Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

£30,000 To Give Up Council Flat


Bosh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Land price accepted (make use of government land?) I reckon £30k or so would likely build a decent sized well built pre-fab (no, not some 'orrible asbestos ridden box of old, prefab because it's better quality and more efficient).

Trouble is, if there's already 1,000,000 empty dwellings and still high prices ( :huh: ) . . . .

It's all so screwed up.

Yep, like those ones they make in Japan. Trucks and cranes come, end of the day you have a house complete with multi-function bog. Our council has lots of land, some have more than others.

Btw, I could also get 30k but as I said a few months ago if I had to put a price on my tenancy I'd value it at 60k. Is it fair? Unintended results of government long term policy I'd say. Fair doesn't come into it.

Who'd have thought a council tenancy would have been worth a light? What comes around etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sounds like you've just done a few googles and that's all you can come up with.

Historic debt related to council housing is said by the government to be 17 bn but considering the amount of money paid every year to the government this has actually been paid many times over. 75% of right to buy receipts go to central government coffers for example. Strangely you speak as if large numbers of council houses have been built recently but you seem to have forgotten that the average council house is around 40 years old and would have cost 1500 or 2,000 at most. A few year rent would have quickly paid off the original build cost. LAs are currently negotiating with the government on the 17bn issue.

You can't compare money then with money now. The taxpayer either borrowed the money, or stumped it up. A private tenant whose landlord has amortized his initial capital costs doesn't get any rent breaks because of that fact.

"Implicit subsudy"!? Don't talk such shi t. We all know what subsidised means.

Touched a nerve there, eh? :P

Council tenants get a better tenure than they could buy privately. Tenure is a good; in this case the good is provided by the community at below market rates. If you don't like the word subsidy ... what word would you use for this?

Renting a council house was easy in the early 80s, at any one time a large number were empty. The shortage of housing was deliberatly created by the government of the time (property owning democracy and all that) and continued by new Lab. Councils offering 30k is a symtom of this, it's cheaper than paying for a year or two of B&B.

Build more council houses and the 30k will disappear pretty damn quick.

I agree that RTB etc. was an error (looting in fact).

We can't build more council houses unless someone pays/borrows for them, and you're back to the subsidy of cheap capital provided by the taxpayer again. (And yes I'll have a council house please, if enough are to be built for all).

'The wider community' has benefited from the improving property market for 30 years.....they should be grateful!

Even if true, that has no bearing on the point under discussion. But you can't seriously believe it ... can you? Are all the HPCers and priced-out people just moaning for nothing then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these people can afford to put thier child through Uni and now save for a deposit for a house, they could afford to rent in the private sector.

Sorry, OP, they may be very nice people but still amount to leeching spongers, you just can't see it.

I'd never blame someone for taking up an offer though - blame the council for offering it.

Why can't the council use 30k as a deposit themselves and buy flats to rent out?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never blame someone for taking up an offer though - blame the council for offering it.

Why can't the council use 30k as a deposit themselves and buy flats to rent out?!

Can't find private sector flats that meet their standards?

Agreed on your first point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't compare money then with money now. The taxpayer either borrowed the money, or stumped it up. A private tenant whose landlord has amortized his initial capital costs doesn't get any rent breaks because of that fact.

Touched a nerve there, eh? :P

Council tenants get a better tenure than they could buy privately. Tenure is a good; in this case the good is provided by the community at below market rates. If you don't like the word subsidy ... what word would you use for this?

I agree that RTB etc. was an error (looting in fact).

We can't build more council houses unless someone pays/borrows for them, and you're back to the subsidy of cheap capital provided by the taxpayer again. (And yes I'll have a council house please, if enough are to be built for all).

Even if true, that has no bearing on the point under discussion. But you can't seriously believe it ... can you? Are all the HPCers and priced-out people just moaning for nothing then?

Councils are non profit making, you can't compare to a company working for private profit.

Any good from a non profit making group is a subsidised good? You really are trying to torture the English language to death aren't you!? Why not replace the word subsidise with 'lobster'?

Hit a nerve? Indeed. Repeating DM sound bites, then trying to justifie yourself lamely.

Security of tenure is great, given to tenants by law makers, most of whom are long dead. And so.....

I also own a piece of agricultural land, it's rented out for 3 generations (now on final generation)....also a historical right given to the tenant. Am I subsidising him?

Of course, not all would want to be council tenants but replacing some that sold off would be good.

Yes the government can borrow money cheaply, or for free (see Bill Still) and rents can pay these debt back. That's too simple for you?

My last 'point' was what passes for comedy for me, did I touch a nerve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never blame someone for taking up an offer though - blame the council for offering it.

Why can't the council use 30k as a deposit themselves and buy flats to rent out?!

My assessment, which th OP took so well, was pointed at what a ludicrous situation this is.

Why are council flats handed down, WTF, is that about.

If council accommodation is not subsidised, then a similar standard of accommodation must be available in the private sector. Therefore they are choosing to live amongst chavs, pimps, child molesters, etc, therefore have given up thier right to moan about it.

However, that is not the case, the fact that they stay is because it's financially beneficial for them to do so. Indeed they have afforded to put thier child through Uni and are now saving for a deposit, which clearly indicates a certain level of disposable income.

That disposable income is being provided by the tax payer, due to thier low council rent. The tax payer is again getting hammered by having to pay for the 5/6 person family who should be occupying that flat, but are currently being housed in a B&B.

Council housing should be for those who need it and any civilised society has a duty to provide such accomodation. However, some people think they have a right to be housed and this accommodation is effectively thiers. It is not and they should be means tested and obliged to move on, as soon as they are able. Or moved into more adequate accomodation as and when thier circumstances changed.

It boils down to just another symptom of whats wrong with the UK. A large element of the population have been brought up to believe they are 'owed' something and they are born 'victims'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me they should take a simple look at the numbers.

What is the flat worth on the open market and how much could they buy it for under the right to buy scheme? For the sake of argument say it is worth 200k and they could buy it for 120k. They would then be sitting on an instant 80k profit.

Catch is of course that they couldn´t sell the place for three years to fully realise this gain. Whereas they could take the 30k now offered and move straight away.

The question then is, is it worth sitting it out for the three years to gain the extra 50K? Only they can answer that.

On a separate point an old friend of mine back in the early 80´s was offered a bribe of what then seemed a huge amount (20k) to move out of his council flat at world´s end in Chelsea. He declined and bought the place for 38k. Three years later, when the area was regarded as much more desirable, he sold it for 210k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to just another symptom of whats wrong with the UK. A large element of the population have been brought up to believe they are 'owed' something and they are born 'victims'.

I agree. However, I don't think people generate this attitude entirely of their own accord. It comes directly more from NuLabours pay-per-vote policy.

I find the social housing situation in the UK very strange. In essence, the state acts as your landlord - particularly if you are working and renting from the state at a much lower rate than you would be paying in private accommodation. Now, a private landlord has access rights to their property. If they need a tenant to leave, a notice can be served, and the tenant removed. Even in France, which has much superior rental laws, it is possible to remove tenants, even if you may need to wait a couple of years to do so.

How have we arrived at a situation where a citizen who chooses to have the state as their landlord, receives greater rights than a more productive member of society living in private rental accommodation? This is the housing stock of the people of the UK. We have paid for it with our taxes. It is there to ensure homelessness and poverty do not occur on a mass scale.

If one person is living in a three-bed flat whilst three people are in a one-bed flat, it should be the work of weeks/months to exchange the tenants. Sure, people will complain that links with their local area will be broken. So what? Balancing the pressures of the system should take priority over individuals who have decided either not to contribute, or to contribute at lower rates to the system. This would require simple law changes to enact and would only be authoritarian in the sense that the private rental sector, where eviction can be enacted quickly, is authoritarian.

If you give people the sense that they have strong rights to get something for nothing they will obviously fight any change in circumstance with vociferous complaints. If however, you were to make it painfully clear to them that they were the very fortunate beneficiaries of the charity of their fellow citizens – charity that could be removed at any time – then perhaps they would eventually be slightly more grateful.

However, in Sh1tain these days NuLabour take the attitude that no moral discussion is too small to be avoided. Why try to strengthen social integrity and structure when you can simply pay people off. Pay them to move house, pay them to vote for you, pay them to go away. Forget civic duty or patriotism. Focus only on the 'rights' of the individual and simply pay them the named price for their vote.

Don’t think this is limited to jobless ‘scum’ either. The whole system worked just fine as long as a massive credit bubble existed to pay-off the middle classes and convince them that they also had personal entitlement. Without that system Brown found himself left with no way to pay off a large section of the voting public. The solution? Hire Government non-jobbers at an unprecedented rate and print fake money to prop up their personal housing wealth. No better way of controlling your populace than ensuring they are absolutely dependent on you in every way. Slavery by any other name.

It’s this pathetic avoidance politics – focusing on paying people to turn the other way rather than addressing the issues - which has underlain so many of the mistakes of the last twelve years.

Edited by JonnyTomes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no great expert on these things but as a council dweller myself I naturally take more of an interest.

(Generally, council house tenants are only allowed 1 succession for example.)

Many people on here are giving opinions on a topic they know nothing about (so what's new!?) and clearly some love to see themselves as victims (otherwise know as taxpayers) I can't help but see them as the other side of the same coin to "chav scum." Mutually dependent.

Council housing is an abomination to bankers, they will try to destroy the system and are succeeding. Around the country tenants are being pressed to transfer to housing associations and have their secure tenancies watered down to 'assured' tenancies....HAs make profits for banks, council houses don't. The days of council housing are numbered, bribes will have to get bigger as time goes on, the last tenants of a private block will naturally get the biggest bribes.

Don't worry folks, we will soon all be the serfs of bankers, they can't stop themselves, they want it all. Some of us want that too, it's a kind of security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest P-Diddly

I'm no great expert on these things but as a council dweller myself I naturally take more of an interest.

(Generally, council house tenants are only allowed 1 succession for example.)

Many people on here are giving opinions on a topic they know nothing about (so what's new!?) and clearly some love to see themselves as victims (otherwise know as taxpayers) I can't help but see them as the other side of the same coin to "chav scum." Mutually dependent.

Council housing is an abomination to bankers, they will try to destroy the system and are succeeding. Around the country tenants are being pressed to transfer to housing associations and have their secure tenancies watered down to 'assured' tenancies....HAs make profits for banks, council houses don't. The days of council housing are numbered, bribes will have to get bigger as time goes on, the last tenants of a private block will naturally get the biggest bribes.

Don't worry folks, we will soon all be the serfs of bankers, they can't stop themselves, they want it all. Some of us want that too, it's a kind of security.

CD, you're a working fella that just happens to have the council as his landlord, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD, you're a working fella that just happens to have the council as his landlord, right?

Yeah but I've recently got my hours down to 16.5!! Someone else has got half my job! Only need little to live.

Now paying very little income tax but still paying other taxes, 300 quid VED for 2 old cars for example.

When the council isn't trying to sell my home out from under me they're a good landlord, I pay me rent, they leave me alone.

From what I can make out, half my rent goes to central government, 30% on repairs and 20% on admin. Admin included pensions . (this from council contacts, staff and elected)

For me, owning a house is not the be all and end all but will buy (out right) if forced to. I believe I can get about 32k discount. Not enough, I deserve more!

How's Thai?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest P-Diddly

Yeah but I've recently got my hours down to 16.5!! Someone else has got half my job! Only need little to live.

Now paying very little income tax but still paying other taxes, 300 quid VED for 2 old cars for example.

When the council isn't trying to sell my home out from under me they're a good landlord, I pay me rent, they leave me alone.

From what I can make out, half my rent goes to central government, 30% on repairs and 20% on admin. Admin included pensions . (this from council contacts, staff and elected)

For me, owning a house is not the be all and end all but will buy (out right) if forced to. I believe I can get about 32k discount. Not enough, I deserve more!

How's Thai?

Oh it's still here, I'm still here. Just mowed the grass, put a load of urea on it about a month ago, lovely deep green, soft wonderful grass now.

I've built houses, own sod all mind, still got a nice little place to live, can't complain. Not bovvered really. Got a bit of work on. Not much. Enough to buy a box of noodles. It's better like this innit? Before work near killed me, now 'only need a little to live' is where it's at. I love this life better than the old. Is a worry though if everything really does shut up shop completely.

If it's on offer me old mush, take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My assessment, which th OP took so well, was pointed at what a ludicrous situation this is.

Why are council flats handed down, WTF, is that about.

If council accommodation is not subsidised, then a similar standard of accommodation must be available in the private sector. Therefore they are choosing to live amongst chavs, pimps, child molesters, etc, therefore have given up thier right to moan about it.

However, that is not the case, the fact that they stay is because it's financially beneficial for them to do so. Indeed they have afforded to put thier child through Uni and are now saving for a deposit, which clearly indicates a certain level of disposable income.

That disposable income is being provided by the tax payer, due to thier low council rent. The tax payer is again getting hammered by having to pay for the 5/6 person family who should be occupying that flat, but are currently being housed in a B&B.

Council housing should be for those who need it and any civilised society has a duty to provide such accomodation. However, some people think they have a right to be housed and this accommodation is effectively thiers. It is not and they should be means tested and obliged to move on, as soon as they are able. Or moved into more adequate accomodation as and when thier circumstances changed.

It boils down to just another symptom of whats wrong with the UK. A large element of the population have been brought up to believe they are 'owed' something and they are born 'victims'.

Actually AP, we have similar views on council housing. I objected to you stating my friend was a sponging leech.

From the information provided you have indicated... He is a sponger because he funded his child through university. He took extra work therefore having enough disposable income to part save for a deposit and part help his son. Whilst taken advantage of cheap rent that we subsidise..... No, no, no... What you imply is that he should have volunteered to give up the flat being a good citizen.

I am trying to ask the forum as to wether councils offering council tenants a large sum of money is a good idea...... You attack the individual.

I am not going to post the life story of this family but the lad in question also worked through university. I employed him and I also helped financially. His parents are unskilled and for inner London earn shite wages.

I am so proud of him and applaud them for wanting to break out of that shithole and whatever way they can legally do that then who can blame them.

Soon they will out of there and no longer taking advantage of cheaper rents etc but I ask anyone living on that estate saving for a deposit to leave council accomodation not to take advantage of a system that chucks you 30k for leaving.....

It`s absolute madness and yes far too many people milk the system. I fecking hate the benefits system in this country. Far too many genuine spongers but at least this family pay taxes back in and are far more deserving of taking advantage of a daft system than many others.

If more people in that estate had the same attitude then there would be plenty of housing for those in genuine need and a lot less violent crime..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councils are non profit making, you can't compare to a company working for private profit.

To the extent that each has a group of people who capture the lion's share of the benefits, you can compare them.

With companies it's usually the shareholders.

With councils its the segment of the population that receives net benefits -- one (among many) of which is subsidised housing.

Any good from a non profit making group is a subsidised good? You really are trying to torture the English language to death aren't you!? Why not replace the word subsidise with 'lobster'?

No, you're the one torturing the language, through twisting my words. Profit/non-profit status is irrelevant; a private-sector landlord which provided better tenure and cheaper rents than the market would support, would be subsidising its tenants too.

I'd love to be able to bid to live in one of the council houses around here (they are decent houses with big gardens). So would others in private rental. But we're excluded from the market. The good is being provided at below the market price, to a rigged group of clients who are protected by the barriers-to-entry that keep the majority of potential bidders away.

NOTE: I'm not saying the above is wrong in principle, because I have no doubt that some people NEED subsidised accommodation, and that need should be met as far as possible IMO. So I'm not arguing against subsidy, just affirming it is there -- and it should be there. But I do think that the current prioritisation of incumbency over need is morally wrong, as is a situation where people have to be offered a 30k bribe to make way for more needy cases.

Hit a nerve? Indeed. Repeating DM sound bites, then trying to justifie yourself lamely.

Nope, just looking at the issue without being encumbered by a personal VI.

Security of tenure is great, given to tenants by law makers, most of whom are long dead. And so.....

I also own a piece of agricultural land, it's rented out for 3 generations (now on final generation)....also a historical right given to the tenant. Am I subsidising him?

If the lease went for the market price on the day the original landlord signed it, then no you are not subsidising him. Also if you bought the asset with the encumbrance in place, then you're not subsidising him (because you would have received a discount on the unencumbered value).

But if you (or your ancestor) provided the lease to a specific renter on favourable terms (compared to the then-market terms) then your family has been providing a subsidy through the lifetime of the lease.

Of course, not all would want to be council tenants but replacing some that sold off would be good.

Yes the government can borrow money cheaply, or for free (see Bill Still) and rents can pay these debt back. That's too simple for you?

You still haven't grasped the fact that the cheap borrowing is on the back of the taxpayers (and they are at the limit of what they can underwrite).

If public housing isn't subsidised by having privileged access to this finance, then neither are banks who do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are council flats handed down, WTF, is that about.

If council accommodation is not subsidised, then a similar standard of accommodation must be available in the private sector. Therefore they are choosing to live amongst chavs, pimps, child molesters, etc, therefore have given up thier right to moan about it.

However, that is not the case, the fact that they stay is because it's financially beneficial for them to do so. Indeed they have afforded to put thier child through Uni and are now saving for a deposit, which clearly indicates a certain level of disposable income.

That disposable income is being provided by the tax payer, due to thier low council rent. The tax payer is again getting hammered by having to pay for the 5/6 person family who should be occupying that flat, but are currently being housed in a B&B.

Council housing should be for those who need it and any civilised society has a duty to provide such accomodation. However, some people think they have a right to be housed and this accommodation is effectively thiers. It is not and they should be means tested and obliged to move on, as soon as they are able. Or moved into more adequate accomodation as and when thier circumstances changed.

It boils down to just another symptom of whats wrong with the UK. A large element of the population have been brought up to believe they are 'owed' something and they are born 'victims'.

Exactly.

It's not a case of saying council housing is evil; it's about stopping it from being captured by one group who then sits on it like a dog in a manger, while others in greater need go unhoused (or housed in B&Bs).

Of course, the need to sit on it comes from the fact that an equivalent deal is impossible to find in the private sector. I wouldn't surrender a council house if I had one under the present arrangements, either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it makes economic sense, as it probably costs a lot more than £30k to subsidise tenants over the years.

Whether it makes moral sense is another matter. Id give him a Mobile home and a plot on a travellers camp and tell him to be grateful.

For the individual it may or may not make sense - depending on the area they want to move to and prices at that time etc..

Personally I am sick of people having a right to buy and then flogging it to leap up the property ladder. One lot of people I know got the council to do the place up before they would buy it.

I think council housing is a really big factor in keeping house prices high in the ftb sector. The council will buy the minimum they can get away with which is in direct competition with FTBs I know near me that they have been doing that as they have to house people by law. They buy them in at the best possible price which in a rising market was as soon as it came on the market. How can an FTB compete with the council?

If somebody can even dream of buying a place then they shouldnt be in a council house in the first place. You cannot be that hard up.

They should do a degree in CHAV sponging - I might take it up.

/endrant :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the extent that each has a group of people who capture the lion's share of the benefits, you can compare them.

With companies it's usually the shareholders.

With councils its the segment of the population that receives net benefits -- one (among many) of which is subsidised housing.

No, you're the one torturing the language, through twisting my words. Profit/non-profit status is irrelevant; a private-sector landlord which provided better tenure and cheaper rents than the market would support, would be subsidising its tenants too.

I'd love to be able to bid to live in one of the council houses around here (they are decent houses with big gardens). So would others in private rental. But we're excluded from the market. The good is being provided at below the market price, to a rigged group of clients who are protected by the barriers-to-entry that keep the majority of potential bidders away.

NOTE: I'm not saying the above is wrong in principle, because I have no doubt that some people NEED subsidised accommodation, and that need should be met as far as possible IMO. So I'm not arguing against subsidy, just affirming it is there -- and it should be there. But I do think that the current prioritisation of incumbency over need is morally wrong, as is a situation where people have to be offered a 30k bribe to make way for more needy cases.

Nope, just looking at the issue without being encumbered by a personal VI.

If the lease went for the market price on the day the original landlord signed it, then no you are not subsidising him. Also if you bought the asset with the encumbrance in place, then you're not subsidising him (because you would have received a discount on the unencumbered value).

But if you (or your ancestor) provided the lease to a specific renter on favourable terms (compared to the then-market terms) then your family has been providing a subsidy through the lifetime of the lease.

You still haven't grasped the fact that the cheap borrowing is on the back of the taxpayers (and they are at the limit of what they can underwrite).

If public housing isn't subsidised by having privileged access to this finance, then neither are banks who do the same thing.

Surely the word you are are looking for is guarantor? The taxpayer acts as a quarantor for loans, incase LAs are unable to pay the loans. Only if the council was unable to pay would there be an actual subsidy.....tell me how many times have councils defaulted on council house debts over the past 100 years?

Anyway, I'm glad I've found the correct word for you, no need to keep trying to bang the square peg into the round hole .

Edited by council dweller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to be able to bid to live in one of the council houses around here (they are decent houses with big gardens). So would others in private rental. But we're excluded from the market. The good is being provided at below the market price, to a rigged group of clients who are protected by the barriers-to-entry that keep the majority of potential bidders away.

Nope, just looking at the issue without being encumbered by a personal VI.

Surely as a taxpayer and someone having to rent inferior privately rented your VI is personal enough.....your post suggest this too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Actually AP, we have similar views on council housing.

Glad we agree on something.

I objected to you stating my friend was a sponging leech.

Don't blame you I would too. :D But my opinion remains the same. Council accomodation should be provided for those that need it, and should provide basic habitable accommodation sufficient for the families basic needs. IIt should not be something people want, or can, live in any longer than they have to.

From the information provided you have indicated... He is a sponger because he funded his child through university. He took extra work therefore having enough disposable income to part save for a deposit and part help his son. Whilst taken advantage of cheap rent that we subsidise..... No, no, no... What you imply is that he should have volunteered to give up the flat being a good citizen.

No, not volunteered. Been obliged to under the T&Cs of tenancy.

I am trying to ask the forum as to wether councils offering council tenants a large sum of money is a good idea...... You attack the individual.

No it's not. But it's a good example of how Government directives have been mismamnaged at local level, so they have got themselves into such a mess the only viable way out is to bribe tenants to leave.

Not the individual per se, as I clearly do not have enough information to make a character judgement, although you obviously took it that way. But this your friend not mine.

I am not going to post the life story of this family but the lad in question also worked through university. I employed him and I also helped financially. His parents are unskilled and for inner London earn shite wages.

I am so proud of him and applaud them for wanting to break out of that shithole and whatever way they can legally do that then who can blame them.

Soon they will out of there and no longer taking advantage of cheaper rents etc but I ask anyone living on that estate saving for a deposit to leave council accomodation not to take advantage of a system that chucks you 30k for leaving.....

Obviously very good friends. And I don't blame them either, who wouldn't want to be gifted £30k.

It`s absolute madness and yes far too many people milk the system. I fecking hate the benefits system in this country. Far too many genuine spongers but at least this family pay taxes back in and are far more deserving of taking advantage of a daft system than many others.

If more people in that estate had the same attitude then there would be plenty of housing for those in genuine need and a lot less violent crime..

Totally agree, as soon as they have taken their bribe and moved out.

Edited for quotes

Edited by Agent Provocateur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest P-Diddly

Glad we agree on something.

Don't blame you I would too. :D But my opinion remains the same. Council accomodation should be provided for those that need it, and should provide basic habitable accommodation sufficient for the families basic needs. IIt should not be something people want, or can, live in any longer than they have to.

No, not volunteered. Been obliged to under the T&Cs of tenancy.

No it's not. But it's a good example of how Government directives have been mismamnaged at local level, so they have got themselves into such a mess the only viable way out is to bribe tenants to leave.

Not the individual per se, as I clearly do not have enough information to make a character judgement, although you obviously took it that way. But this your friend not mine.

Obviously very good friends. And I don't blame them either, who wouldn't want to be gifted £30k.

Totally agree, as soon as they have taken their bribe and moved out.

Edited for quotes

In fairness to my dear friend Bosh, he did get his knickers in a twist here, distinguishing between friends and the fvcked up system.

I hope these clowns give my mate Council Dweller £30k . . . no sod it give CD £300K!!! I agree with that, he's my mate and he's great! But on the other hand we all know that this is carnage and is the road to hell . . .

I'm well pissed, been out on the pi$$ with a bunch of Thai's to look at you'd think are poor but really have about £100,000,000.

Weird this place. And I thought my new dinning table was posh!

Wot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to my dear friend Bosh, he did get his knickers in a twist here, distinguishing between friends and the fvcked up system.

I hope these clowns give my mate Council Dweller £30k . . . no sod it give CD £300K!!! I agree with that, he's my mate and he's great! But on the other hand we all know that this is carnage and is the road to hell . . .

I'm well pissed, been out on the pi$$ with a bunch of Thai's to look at you'd think are poor but really have about £100,000,000.

Weird this place. And I thought my new dinning table was posh!

Wot?

Thanks MrP!!

If I do 'RTB' the 32k discount will be enough, maybe 100k for a house that cost 1,100. to build in 1953. The taxpayer would make a tidy profit, especially if you include the almost sixty years of rent.

Yeah, the system is so fvcked on all levels and has been for a good many years....reset anyone?

Money? Enough really it enough!

Good wishes and respect to a poster who never lets his ego get in the way Mr P.

CD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.