tim123

Where do you think people are going to get the "idea" of the price that they should try to sell for. The no-service listing boards certainly aren't going to tell them tim

I consider those two statements to be contradictory. They are putting the squeeze on EAs by ramping up fees for unlimited postings, but private sellers only want to advertise a single property. If they introduce such an option the EAs will use it selectively instead of being ripped off for unlimited postings tim

ISTM that it's a bit perverse to claim that a piece of legislation which is designed to protect consumers creates a protected business. I'm not sure that from the pov of the buyer that this change is welcome. There's going to be nothing to stop direct sellers adverting their properties with a tissue of lies wasting people's time doing viewings on unsuitable properties that they would have skipped if they had the truth in the first place. tim

OK, but they atill aren't going to accept Luton as an alternative. tim

"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"

Because they’d suffered the "we've rented five different places in five years" malarkey. It wasn't clear why but if it was because "the LL wanted the property back" each time then they were extraordinarily unlucky, not one of the (3) properties that I have rented in the past 6 years would I have had to move from if it wasn't for a job move (or in the last case, lack of job move) tim

And even then they couldn't keep to script. what sort of EA is it who when told "we would like a house in St Albans" says "perhaps we can interest you in this one in Luton", You might just as well offer them one on the moon! tim

The program has to be filmed to a schedule. How can they tell when they start filming, whether it will be finished by the time that they have to move to the cutting-room? "make over" programs always suffer this risk tim

IME you have to get exceptionally lucky to get a bargin property at auction that you would be prepared to live in. Most are either absolute dumps on sink estates or sell for pretty close to "full" value. If you've done this then well done (and some more info woukld be appreciated). tim

Absolute nonsense. 5% perhaps, 50% never! tim

Except that people who own more than one property don't go to school twice as often or make benefit claims twice as often (which is about 75% of council spend), only things like emptying bins gets down twice and that is a trivial spend by the council. The purpose of council tax is a payment for services offered, distributed fairly amongst local users, its purpose isn't a way to redistribute wealth (fairly or otherwise) tim

I thought elephant were an online broker, not an insurance company? tim

Only during the term, At the end of the lease the uplifted value reverts to the freeholder (for free), unless that is, the leaseholder take up his rights to extend his lease, but if he does so the formula moves much of the uplifted value to the freeholder, at that point. (Though it's all moot as it's never going to happen) tim

It's paid up front, so the people who don't sell are subsidising those that do. (Argue amongst yourselves as to whether that’s fair or not) tim

well first you have to establish why it is on for the price that it is on at. tim

They have. you can have their non food online purchases devivered to your local store for collection

There is already a process for doing this, but many LLs (not in this position) would be reluctant to let if there wasn't a guarenteed "no fault" route to getting their property back, as they know that the "with fault" reasons are open to T playing the system tim

1) So L and T are going to able to agree what will happen if T does not pay rent one month? There has to be some statutory rules involved here, the question is where do you draw the line. 2/3) Few LLs are going to agree with giving a tenant completel security of tenure for reasons that I've argued before. The issue with agencies getting involved in the process is simply fixed by forbidding them from charging for it, they'll soon keep their noses out if there wasn't any extra money involved. tim

what's the basis on you saying it's 30% overpriced? tim

I'm inclined to think that the number of people this would help would be tiny. At the risk of agencies misinterpreting the rule to mean that they can only offer 24 month fixed term (as they currently do the with 6 month rule), which may not suit everybody. Are there really a huge number of people who get given notice at the 6/12 month point because the LL wants the property back which aren't: 1) S21 notice given to poor paying tenants because it's easier to evict them this way. 2) Tenants given a S21 notice to quit as a negotiating tactic by the agents/LL to get tenants to agree to a new fixed term/increased rent, which backfires when the tenant thinks that the LL really does want them out. This change in the rule won't affect (1) as there is not six month limit to S8 evictions, and if 2 is a problem then the way that S21 notices are enforced can be changed so that that S21s can't be used in this way. (No immediatle ideas how to achieve this but it can't be impossible) Edit - actually I do have an idea. Banning all fees to the tenant on contract renewal would go some way to fixing it, as with no fees involved there would be much less reason for the agents to press for the new contract - of course that doesn't help with a LL who actually want a fixed term. (yes I know we should ban all fees to tenants but that a much bigger can of worms)

Is this the only thing about women that you don't understand? (Whatever your answer, you won't be alone) tim

Like no 155 (though I suspect that's hard to sell for a different reason - a high maintenenace charge!) tim

But as an individual who's just (potentially) lost 85K, if the choice is getting back something with the buying power of 80K, or nothing at all, it's s no-brainer tim

As a skilled IT worker I don't know anyone on close to 80K. SAP specialists perhaps (outside my working area), but generic IT people go for 45-50 ish tim

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf SS 6.2 on p20.