscally neutral Land Value Tax would leave most young couples £10,000 a year better off.
As well as reversing the rising tide of wealth inequality, such a measure would dampen the boom-bust cycle and lead to more efficient use of existing buildings.
Land Value Tax was supported by figures as diverse as Marx, Churchill and Milton Friedman. Now that corporations can shift profits between jurisdictions at the touch of a button it has more relevance than ever as land cannot be hidden abroad.
Mark Wadsworth, Young People's Party.
We were delighted by Danny Dorling's endorsement of a land value tax.
The Holy Grail of high wages/low house prices can be achieved by collecting taxes from the rental value of land instead of from earnings and output. Our calculations show that replacing council tax, VAT and National Insurance with a fiscally neutral Land Value Tax would leave most young couples £10,000 a year better off.
As well as reversing the rising tide of wealth inequality, such a measure would dampen the boom-bust cycle and lead to more efficient use of existing buildings.
Land Value Tax was supported by figures as diverse as Marx, Churchill and Milton Friedman. Now that corporations can shift profits between jurisdictions at the touch of a button it has more relevance than ever as land cannot be hidden abroad.
Mark Wadsworth, Young People's Party.
Saturday, 15 September 2012
"Overcrowding and under-occupation"
From the DCLG's English Housing Survey 2010-11:
3.1 Levels of overcrowding and under-occupation are measured using the ‘bedroom standard’ (see glossary*). This is defined by the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, ages and relationships of the household members) and the number of bedrooms available to the household. A household is defined as under-occupied if it has at least two bedrooms more than needed, according to the bedroom standard. A household is defined as overcrowded if there are fewer bedrooms available than required by the bedroom standard.
3.1 Data from the three most recent years has been combined to produce the estimates discussed in this section of the report1. This is because the number of overcrowded households interviewed in each survey year is too small to enable reliable estimates to be produced for a single year.
3.2 The rate of overcrowding for 2010-11 was 3% of households. The rate for under-occupation, by contrast, was 37%.
3.3 In the last ten years, the rate of overcrowding has increased slightly, from 2.4% in 2001-02 to 3.0% in 2010-11. This rise was mainly related to an increase in levels in the social and private rented sectors, whilst the rate of overcrowding in the owner occupied sector remained unchanged over this period, Figure 3.1 and Annex Table 3.1.
3.4 Under-occupation was, overall, much more prevalent than overcrowding, and mainly concentrated in the owner occupied sector, where the rate was 49%, compared to 10% in the social rented sector and 17% in the private rented sector. The overall rate of under-occupation in England increased gradually in the last ten years, from 34% of households in 2001-02 to 37% in 2010-11. For owner occupiers the rate of under- occupation increased from 43% to 49%**. In both the social and private rented sectors there was a slight decrease in levels of under-occupation, Figure 3.2 and Annex Table 3.1.
* From the glossary: "The ‘Bedroom Standard’ is used as an indicator of occupation density. A standard number of bedrooms is calculated for each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to one another. A separate bedroom is allowed for each married or cohabiting couple, any other person aged 21 or over, each pair of adolescents aged 10-20 of the same sex, and each pair of children under 10. Any unpaired person aged 10-20 is notionally paired, if possible, with a child under 10 of the same sex, or, if that is not possible, he or she is counted as requiring a separate bedroom, as is any unpaired child under 10.
This notional standard number of bedrooms is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bed-sitters) available for the sole use of the household, and differences are tabulated. Bedrooms converted to other uses are not counted as available unless they have been denoted as bedrooms by the respondents; bedrooms not actually in use are counted unless uninhabitable."
** Hardly surprising, really. If people stay living in the same house after their children have left home, and then still stay living in the same home once they are widowed, under-occupation among owner-occupiers will tend to increase over time. It is only when a home is sold or re-let that the new occupants choose something 'just big enough'.
Conversely, we would expect the level of overcrowding to increase over time as more and more people (those who didn't get on the ladder in time) have to share whatever housing is left over (new supply being strictly limited).
3.1 Levels of overcrowding and under-occupation are measured using the ‘bedroom standard’ (see glossary*). This is defined by the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, ages and relationships of the household members) and the number of bedrooms available to the household. A household is defined as under-occupied if it has at least two bedrooms more than needed, according to the bedroom standard. A household is defined as overcrowded if there are fewer bedrooms available than required by the bedroom standard.
3.1 Data from the three most recent years has been combined to produce the estimates discussed in this section of the report1. This is because the number of overcrowded households interviewed in each survey year is too small to enable reliable estimates to be produced for a single year.
3.2 The rate of overcrowding for 2010-11 was 3% of households. The rate for under-occupation, by contrast, was 37%.
3.3 In the last ten years, the rate of overcrowding has increased slightly, from 2.4% in 2001-02 to 3.0% in 2010-11. This rise was mainly related to an increase in levels in the social and private rented sectors, whilst the rate of overcrowding in the owner occupied sector remained unchanged over this period, Figure 3.1 and Annex Table 3.1.
3.4 Under-occupation was, overall, much more prevalent than overcrowding, and mainly concentrated in the owner occupied sector, where the rate was 49%, compared to 10% in the social rented sector and 17% in the private rented sector. The overall rate of under-occupation in England increased gradually in the last ten years, from 34% of households in 2001-02 to 37% in 2010-11. For owner occupiers the rate of under- occupation increased from 43% to 49%**. In both the social and private rented sectors there was a slight decrease in levels of under-occupation, Figure 3.2 and Annex Table 3.1.
* From the glossary: "The ‘Bedroom Standard’ is used as an indicator of occupation density. A standard number of bedrooms is calculated for each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to one another. A separate bedroom is allowed for each married or cohabiting couple, any other person aged 21 or over, each pair of adolescents aged 10-20 of the same sex, and each pair of children under 10. Any unpaired person aged 10-20 is notionally paired, if possible, with a child under 10 of the same sex, or, if that is not possible, he or she is counted as requiring a separate bedroom, as is any unpaired child under 10.
This notional standard number of bedrooms is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms (including bed-sitters) available for the sole use of the household, and differences are tabulated. Bedrooms converted to other uses are not counted as available unless they have been denoted as bedrooms by the respondents; bedrooms not actually in use are counted unless uninhabitable."
** Hardly surprising, really. If people stay living in the same house after their children have left home, and then still stay living in the same home once they are widowed, under-occupation among owner-occupiers will tend to increase over time. It is only when a home is sold or re-let that the new occupants choose something 'just big enough'.
Conversely, we would expect the level of overcrowding to increase over time as more and more people (those who didn't get on the ladder in time) have to share whatever housing is left over (new supply being strictly limited).
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
A common misconception
There's an article on 24Dash about possibly improving 'security of tenure' for private tenants by extending the notice period from 6 months to 2 years if the landlord gives them notice to quit, which might or might not be a good idea (seems fair enough to me, I'd also like to reduce the notice period from 6 months to 3 months if the tenant wants to move).
What is striking is this bit:
[The Inquiry] said successive governments have prioritised owner occupation, but it is now in decline.
No they have not, that's exactly what Home-Owner-Ism, an electoral gold mine originally struck by Thatcher but taken to extremes by New Labour, is NOT about. It pretends to be about "prioritising owner-occupation" but actually what it does is "prioritise those people who happen to be owner-occupiers when Home-Owner-Ism kicked off" and shits on all who come after them.
Look at the official stat's from the DCLG (Excel). In England...
- the number of owner-occupier households is only up by 1.4 million since 1991, and is now falling again, we are back down to 2002 levels in absolute terms and back to the mid-1980s if expressed as a percentage of all households.
- the number of social tenant households (council or Housing Association) is down by 0.5 million since 1991. Note: according to those figures, the social housing stock peaked at 5.2 million in 1981 and is now down to 4.0 million, so they 'only' sold off about a quarter of social housing stock.
- the biggest increase is in private renters, up by 2.2 million since 1991, the bulk of that increase was in the last ten years. Some of those will be renting ex-social housing, but by and large, more than half of new homes built in the last twenty years have been acquired by landlords.
It all stands to reason really, the real driving force behind Home-Owner-Ism is the large landowners and banks; the former love collecting rent and the latter would rather lend to BTL landlords than owner-occupiers, it being far less hassle for the bank if a landlord kicks out a tenant who loses his job than the bank having to kick out a mortgage borrower who loses his job.
What is striking is this bit:
[The Inquiry] said successive governments have prioritised owner occupation, but it is now in decline.
No they have not, that's exactly what Home-Owner-Ism, an electoral gold mine originally struck by Thatcher but taken to extremes by New Labour, is NOT about. It pretends to be about "prioritising owner-occupation" but actually what it does is "prioritise those people who happen to be owner-occupiers when Home-Owner-Ism kicked off" and shits on all who come after them.
Look at the official stat's from the DCLG (Excel). In England...
- the number of owner-occupier households is only up by 1.4 million since 1991, and is now falling again, we are back down to 2002 levels in absolute terms and back to the mid-1980s if expressed as a percentage of all households.
- the number of social tenant households (council or Housing Association) is down by 0.5 million since 1991. Note: according to those figures, the social housing stock peaked at 5.2 million in 1981 and is now down to 4.0 million, so they 'only' sold off about a quarter of social housing stock.
- the biggest increase is in private renters, up by 2.2 million since 1991, the bulk of that increase was in the last ten years. Some of those will be renting ex-social housing, but by and large, more than half of new homes built in the last twenty years have been acquired by landlords.
It all stands to reason really, the real driving force behind Home-Owner-Ism is the large landowners and banks; the former love collecting rent and the latter would rather lend to BTL landlords than owner-occupiers, it being far less hassle for the bank if a landlord kicks out a tenant who loses his job than the bank having to kick out a mortgage borrower who loses his job.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Landlord scams (4)
Continuing the theme of the previous posts, one landlord scam goes as follows:
1. Tell the tenant that the rent is inclusive of Council Tax, so the rent can be increased by £50 - £100 per month.
2. Don't pay the Council Tax.
3. Wait until the tenant has moved out and then inform the council of the tenant's new address and the council will then chase the former tenant. The law is broadly that the Council Tax is payable by the occupant, not the person registered at HM Land Registry.
4. The landlord profits by the extra rent he charged, which was supposed to cover the Council Tax.
5. Some tenants do the same in reverse, i.e. they don't pay the Council Tax while they are there, and then do a disappearing act, so as a default, the council will chase the owner/landlord for the Council Tax.
As the law stands, there is a little that the defrauded tenant (or landlord) can do in such a situation, however there are things which local councils can do administratively to prevent this happening.
YPP councils would work on the basis that the primary liability to pay the Council Tax is with the registered owner. If the landlord and tenant agree (for whatever reason) that the tenant will pay, they will have to both sign and submit a declaration to that effect. The council will check that the purported landlord is in fact the registered owner of the home and liability to pay will transfer to the tenant when he receives confirmation from the council (and no earlier).
Some tenants will prefer this method; if they receive the notification from the council that, then this is their confirmation that the purported landlord is the actual owner.
Similarly, it is far more convenient for all parties - the owner/landlord, the tenant as well as the council - if the primary liability remains with the landlord and he adds it to the rent, leaving the tenant with a single monthly or weekly payment and no need for two re-registrations every time a tenant leaves and a new tenant moves in.
1. Tell the tenant that the rent is inclusive of Council Tax, so the rent can be increased by £50 - £100 per month.
2. Don't pay the Council Tax.
3. Wait until the tenant has moved out and then inform the council of the tenant's new address and the council will then chase the former tenant. The law is broadly that the Council Tax is payable by the occupant, not the person registered at HM Land Registry.
4. The landlord profits by the extra rent he charged, which was supposed to cover the Council Tax.
5. Some tenants do the same in reverse, i.e. they don't pay the Council Tax while they are there, and then do a disappearing act, so as a default, the council will chase the owner/landlord for the Council Tax.
As the law stands, there is a little that the defrauded tenant (or landlord) can do in such a situation, however there are things which local councils can do administratively to prevent this happening.
YPP councils would work on the basis that the primary liability to pay the Council Tax is with the registered owner. If the landlord and tenant agree (for whatever reason) that the tenant will pay, they will have to both sign and submit a declaration to that effect. The council will check that the purported landlord is in fact the registered owner of the home and liability to pay will transfer to the tenant when he receives confirmation from the council (and no earlier).
Some tenants will prefer this method; if they receive the notification from the council that, then this is their confirmation that the purported landlord is the actual owner.
Similarly, it is far more convenient for all parties - the owner/landlord, the tenant as well as the council - if the primary liability remains with the landlord and he adds it to the rent, leaving the tenant with a single monthly or weekly payment and no need for two re-registrations every time a tenant leaves and a new tenant moves in.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Labour's housing policy fail (3)...
Let's try to interpret some more of Labour's newspeak into English shall we? Page 10 details the following proposal:
We intend to work in partnership with the sector to develop solutions, and will look at potential measures including a code of code of conduct with entry requirements for letting agents and compulsory business and consumer protection measures. We will consider how compliance could be monitored, for example by a regulatory body with enforcement powers.
... a code of code of conduct ...
This is a set of rules, established by a trade association or similar entity. For example there is the Association of Residential Lettings Agents (ARLA) Code of Practice, or The Property Ombudsman (TPO) Code of Practice. Businesses choose whether or not to pay for membership of a trade association, and by joining agree to follow the code of conduct.
... entry requirements for letting agents ...
This means qualifications, such as those awarded by the National Federation of Property Professionals. Their quaifications "are developed in consultation with ARLA and therefore meet the qualification requirements necessary for ARLA membership." (Their words, not mine)
... compulsory business and consumer protection measures ...
The big question here is what they mean by 'compulsory'. The two codes of conduct above are compulsory should a lettings agent choose to join the relevant trade association / scheme. Are labour planning to make membership compulsory for lettings agents?
... for example by a regulatory body with enforcement powers ...
In other words a quango. What labour are clearly proposing is to create a statutory ARLA or TPO. Let's go back to the first line of that statement:
"We intend to work in partnership with the sector to develop solutions ..."
What Labour mean is that they intend to put ARLA or the TPO, or more likely an amalgamation of the two, on a statutory footing and compel lettings agents to join. In other words, legislate to turn them into a quango. After all, this is the only 'solution' that 'the sector' (i.e. trade associations, landlord industry representatives and big estate agents) will agree to.
YPP councils will not by pander to landlords, estate agents and their representatives, but help tenants by approving planning applications and building more social housing.
Monday, 6 August 2012
Labour housing policy fail (2)...
Whilst labour's housing policy review might claim to stick up for tenants, YPP can explain why they are up to their old trick of not telling the truth. Let's take this rather bold statement at the top of page 5:
Now it is true that lettings agents are not legally required to have 'client money protection'. A lettings agent can collect the rent from the tenant and use the money as the normal cash flow of the business. They do not have to keep it in a seperate 'client account' on behalf of the landlord. This is what 'client money protection' means.
However once the tenant has paid their rent to the landlord's agent - aka their lettings agent - then as far as the law is concerned they have paid it to the landlord. The tenants' money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has spent it on fast women and cocaine before it got to the landlord as labour suggest.
Ah, but what about deposits? They belong to the tenant don't they? Well, under the Housing Act 2004 (see Chapter 4 and Schedule 10) it is the landlord that is responsible for protecting the tenant's deposit. If his agent - aka the lettings agent - spends it on fast women and cocaine, the landlord is still liable to the tenant for the deposit, including where the tenant remains in place (say the lettings agent has gone bust) re-protecting the deposit in a deposit protection scheme out of his own pocket.
A tenants money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has no 'client money protection' only the landlord's money can be 'lost' this way. So don't be fooled by labour's proposals for more new landlord protection legislation. Just look at the vested interests labour quote as wanting this reform on pages 8 and 9 for a start:
* The British Property Federation
* The Association of Residential Letting Agents
* The Residential Landlords Association
* National Landlords Association
* Countrywide Estate Agents
We'll look more at how these vested interests stand to benefit from labours landlord protection regulation later on. Labour haven't changed, don't let them fool you again!
"There are cases of agencies, even large and well-established [lettings agency] businesses, running into difficulties because they had no client money protection, with both landlords’ and tenants’ money being lost."
Now it is true that lettings agents are not legally required to have 'client money protection'. A lettings agent can collect the rent from the tenant and use the money as the normal cash flow of the business. They do not have to keep it in a seperate 'client account' on behalf of the landlord. This is what 'client money protection' means.
However once the tenant has paid their rent to the landlord's agent - aka their lettings agent - then as far as the law is concerned they have paid it to the landlord. The tenants' money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has spent it on fast women and cocaine before it got to the landlord as labour suggest.
Ah, but what about deposits? They belong to the tenant don't they? Well, under the Housing Act 2004 (see Chapter 4 and Schedule 10) it is the landlord that is responsible for protecting the tenant's deposit. If his agent - aka the lettings agent - spends it on fast women and cocaine, the landlord is still liable to the tenant for the deposit, including where the tenant remains in place (say the lettings agent has gone bust) re-protecting the deposit in a deposit protection scheme out of his own pocket.
A tenants money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has no 'client money protection' only the landlord's money can be 'lost' this way. So don't be fooled by labour's proposals for more new landlord protection legislation. Just look at the vested interests labour quote as wanting this reform on pages 8 and 9 for a start:
* The British Property Federation
* The Association of Residential Letting Agents
* The Residential Landlords Association
* National Landlords Association
* Countrywide Estate Agents
We'll look more at how these vested interests stand to benefit from labours landlord protection regulation later on. Labour haven't changed, don't let them fool you again!
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Labour housing policy fail (1)...
The Labour Party have launched a policy review on the private rented housing sector. Calling for yet more pointless regulation and town hall bureaucracy, it really misses the mark. Let's start with on of their case studies.
Page 6 - Submitted by Newham Council
"Letting Agent X agreed to rent out a ground floor flat to a tenant. Letting Agent X took the tenant’s deposit and a month’s rent and gave her the keys. A few days later the “real” Letting Agent (Letting Agent Y), entered the flat and was surprised to find the new tenant. Letting Agent Y said to the tenant that she had to leave as she was trespassing and he had no knowledge of Agent X. The tenant could not contact Agent X. Agent Y agreed to let her stay in the flat but she had to pay a month’s rent. The tenant, who had very little money was left with little option but to stay on Agent Y’s terms. The tenant had to pay the equivalent of £1,650 rent for the first month, instead of 550 and lost her deposit in the process."
How this scam works
This is a simple scam, whereby the criminal has access to the keys for the property concerned. It is easy to get keys cut and there are lots of ways they can can get them. Previous tenants is the most obvious answer. A less obvious, but not unknown modus operandi is that many lettings agents are happy to employ sub agents on a commission only basis. They allow sub agents to advertise the property themselves, come to the office, collect the keys and show prospects around. A dodgy sub agent may have cut keys they obtained from a legitimate lettings agent.
Once you have the keys you falsify the paperwork, take the first months rent, deposit and fee (usually well over a grand these days, and in cash) and hey presto you have made an average months wages tax free. It is also conceivable that agent X defaulted on agent Y, preferring to stuff the tenants deposit up his nose, and that agent Y are unlawfully taking it out on the tenant.
The law and the consequences
If the tenant reports this to the Police they will most likely be told it is a 'civil' issue. If they report it to the council they will most likely be told to report it to the Police. Very few public authorities bother to investigate these kind of 'petty' thefts. Yet they will happily arrest and prosecute shoplifters for stealing much less. Tenants are seen as fair game in today's Britain.
In the case study, letting agent X has probably committed offences under the Theft Act 1968 (for stealing the tenants deposit that should have been kept in a custodial or 'insurance backed' scheme as per the Housing Act 2004). Newham council can prosecute Theft Act offences if it wants to. Agent X would have also most likely committed trading standards offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which councils like Newham already have ample powers to investigate.
If agent X had obtained the keys on the black market, and disappeared into the night then any investigation would most likely be a wild goose chase unless disproportionate police resources were deployed. However, if agent X was a sub agent of agent Y, and was authorised to make such contracts by agent Y, the tenants contract should stand and agent X simply owes agent Y the money.
The YPP stance
The Theft Act 1968 did not stop theft, just like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 did not stop misuse of drugs. More town hall regulation and bureaucracy will not stop dishonest people stealing keys to bedsits and trying on this scam via the small ads. It will provide more pointless jobs for Labour's paymasters, the folk who pay public sector union subscriptions and draw an often handsome salary from the town hall coffers. It will not protect tenants, who in reality have to be careful about who they hand their cash over to.
YPP councils will champion tenants' existing rights and prioritise the investigation and prosecution of dodgy lettings agents and landlords under existing legislation. Labour will create more pointless regulation and bureaucracy for their town hall paymasters to administer, while doing nothing to catch criminals or legislate to create a better deal for tenants. Don't let Labour trick you into voting for more of the same old nonsense. It didn't work last time and it sure as Hell won't work this time.
Page 6 - Submitted by Newham Council
"Letting Agent X agreed to rent out a ground floor flat to a tenant. Letting Agent X took the tenant’s deposit and a month’s rent and gave her the keys. A few days later the “real” Letting Agent (Letting Agent Y), entered the flat and was surprised to find the new tenant. Letting Agent Y said to the tenant that she had to leave as she was trespassing and he had no knowledge of Agent X. The tenant could not contact Agent X. Agent Y agreed to let her stay in the flat but she had to pay a month’s rent. The tenant, who had very little money was left with little option but to stay on Agent Y’s terms. The tenant had to pay the equivalent of £1,650 rent for the first month, instead of 550 and lost her deposit in the process."
How this scam works
This is a simple scam, whereby the criminal has access to the keys for the property concerned. It is easy to get keys cut and there are lots of ways they can can get them. Previous tenants is the most obvious answer. A less obvious, but not unknown modus operandi is that many lettings agents are happy to employ sub agents on a commission only basis. They allow sub agents to advertise the property themselves, come to the office, collect the keys and show prospects around. A dodgy sub agent may have cut keys they obtained from a legitimate lettings agent.
Once you have the keys you falsify the paperwork, take the first months rent, deposit and fee (usually well over a grand these days, and in cash) and hey presto you have made an average months wages tax free. It is also conceivable that agent X defaulted on agent Y, preferring to stuff the tenants deposit up his nose, and that agent Y are unlawfully taking it out on the tenant.
The law and the consequences
If the tenant reports this to the Police they will most likely be told it is a 'civil' issue. If they report it to the council they will most likely be told to report it to the Police. Very few public authorities bother to investigate these kind of 'petty' thefts. Yet they will happily arrest and prosecute shoplifters for stealing much less. Tenants are seen as fair game in today's Britain.
In the case study, letting agent X has probably committed offences under the Theft Act 1968 (for stealing the tenants deposit that should have been kept in a custodial or 'insurance backed' scheme as per the Housing Act 2004). Newham council can prosecute Theft Act offences if it wants to. Agent X would have also most likely committed trading standards offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which councils like Newham already have ample powers to investigate.
If agent X had obtained the keys on the black market, and disappeared into the night then any investigation would most likely be a wild goose chase unless disproportionate police resources were deployed. However, if agent X was a sub agent of agent Y, and was authorised to make such contracts by agent Y, the tenants contract should stand and agent X simply owes agent Y the money.
The YPP stance
The Theft Act 1968 did not stop theft, just like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 did not stop misuse of drugs. More town hall regulation and bureaucracy will not stop dishonest people stealing keys to bedsits and trying on this scam via the small ads. It will provide more pointless jobs for Labour's paymasters, the folk who pay public sector union subscriptions and draw an often handsome salary from the town hall coffers. It will not protect tenants, who in reality have to be careful about who they hand their cash over to.
YPP councils will champion tenants' existing rights and prioritise the investigation and prosecution of dodgy lettings agents and landlords under existing legislation. Labour will create more pointless regulation and bureaucracy for their town hall paymasters to administer, while doing nothing to catch criminals or legislate to create a better deal for tenants. Don't let Labour trick you into voting for more of the same old nonsense. It didn't work last time and it sure as Hell won't work this time.
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Our first leaflet
It's to be printed two-sided and folded in three, so the front page is the right hand column of page 1. Right click and download etc if you'd like to print it yourself.
Nothing is ever final, so please leave any comments and suggestions in the, er, comments.
Nothing is ever final, so please leave any comments and suggestions in the, er, comments.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
"The Great Myth of Urban Britain"
From Mark Easton's blog at the BBC:
What proportion of Britain do you reckon is built on? By that I mean covered by buildings, roads, car parks, railways, paths and so on - what people might call "concreted over". Go on - have a guess...
The 80% of us who live in towns and cities spend an inordinate amount of time staring at tarmac and brick. On most urban roads, one can be tricked into thinking that the ribbon of grey we see reflects the land use for miles around. But when you look out of a plane window as you buckle-up ahead of landing at a UK airport, the revelation is how green the country appears.
So what is the answer to my question - have you got a figure in your head?
Until recently, conflicting definitions have made the calculation tricky but fortunately, a huge piece of mapping work was completed last summer - the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) (pdf). Five hundred experts analysed vast quantities of data and produced what they claim is the first coherent body of evidence about the state of Britain's natural environment.
Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way). The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.
Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built. In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.
Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%. In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is...
Click and highlight to reveal: 2.27%.
What proportion of Britain do you reckon is built on? By that I mean covered by buildings, roads, car parks, railways, paths and so on - what people might call "concreted over". Go on - have a guess...
The 80% of us who live in towns and cities spend an inordinate amount of time staring at tarmac and brick. On most urban roads, one can be tricked into thinking that the ribbon of grey we see reflects the land use for miles around. But when you look out of a plane window as you buckle-up ahead of landing at a UK airport, the revelation is how green the country appears.
So what is the answer to my question - have you got a figure in your head?
Until recently, conflicting definitions have made the calculation tricky but fortunately, a huge piece of mapping work was completed last summer - the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) (pdf). Five hundred experts analysed vast quantities of data and produced what they claim is the first coherent body of evidence about the state of Britain's natural environment.
Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way). The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.
Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built. In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.
Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%. In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is...
Click and highlight to reveal: 2.27%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)