Bob Loblaw

I stated the actual cost, less than a hundred pounds a year. The point I was trying to make, probably badly, was that to claim you have saved xxx extra on maintenance by renting is not being honest. There are minimal costs on repairs involved on a year to year basic when owning a house. Big regular costs are few and far between in my 20 years house owning experience. I save money every month and when repairs may be needed I use this money. I do not earmark it and keep a record of 'kitchen cabinets - 20 pounds' etc. It is like saying you save more money running behind a taxi than you do behind a bus.

You bore easily. As far as I can tell you are just naming parts of a house. Kitchen units, carpets, oven, hob etc These are not regular costs. How much has your landlord spent on kitchen units in the past twelve months? How much is he projected to spend on kitchen units in the next twelve months? For example, I have a quality kitchen fitted. Classic design, good quality. Was in when I bought the house, installed in 2007 so 5 years old. Here are my projected costs for the next 5 years on kitchen cabinets: 2013 - 0 2014 - 0 2015 - 79p (one of the hinges is squeaky) 2016 - 0 2017 - 0 etc

Those were actual costs, not an estimate. I stand by what I said, buy the right house and maintenance costs will be minimal.

??? These are regular costs? Aside from boiler servicing I have not paid anything out for the heating systems. The roof is sound. Gutters I clean once a year using a ladder and some rubber gloves. Windows are UPVC and should last for a good 15 years. Settlement cracks? If a well established building then it will have settled already. If a new building then cracks will be covered by the NHBC Can you expand and give examples for costs you have incurred? If you have bought a house without a heating system, rotten window frames or unsound roof then that can hardly be classed as regular maintenance. I think your are overstating these costs in order to justify renting over buying. In my experience repair and maintenance costs are minimal in the right house

Well I have owned a house on and off for twenty years, and maintenance and repair costs were minimal. The only exception being a Victorian terrace with damp issues. Could you give an example of some regular maintenance and repair costs that are not covered by insurance?

Having bought three years ago I have spent just under 100 pounds a year getting the boiler serviced. Maintenance and repair costs are always overstated on here. Buy the right house and maintenance will be very little.

This has already been discussed on here. Many councils are openly conceding that small amounts of council tax are effectively not viable to collect(I think they are expecting 50%+ not to pay) as it would not make financial sense to chase the debt through the courts. However, since their funding is based on collecting this amount they are having to make cuts elsewhere to cover the shortfall. So another case of the taxpayer paying more and receiving less.

You are obviously on a windup.George Stephenson and Joseph Swan are a couple of good examples among many others.

So assuming you get a job in Brighton and you live in Hastings then you will be happy to pay 340 quid to get to work each month?

So press releases from RightMove are factual? Or just the ones that suit the HPC agenda? Even if that article is in some way correct, for a boomer to have to downsize means that they have a buyer for their larger house. Either way, not good news for HPC. I see no evidence of boomers downsizing, with the boomers I do know being mortgage free and very happy where they are. No rush to offload at silly prices to HPCers :/

The desperate downsizing boomer is another stereotype dreamed up by some of the more bitter members on here. Whilst it may occasionally happen, most people prefer to live in their family home, especially after having worked for years to pay off the mortgage. I know a few boomers myself and not a single one has downsized, having invested too much in making their house their home, having nice gardens, nice neighbours etc. Also, having a large enough house for friends, family and grandchildren to stay in is a big consideration. I can see t he appeal of some on here for believing the mythical boomer who will sell their family home at any price in order to move to a bungalow. But in reality it is not that common.

How dare a care worker and a gardener want a place of their own. Scum pure and simple, they should know their place.

ha well I also have a house back in the UK, in a small village with countryside stretching out to the front and river walks 2 minutes away. Out here you have to take what you can and skyscraper living is a lot better than most other options. As a means to an end it is quite enjoyable. I still find it difficult to go on the balcony though, I am not good with heights.

Skyscrapers would work well in London. I live in Abu Dhabi on the 34th floor of a 45 story skyscraper. Has lots of facilities including a parking, gym, pools and a shopping mall, all self contained within the skyscraper and base. The footprint of the building is quite small and yet contains some 350+ units so an excellent use of space. Plus the views for the majority of residents are spectacular. I imagine they are not allowed in London due to historic buildings and restrictive planning laws.

Stirling sliding nicely against the $. Announcement after COB today?

If we are talking belts surely savers should be tightening not loosening?

I cant for the life of me think of activities that are mainly associated with being black. Unless she was putting on her CV that she was a member of the Young Black Graduates society? Did she list her interests as black ten pin bowling, black hiking and black water rafting?

Well that is a really weak argument. Taxpayers were not responsible for that, the government and banks were.

200,000 vs how many who own their homes outright and how many with sensible mortgages? I know it appeals to some peoples prejudices on here but the whole country is not reckless apart from those on here.

People like that are the exception. Most people are trying to live sensibly and yet wages are static and taxes and inflation is eating into their money. And we are to believe this is a good thing?

Not as simple as that. You can make financial decisions based on your situation at this point in time. However, when the goalposts are moved, prices rise, taxes go up etc then people become stretched and have every right to moan. Yet you are happy that the government is taking more money off people? It is good news that fuel wont be more expensive. If someone said they were going to punch you in the face then decided not to do it would you thank them? Also, benefits were not cut. They will rise by 1%.

http://www.telegraph...d-go-green.html I think it is clear the point has arrived where the government is now no longer bothered about maintaining a pretense of doing what the electorate wants. Interesting times.

Any reason why? Last time you were there were you caught in flagrante delicto in a taxi?

Yes just looked that up. Phased closure announced in 1975 (Wilson/Callghan) by a Labour government. Plant finally closed in 1979 and yet reading the OPs article you would assume Thatcher closed the plant herself and made 10,000 workers unemployed.