dalek

Well, finally accepted new offer since last pull-out - of £107,000! On a 5 bed, 2 reception Victorian terrace with garden in good structural nick (though a little dated, as dad was 81) with views of Snowdon, 5 mins walk from Portmeirion village (as featured in The Prisoner series) and with Ffestiniog Railway steam train passing past house a field away. Horrendous. Yet so many people still clinging to hope of £150,000 for similar. No chance.

Well, this is a bit esoteric, but here goes. I find out from neighbour, aged 98, who's lived in my street for 58 years, that the Victorian terraced house I live in (ground floor flat) was never actually bought by the freeholder Southwark Council. They simply requisitioned it in 1948 it as it was empty as owner was killed in Second World War. Apparently they did this regularly at the time. They then converted it into 2 flats and took in council tenants. The flats were later bought under Thatcher's Right to Buy, and many years down the line I bought my flat. I believe London councils then bought the freeholds to many of these houses. But did they always do this? Just wondering if they are, in fact, the legal owners of the freehold. Did they buy it. Has anyone had experience of this anomaly?

He says, unbelievably: 'If Daddy is well-off these things [housing, jobs, university fees] become less of an obstacle'!!! I'm gobsmacked! What if daddy, as in most cases, isn't well-off??? And he then concludes 'There are more important things to worry about'. What, things like no chance of buying a home, no decent jobs, £30,000 plus debts when you come out of university... and next, no safety net if you do lose your job if you're under 25. Jesus.

So, the bad news is, the survey showed damp - it's a Victorian house that has been empty for two and a half years - so my sister and I got Dad's excellent builder for many years to give an estimate. He came up with £1,600 to fix roof tiles causing leaks and to sort interior plasterwork/decoration affected. The buyer got another estimate to compare, who came up with the same price. We told the buyer the builder could start work next week, would be finished in a week, and we would pay. But he pulled out, telling estate agents the whole roof needed replacing!? This, after we'd taken all furniture to clearance for him, as he asked, while leaving a few items he wanted - fridge freezer, washing machine etc. So now, when my sister goes over to stay - she lives much nearer than I do stuck in London - she'll have nothing to sit on. Our builder, who's a star, always put the heating on in the house over the winter very low, but obviously not enough to stop deterioration of roof. Well, we're now going to make good, so that any other surveys will reveal no surprises. Sigh. Some people.

Sorry! Not very festive was it? Happy New Year! And to everyone, including Workingpoor - even though he wanted to see me out on the street while he stays nice and snug in his own home. But I really hope you don't lose your job WP.

I said being under 35 was not relevant to that hypocrite's situation. That doesn't mean I don't find it appalling that younger people are discriminated against under the benefits system (as they are in most areas of life now btw). Tw**t.

Ha! So you'll be able to stay in your rented one-bed flat - i.e. your home - but you would gladly have seen me chucked out of my home. You effing hypocrite. And by the way, you're not under 35 so that's irrelevant to your situation.

So more than a million people - and their children - are going to starve?!!

Who are these single people living in a mortgaged 5-bedroom detached house? And by the way, I am single and have a mortgaged one-bed flat.

No. To keep me in my home while I look for another job, just as renters who lose their jobs have their rent paid to stay in theirs. Simples. And Blizzard said: 'If I become unemployed, will the government pay the financing costs on my investments? No. If a home isn't an investment, if it is a protected right of some kind, then where's mine?' If you become unemployed housing benefit will ensure you can pay the rent and stay in your home. And Workingpoor - if that's indeed what you are, then you're likely in a job that's pretty insecure and you could lose it tomorrow. The purpose of the Welfare State was and should be to provide a safety net - for workers - when people lose their job and to allow some breathing space for them to spend time finding another job, and not have to deal with the upheaval of losing their homes and seeking alternative accommodation. The shock of losing your job plus then having to live on £71 a week - for food, groceries, gas, electric, water etc is hard enough, without having your life thrown into even more chaos. Have you lot had a compassion bypass, or are you all idiots? Or maybe just very bitter?

So you think you could never lose your job? Most people claiming benefits - and I was one of them not that long ago - have worked for decades and paid tax. And many, thanks to this albeit dwindling safety net, go on to find work again, as I did. And giesahoose - the government does not pay people's mortgage! SMI pays towards the interest part only, not the repayment and because SMI is now capped, most people only get half their monthly interest paid. In addition, you get nothing for the first three months after you lose your job.

Thanks Stainlesssteelcat! We were supposed to exchange this week, but solicitors dragging feet as per. Where are you?

So after two and a half years we finally have a buyer and have accepted £120,000. We dropped gradually from £139,000 although it started at £160,000. A great relief. But rock-bottom price for a 5-bed 2 reception victorian terrace in good order, if dated slightly. Interesting that others on the market as long as us haven't dropped at all in that time! They must be insane.

So after two and a half years we finally have a buyer and have accepted £120,000. We dropped gradually from £139,000 although it started at £160,000. A great relief. But rock-bottom price for a 5-bed 2 reception victorian terrace in good order, if dated slightly. Interesting that others on the market as long as us haven't dropped at all in that time! They must be insane.

A 'powerful' MPs' group!!??? They are not powerful - no group of MPs or for that matter individual MPs are powerful. They are elected! In fact, they'll soon realise quite how much 'power' they have when their names are released to their constituents!! Why is the xxffing BBC colluding in this nonsense by stating that they're powerful as though it's a fact?