MongerOfDoom

I agree I would if I were to insist on using an agent. But there is no longer any compelling need for that unless I want a particular flat. Landlords are now able to avoid EAs, and many advertise directly. While it's difficult to know what would have happened if an agent was not involved, it is very clear it was not in the agent's interest for the landlord to accept my offer. I think it is safe to say the offer was not so far from acceptable that it did not even merit a counter-offer. I still have the option of just throwing money at the problem, and bending over for them. But then the reason I have money I could use that way in the first place is that I prefer to walk away when a deal is too heavily biased in favour of the other party. In the end, all I wanted was a contract that would motivate them to somehow reduce my loss if I had to leave early. The offer was structured so they could rent the flat out at just above half-price, and still break even after six months. I now have a very good solution for the rest of this year. After that I will just need to look for a sane landlord who does not use an agent. I happily lived for over 10 years in the previous place, so they certainly exist. Alternatively I will rent somewhere much cheaper where I could justify living even between jobs.

The way things are going, not many young people will need to worry about the tax rate on incomes over £40k. While that salary does not come close to paying for a slavebox in the SE, it's nevertheless a lot more than most people earn, and then in jobs they have held onto since the boom. If you disagree, please complete the following sentence. Young people in Britain will be a lot better off than those in Greece and Spain because ...

Update: I submitted an offer in writing to the agent. It was at the asking price, and involved paying £4k upfront and then decreasing rent for the first six months. That way, if I left early the landlord would have received a fair amount for the inconvenience. Or I thought it would have been fair, anyway. The agent said she had forwarded the offer to the landlord, and it was rejected. There was no counter-offer. The flat is now vacant and has been reduced by £25pw. The agent never bothered to check if I was still interested.

The EA was unlikely to lie or spout rubbish as the OP's son would notice. If there is a weak link in the anecdotal at all, it would presumably have to be the OP or maybe a combination of a son and an EA neither of whom can quite differentiate between his elbow and his fundament? Maybe it is too good to be true, but then it is precisely what many of us expect to eventually happen. We have sure waited for long enough, and it is certainly true that transaction volumes are falling. What I would like to know is what happens to houses owned by last-time sellers in Exeter. Those are presumably some of the most expensive properties, so there are forced sellers looking for one of the non-existent buyers who would want something for over £150k?

Your evidence being? I am not interested in buying myself, but others around me are. They are well-paid professionals, so more likely than most to satisfy restrictions on earning multiples. They are also certain to have well over 5% to put down. They say that getting any mortgage at all is difficult, never mind a 95% one. This is in the SE, maybe you are in some part of the country that is still booming? Or maybe my sample is too small.

They would do it because they are paid to act on the landlord's behalf. There almost always will be a price at which a landlord would accept a non-standard contract. It might even be the asking price if the alternative is a void. Except in the real world it's a lot easier to let said landlord suffer a void than to expend extra work that would not result in additional commission. The only downside for the agent I can see is that the landlords might eventually figure out that computers have long advanced past the stage where they can conduct a take-it-or-leave-it negotiation just as efficiently as a posh twit completely lacking in education or formal qualifications.

That does not seem consistent with reality, seeing as VW make an awfully large profit. You just cannot achieve that by selling at a loss, except maybe if you were to hire some ex-Enron accountants. Obviously, it would be one thing to sell for less than in other markets, and another to sell below the marginal production cost. http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/27/volkswagen-more-than-doubles-profit-with-15-sales-gain-in-2011/

I am not so sure. It tops out at about 35k/year household income after council tax/income tax/NI. There is little exclusive about that in the SE, as evidenced by the fact that on that much money you can only barely afford a 2-bed slavebox close to transport links. It might be your colleagues would be proved right if they instead looked at a chart showing people living in the same area or even working for the same employer.

Actually, I have sympathy for them. Not even the greediest landlord deserves to be raped by a letting agent. In the end, a landlord only gets rent in exchange for a good someone else wants. OTOH, the easiest way for an agent to make money isn't to act in the interest of either the landlord or the tenant, though they both get charged for the privilege. I am puzzled why estate agents have not yet gone the way of the travel agent, or why they are allowed to do their thing in a climate where banks are not even allowed to charge £20 for an overdraft or miss-sell payment insurance. Admittedly, some of the worst excesses are not enforceable any more: http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/foxtons/qandas#named14

They are indeed getting screwed. Perhaps they could tell the middle class about it. The difficulty would seem to be that there is already substantial unemployment, even with the minimum wage where it is. So there might well be even less demand for unskilled work if its cost is made to rise. Furthermore, there is a ready supply of people willing to come over from south/east EU if that happens, and they will probably be better educated than the natives they would compete with. I am not sure what policies you have in mind, but leaving the EU would be a prerequisite. It does not take a genius to figure out just how well the country would fare without free trade with the rest of civilised Europe.

It's easily possible to house a large number of social tenants for £1m if they are willing to move to a cheaper area. So there will be fewer of them living in LHA funded accommodation that FTBs would want.

So is the cost of driving rising faster or slower than that of other forms of transport then? If your choice is between the train and the car, the latter might well turn out to be a Giffen good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good (Nearly a fiver a month per car? Let's hope they don't need to replace a punctured tyre on top of that.)

The total amount of interest on the government debt is smaller than the deficit. So the government borrows the entire interest, and plenty on top. You could just as easily say the coupon payments currently come from further gilt issuance.

The BoE cornered the market in unsustainable government debt. Now cornering a market can be profitable, except that turning up with a huge pile of money and buying up everything available even as your own buying moves the market against you is just the first easy step. The tricky bit is to then sell whatever you bought at a profit. There is no way that can be done with BoE gilt holdings as the price will crater the moment they start selling. Of course, we might never have that particular problem. But the bottom line is that there is no realisable profit, and especially not a profit that has been realised. But there is hope. Sumitomo got to keep the profits they booked as the copper market was rising, and it all worked out well for them. Didn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_copper_affair

I wonder if you are allowed to use the money to pay for legal advice on how to avoid the rules.

Is it a crime not to tell them about your qualifications? They will give you a reference. If it says you turned up on time and did as told, that will likely distinguish you from an awful lot of others?

Errm, the whole point is that the definition of entitlement has changed. Now it includes a condition that you must participate in workfare if asked. We have been over the "paid-for" bit before. The government spent every single bit of money it had, and an awful lot in addition to that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor I very much doubt there is any legal principle that workfare violates, and there is now a judgement that says so. Unless you know a lot about law it might just be sensible to stop claiming otherwise. http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/courts-forced-labour-scheme-legal-121649798.html

I sympathise with your plight, it's not like something similar could not possibly happen to me. But I still think you are confused about the difference between workfare and slavery. It's obviously best for everyone if you can get a job you are qualified for. But if you are going to complain that you cannot get interviews for unqualified work then workfare is precisely what would help you get the required "experience", and more importantly demonstrate that you are willing to do a low-end job.

They are not in the same job. And they probably get more per hour if you include the time when they receive benefits without working. And they are very free to get a job instead. The suggestion that people on JSA should be entitled to the NMW is just bizarre. Because I am employed and they aren't? You cannot have had very many jobs if you think that same payment for same work is somehow the norm. A raving socialist? Now I have been accused of everything.

I am not being smug, and especially not about earning at least NMW. I did lose my job before, and was entitled to approximately feck all. I did not bother claiming contribution based JSA as it's close to worthless, and it was a better use of time to look for another job. It's not like it would have covered even the train fares to interviews if I did bother. And yes, it was depressing and unpleasant. But if that's the worst that happens to me before I die, I'll consider myself very fortunate indeed. Can you please tell me why you are so opposed to working for your benefits? It's not like you have to claim them with assets acquired over 32 years to fall back on? And it's not like you would not have had six months plus to find another job before anyone would ask you to? You paid your taxes but that money is long gone now, and so too are decades worth of deficit spending. Eventually, the country will have to start living within its means. One way would be to increase taxes by something like a quarter. Another would be to somehow reduce benefits. Do you really argue that there is some fundamental reason why benefits cannot go down even though the economy is shrinking? BTW, when looking for a job I was always asked to claim for travel expenses to interviews. On occasions when I said I was not interested in doing that, they insisted that I should still fill in the form. No prospective employer ever bothered to send me any money though. Is that also everyone else's experience, or was I just unlucky?

I am entitled to minimum wage and obliged to pay tax to support the unemployed. The unemployed get to receive my money in exchange for at least pretending they want to work, and on occasion demonstrating said willingness by doing a bit of work for less than the NMW. They don't pay tax. It's not entirely obvious to me which side has the short end of the stick, but it is clearly not possible to put them in exactly the same position.

For a moment I thought there was something blindingly obvious about that. But now I just cannot figure out what. Do you seriously suggest the unemployed should be paid the minimum wage? Just because they do a bit of work experience? Have you noticed the country is running a Greek-style deficit? Just how does that follow? Do they stop you from voting?

My only involvement with benefits is paying for them. I have sufficient savings to disqualify me from receiving LHA. I spoke to the agent earlier today: Annoying woman: the landlord does not want a break clause since you could leave just before Christmas and he would then have a void. Me: That's no problem. We can word the contract so I cannot do that. Annoying woman: you still cannot have it, why don't you go and bother someone else Me: The landlord might be facing a void in a couple of weeks. Presumably, he might be interested then? Annoying woman: You could try when it's empty, but don't waste my time before then. Obviously, that's in fewer words than it took, but that was the gist. I cannot contact the landlord directly since the flat is in a block and I don't know its number.I guess I'd better start looking elsewhere.

Thanks for the link. The trouble is that I don't think I'll ever have much job security. I am used to people around me getting canned left, right and centre. The new employer laid some people off earlier this year. I am pretty sure they will want to start with newly hired people if there is another redundancy round. I think that broadly means less than two years of service, so it's not really sensible to live in temporary accommodation until I've been there that long :-(

True, but he may hate the idea of a void even more. And it's not like I actively want to leave after a short time. Besides, it's already priced in line with short-term lets in the same area (though they don't have parking). I am sure there will be a very long list of ways in which they will want to screw me, and I am resigned to accepting most of them. But a 6 month minimum term just tilts things too far in their favour. It's not like I am unwilling to pay for breaking the contract. If the flat really is in as much demand as they say then they would actively want a contract with the option of giving a one-month notice on paying an extra £2000 (say).