cartimandua51

Yes - the then chancellor (Nigel Lawson??) announced months in advance that double MIRAS for unmarried couples would be stopped for new applicants, with the entirely unsurprising result that there was a mad scramble to get in before it happened, resulting in a boom then collapse. IIRC prices didn't fully recover in most places till about 1996. And as the basic rate of tax was 30% until 1988, then 25%, Miras was well worth having.

IIRC (I was training to be an accountant in the early 70's): There were Family Allowances. Higher rate taxpayers got this taken away from them by a claw-back system; this was a "tread carefully" area for tax advice as you could be better off not claiming them at all, but this disadvantaged the wife & benefited the husband! (Or possibly vice versa - it was 40 years ago) Married couples only ever got one MIRAS; you only got double MIRAS if co-habiting Until 1973 there was Wife's earned income relief equal to single person's allowance 73 - 88 Wife's Earned Income taxed as if she were single (her unearned income was aggregated with that of her husband) Full separate taxation of wife's income didn't come in until 1988. I'm old enough to remember being the taxpayer (my husband did a postgraduate degree) but the tax refund cheque was paid to him - for tax purposes man and wife were one person and that person was the husband! So not as generous as you might think - particularly for the wife!

I have just read (all right, skimmed) the document and one aspect which I don't think anyone has brought up is this: The one obvious way of escaping Full Conditionality is to be a carer of a disabled person. At present, offspring who have no expectation of any inheritance from their elderly parents have no incentive (outside being genuinely nice, loving children!) to keep their parents out of care homes. This UC would be a passport into permanent benefits as long as a parent lived. However much UC/ Carers Allowance/ DLA is, it's almost certainly cheaper than Care Home costs. If the Gov't could close, say 25% of care homes wouldn't there be a massive saving?

On the other hand, there are some things with which I heartily agree - like having electric sockets at a height which doesn't require crawling round on the floor behind furniture! These have been standard in kitchens for decades (probably because the kitchen is traditionally sold to the woman, who wants practicality) whereas in other rooms architects want clean lines and ease of installation for electricians. What's wrong with wider doors? doesn't half make furniture moving easier!

The answer would appear to be that HE goes on benefits & claims support off HER (& IIRC her new husband's income is taken into account!) Child support & alimony are not wiped out, exactly as student loans aren't. I'm pretty sure this used to be the case - anyone got more up-to-date info? Addition non-provable debts, such as court fines and other obligations arising under an order made in family proceedings or under a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support Act 1991. Non-provable debts are not included in the bankruptcy proceedings and you are still responsible for paying off such debts; source: Govt Insolvency Service website. But with the exception of refusal to pay council tax they still can't put you in jail, so I'd have borrowed money off a friend (if I still had any!) and gone off and done a 3-year PhD or something while she sorted herself out! (& I speak as a woman)

Counts as deliberate deprivation of assets & wouldn't wash for a moment with the DSS

Perhaps someone should tell him that a blanket ban on pets is specifically mentioned in the Office of Fair Trading's examples of potentially unfair contract terms. One of the (few) things we have to thank the EU for. Can't immediately find the original OFT doc, but : Unreasonable ancillary obligations and restrictions Terms that put tenants at risk of incurring contractual penalties that are more severe than is necessary to protect the landlord’s real interest in safeguarding his property generally will be considered unfair. Terms restricting a tenant’s use of a property should be reasonable in relation to the type and location of the property. Other examples of unreasonable prohibitions include terms against keeping pets. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU state because it could prevent a tenant from keeping a goldfish. A term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property or be a nuisance to other residents would be unlikely to meet the same objection. http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-factsheets/factsheets/factsheet-10b-office-of-fair-trading-guidance-on-unfair-terms-in-tenancy-agreements.html

By the same token you should have free food & clothing automatic issues?

Did they move in? Sounds as if it's been in the family 3 generations. Not that I have that much sympathy; in my book traffic noise (& even pub noise) are in a lower league than ASBO chav type loud parties.

Possibly worth a brief punt, but be aware that buyers know they have the advantage (well, would anyone on HPC be likely to dispute that?), and any hint that they might get messed about will put them off. A lot of EAs may be pretty useless, but at least they put an intermediary between the two parties to smooth down the inevitable arguments. Having bought about 8 houses over my lifetime I'd have hated to have to deal with the vendor all the time. And if the vendor showed signs of wanting to to do his own conveyancing as well, I'd have run for the hills!

Plant prunus spinosa and claim an addiction to sloe gin! Pyracantha is traditional as "burglarius ripapartus"....

Hmm. Junior doctor with bossy, protective, aggressive entitled mother.... Don't want to be too racist or judgemental, but if they are from outside the EU, tread carefully. There are strong laws protecting tenants against harrassment, but I suspect the race card would trump the tenancy card if played.

Yes and no. If you have an asking price of (say) £300K you might expect an offer of £270K and expect to agree, after a bit of haggling, at somewhere between £280K & £285K. But it depends so much on the competition - I put my house on the market at £360K hoping for £350K but got two asking price offers within 10 days. But it's not a surburban semi - it's the only house on the postcode (so no easy comparitors) and has 2/3 of an acre garden. So not everyone's cup of tea, but very attractive to a few people. The same would not apply to 235 Acacia Road or wherever. Abit of Googling (I can't remember the exact link) should bring up the most recent figures for average % of asking price achieved. From memory, it wanders around between 92% and 97%.

In the last 15 years, state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly. 27,000 charities are now dependent on the government for more than 75 per cent of their income and the ‘voluntary sector’ receives more money from the state than it receives in voluntary donations. With all the right-on political correctness/ equality stuff that implies. I prefer to give direct to people whom I want to give to; if that's distressed retired headmistresses or alcoholic ex-servicemen, that's my choice. I don't want to give to charities who are forced by their Gov't funding to support whichever minority ticks the most boxes or makes the most whines (Disabled Black Gay Single Parent Salafists ???) this month... I'd rather they spent it on booze or drugs as the Nanny State tut tuts at us, than contibute to another fat cat CEO's salary or gap year Hooray Henry's charity funded Range-Rover for his African jolly.

Seems to be a general illusion on HPC that most SMI is paid to pensioners. It's about 35% in money terms in 09/10 - can't link in the table direct, but it's p.29 of the pdf www.dwp.gov.uk/.../support-for-mortgage-interest-call-for-evidence.... It's about 50% of the caseload, which would seem to imply that the elderly are getting smaller amounts

I've just been trying to get an insurance quote out of DirectLine & they say all their systems are down.

I gather from some local developers /EAs that buyers of new homes are getting a bit more savvy - they've cottoned on to the habit of the big builders trick of putting up the nice new homes with the best views, then when they've suckered in the punters, up goes the social housing & you get the neighbours from hell sicked onto the estate by the council. One developer said that the first thing virtually all viewers now ask is "Where's the social housing going to be?"

I thought the council only gave planning permission if affordable / social housing was included, so surely they must adopt the roads???

Perhaps they are trying to separate themselves mfrom the banks who run their Finance arms - I discovered today that John Lewis appear to be tied into HSBC (at least, they won't accept balance transfers from anyone whose card is HSBC).

Happened to my daughter last year. Job became unbearable - left on her own to care for "vulnerable" (read: psychologically disturbed) hostel patients overnight with no back-up other than a cheery "ring the police if you get seriously threatened"! They stopped her JSA for 6 months, but she continued to get Housing Benefit and lived off food parcels from me.

In conjunction with 6 months is the minimum permitted by law. No it's not (that rule was abolished at least 10 years ago) I assume you are thinking that a LL would just issue a one-month (or whatever) AST which would then become periodic in the way that 6-month ones do? Perhaps you can enlighten me - I knew that some years back the 6-month minimum was abolished, but I was told in court by the judge ( my partner & I were suing a defaulting and absconded tenant fror the balance of the rent) that the new rules gave you "something and nothing" as you still couldn't terminate it in the first 6 months if the tenant didn't want to. (Excluding holday lets etc of course). Does this still apply?

Be careful what you pray for. I remember all too clearly what private rentals were like before the '88 Act. Expect LLs to refuse to take families if at all possible, as they are more likely to get support from the courts on any proportionality basis. More "technically" resident LLs; shared facilities etc. As ever, some will benefit (NOT necessarily Joe average worker; more likely the feckless chav contingent) others will lose.

I lived in one for 20+ years, and am about to buy another. I wouldn't buy one that needed a lot of modernisation because of the hassle factor with the heritage police, but if it's been updated to your satisfaction in structural matters (decoration isn't an issue unless you've got wallpaper the V&A might be interested in!) then it's not really a problem. Secondary glazing isn't as intrusive as it used to be (& cuts down dramatically on noise - much better than ordinary double glazing); or you could invest in shutters. The Victorians did quite well with heavy triple-layer curtains. There will always be a sense of something different from an anodyne modern box - some people will always go for it.

IIRC something like this (? over 3000 euros?) has applied in France for some years?

Giving people the right to end their lives at a time of their choosing without a load of sactimonious claptrap would be both a humane start and save a lot of money - Can't remember exactly what % of health care is spent on the final 6 months, but it's a lot.