Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Fletcher

1000s more households face losing their homes after switch to UC

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

The first thing I want to see is people losing their _properties_.  I may as well be honest. Not anybody that I know.  And not any individual. But en masse, it's a necessary evil for those who have endured a lot, a LOT, of pain for many many years to see a light at the end of the tunnel. 

Of course, we'd all like only BTL LLs to lose their properties, and not individuals losing their primary residence. But this is not an ideal world. 

I would like some people who bought before 85 to understand how bad it is now - rather than being happy that they have great paper wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

The first thing I want to see is people losing their _properties_.  I may as well be honest. Not anybody that I know.  And not any individual. But en masse, it's a necessary evil for those who have endured a lot, a LOT, of pain for many many years to see a light at the end of the tunnel. 

Of course, we'd all like only BTL LLs to lose their properties, and not individuals losing their primary residence. But this is not an ideal world. 

Not got a problem with good BTL landlords who own their BTL properties....in my experience they will not over charge on rents and will not keep increasing rents as and when they fancy......their tenants care for the landlords property and have pride in their community.

There is a growing number of people who will not be able to pay their rents, also some that will never be able to pay both the interest and principal of their debts.......IO is less for the tax payer to pay and should be deducted from any equity and recovered on sale of the property.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, winkie said:

Did not read the link.....but people who rent, both public and private rents have their ever increasing rents paid if they can't afford to pay......interest on IO is a tiny sum and falling rapidly in comparison...... homes once were  purchased when homes were not purchased as an investment and there was no such thing as a BTL mortgage.....BTL rents and housing benefit has benefited landlords very well over the years.

If the cost of housing was less more could afford to pay it with the wages they earn, like they used to......;)

True but in this case, people didn't use to be able to get a IO mortgage 3 years before they retired!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iamnumerate said:

True but in this case, people didn't use to be able to get a IO mortgage 3 years before they retired!!!

Add it to the bill.......add care costs to the bill.....deducted from the paper wealth if anything left, can't take it with you.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frugal Git said:

Rational decision. When full time work for many pays peanuts, and you can get more or less the same working part time and getting topped up it makes sense to do so.

Unless you earn 80k plus as earned family income in the south east, no point in full time work.

Solution is proper living wages in the first place, and reducing the cost of housing so people can have a family and a life.

On that point, many jobs have stopped or reduced their premiums for working overtime. All part of what I like to call the shrinkflation of work pay and conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, winkie said:

Add it to the bill.......add care costs to the bill.....deducted from the paper wealth if anything left, can't take it with you.;)

Nor pay your debts after you have gone - which could be more relevant I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortgage safety net 'disappearing'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42311583

'Ministers should consider strengthening the safety net for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage, a report suggests.

Help for this group introduced in response to the financial crisis will be largely withdrawn by 2022.

Academics, commissioned by lenders' trade body UK Finance, said the government should review its position.

However, mortgage applicants must now prove they have a buffer to deal with money shocks and rising interest rates.'

How about getting some academics commissioned by tax payers FFS?

'The UK Finance report said: "It is now evident that by 2022, there will only be limited government financial support for home buyers in distress, and that will mainly be in the form of loans for those not in work."

Instead, borrowers and their lenders would be expected to come to an arrangement on mortgage payments.'

Fuxxing Tories bastads. Expect a person to bay off their borrowing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spyguy said:

 

Help for this group introduced in response to the financial crisis will be largely withdrawn by 2022.

Academics, commissioned by lenders' trade body UK Finance, said the government should review its position.

However, mortgage applicants must now prove they have a buffer to deal with money shocks and rising interest rates.'

How about getting some academics commissioned by tax payers FFS?

'The UK Finance report said: "It is now evident that by 2022, there will only be limited government financial support for home buyers in distress..."'

Fuxxing Tories bastads. Expect a person to bay off their borrowing.

 

What the motherf##king f##king f##k?

So we had a GFC in 2007 and the motherf##king b*stards committed taxpayers money to support mortgagees for FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS? FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS?!!!

Holy f##k.

 

Was this done that b*stard Brown, that b*stard Darling, or was it that b*stard Osborne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

What the motherf##king f##king f##k?

So we had a GFC in 2007 and the motherf##king b*stards committed taxpayers money to support mortgagees for FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS? FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS?!!!

Holy f##k.

 

Was this done that b*stard Brown, that b*stard Darling, or was it that b*stard Osborne?

Brown.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

So we had a GFC in 2007 and the motherf##king b*stards committed taxpayers money to support mortgagees for FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS? FIFTEEN F##KING YEARS?!!!

Even worse - people have been given fifteen years to extract themselves from a situation and some will have failed to do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, anonlymouse said:

Even worse - people have been given fifteen years to extract themselves from a situation and some will have failed to do anything about it.

Even worse, some people will have done something about it; back up the debt truck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, winkie said:

The last thing I would like to see is people losing their homes especially if they go to people who benefit from others misfortunes.......having said that far too many, for too long have buried their heads in the sand, sometimes people have to stand up and be accountable to the actions they take or lack of actions.;)

Cutting SMI/pension credit doesn't automatically mean repossession (losing homes).

Losing homes.  The sadness, the plight.  (it all depends on the circumstances - there are owners claiming SMI/pension credit with £100Ks of equity in their homes).

It just means putting them up for sale for many owners !!  Downsizing.  Moving somewhere cheaper.  Maybe taking equity-release till death.  Maybe the shame of renting..... something I've only ever known vs HPI+++++++++/BTL+++++++++/SMI+++

And nasty nasty young would might buy them at less-than-peak-what-it-is-worth, preying on misery?

*Sigh*  - although you recognise had years of policy to be responsible for housing positions.  In my area... HPI+++++ vs 'credit-crunch' and so called 'austerity' - with house prices up 40% above 2007 prices.

Quite a few SMI/Pension Credit stories I've read (on the individual level) had them with stacks of equity, and Gov still paying SMI in retirement.

Pure Entitlement (IMO) Sleeping-Bag ex-EA man hogging large family home 2002, sold in 2014, after a 2012 whinge about his plight to the newspapers

Maybe this change to Universal Credit will bring out some housing supply; owners choosing to sell - and there are many instances of SMI/Pension Credit owners hogging family homes. 

Why should benefits be paying for them to remain living in large family homes with empty bedrooms?

Remember this guy with who went to the papers with his whinge about changes to his benefits that allowed him to cover costs of IO mortgage, and him sleeping in a sleeping bag in lounge of his 3-bed home?  Buying a 3-bed home aged 58 with IO mortgage, post divorce.  And as 68 year old.. the plight the suffering.. that he may need to sell?

Quote

Mortgage benefit cuts mean thousands could lose their homes

2012:  Despite retiring last year the 68-year-old is still saddled with a whopping £150,000 home loan.

....who got an interest-only mortgage 10 years ago after his divorce left him having to find the money for a new home.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/mortgage-benefit-cuts-mean-thousands-262973

image-4-for-your-life-money-17-11-10-gal

“I could just about cope before,” said the retired property sales agent. “You cut back on food, you juggle bills and I put on extra layers and sleep in a sleeping bag at night.

12 Sep 2002: £128,500

08 Aug 2014: £220,000

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=46309241&sale=29265225&country=england

12634_100767004293_IMG_05_0000_max_656x4

12634_100767004293_IMG_01_0000_max_656x4

2012 Saddled with £150,000 mortgage - more than he bought it for !!

He did eventually decide to sell it.  Maybe the 3-bed house went to a family.  

Society isn't here to pay for people to live in large family homes, when they can't afford to - actually it stupidly has been - but should be.

It's a markedly different positon some have to housing. 

I notice they are happy to tell the young how they can avoid renting by sofa-surfing with friends, and to 'be different' and not even desire to have housing for their families - 'begin a new trend where you don't need a house/home for your family' / all boxes look the same.

Yet such passion for some owners claiming SMI when it comes to existing homeowners?!!!!!  "Their homes" / "Exactly what I don't want to see, people losing their homes" / "Future possible buyer  = Taking advantage of misery:rolleyes:

What a difference in position from some.  :mellow:   Young are entitled tw@ts who need to work harder, stop eating sandwiches, stop having iphones, should be happy to sofa-surf, and should begin new trend of not even wanting a 'box like all the rest' home in the first place.  Yet existing owners who may come under slight bit of financial pressure to sell (Iess generous benefits) = "the innocence/greatest/sadness/plight - vs those who would take advantage of their misery."  :huh:

I don't see it as 'losing homes'  - he banked mad-gainz of equity, and better of than renting for 10 years.  Maybe he bought a 1 bed retirement flat with the £100K+ of mad-gainz over 12 years, and him buying with IO mortgage. 

It is just a taste of mildest reality (vs GenRent positions in so many instances).  Can't afford to sit idle in £400,000 family home by yourself because benefits cut where you're claiming IO on outstanding mortgage of £150,000?  Then look to do something about it.   Yet some VI turn it on for all owners as the greatest of innocents.

It's all going to depend on individual circumstance, but many have a VI in trying to cast distorted view that all SMI owners are pure innocence/need home/preying on misery/owners with no equity/no other options/special.

He seemed to have bagged himself a far bigger home than his true needs, after divorce, in 2002 - as an ESTATE AGENT.  He whined benefit cuts, but a mortgage is mortgage imo.  Not for society to pay and pay, while young up against very high house prices, and the BTLers.  Although it has been for society to pay (SMI) in reality.

Way too much hiding behind human shields that SMI claiming owners are just too special - and others preying on misery if we were to buy houses that they had more reason to sell in future.

18 hours ago, winkie said:

Did not read the link.....but people who rent, both public and private rents have their ever increasing rents paid if they can't afford to pay......interest on IO is a tiny sum and falling rapidly in comparison...... homes once were  purchased when homes were not purchased as an investment and there was no such thing as a BTL mortgage.....BTL rents and housing benefit has benefited landlords very well over the years.

If the cost of housing was less more could afford to pay it with the wages they earn, like they used to......;)

I can't tap any benefit support for my rent. Would be told to cut back on spending elsewhere I presume / not save as much toward buying one day (vs years of runaway HPI+++).  Also they would say no-way just on £20K+ in savings grinded away during HPI++++ years and after paying rent for years.   We are forced to take balanced view of all our spending.  Housing/Rent (not buying vs these prices), cars, food and so on.

Fully know how BTL rents and housing benefit have benefited landlords over the years - your point being?  That some chose IO mortgages (in the past) to buy their houses, in order to afford to pay high prices (and outbid other people in market including renters) for houses because the market so full of BTLers?   I do not accept a view that those with IO big mortgages, now claiming benefits for mortgages, are pure innocence, because they had no other option but to use IO to afford high house prices, back in the day of 2001 or whenever.   And especially not when bagged themselves far larger houses than their needs/sat on fortunes of equity today, with options - in housing supply/affordability / house size issue for young.

SMI claimants/pension credit homeowners.   Best to cast them all as innocent homeowners, pure good Anty Ednas types, and young renters wanting change eh... why 'preying on misery/homeowner misfortunes'

Winkie; who has pride in their community in your post below?  The landlords or the tenants?  I think my BTL landlord worth £millions in housing wealth has a very different view to my own about society.  Seen his choices come away with multiple homes, via IO BTL mortgage debt when many young still at university/school, generous tax reliefs, in receipt of rent roll.  Has a different view to just how hard/easy life is.   

I have issues with BTLers and all the other housing props including SMI/Pension Credit - vs extreme house prices and Generation Rent, and under 34s with just 3.2% of the housing wealth of the UK.

Tenants taking care of the landlords property?  Yes priority number one for priced out young - to think good of their BTL landlords you have no problem with (in a huge swelling surge of BTL landlords buying up millions of homes).   Many young ever more forced to rent vs these house prices.   Of course most of us have to look after landlords property, but priority need is shelter.   With millions of landlords having bought up millions of homes.  We don't need pat on head for looking after landlords property.

18 hours ago, winkie said:

Not got a problem with good BTL landlords who own their BTL properties....in my experience they will not over charge on rents and will not keep increasing rents as and when they fancy......their tenants care for the landlords property and have pride in their community.

There is a growing number of people who will not be able to pay their rents, also some that will never be able to pay both the interest and principal of their debts.......IO is less for the tax payer to pay and should be deducted from any equity and recovered on sale of the property.;)

True I have a good rate rental deal on it from an old landlord who has laid claim to 5 homes and seen value of some of those homes treble since year 2000.   Yet prices are so painfully expensive - yet joyfully investment performance from the BTLers outlook; multi-millionaire lazy early retirement landlord.  And with a nice tenant who looks after his property eh - no problem with landlords.

Think SMI is set to switch to that, but in meantime I have no issue with cuts to SMI in some circumstances, or changes to Universal Credit resulting in lower payouts for homeowners.  Bring more homes to market, where houses for sale been scraping multi-decade lows.  Shake up the market, including olds hogging family homes.

SMI/pension credit claimant homeowners all have different circumstances.  It shouldn't be rush to treat them all as incapable/losing homes - and that those who would buy them on market being guilt-tripped and shamed with "would be benefiting from others misfortunes."

Big old family home with one oldie in it makes sense to reduce generous benefits, and bring some sense back to the housing market, and many who sell will have fortunes in equity on sale.  More financial position behind them than many of the actual buyers !!!!

Quote

Most people who rent do so because they can't afford to buy, not because they don't want to, and they can't afford to buy because landlords are hogging all the houses.

The 'flexibility' you associate with renting is mostly due to the inflated price of houses, which is all due to the existence of 2 million+ BTL landlords. You've got it all back to front.

And all the other props.  Doesn't matter that SMI not as big a problem as BTL.  Market still full of housing props/unfairness/BTLers who you have no problem with, keeping values elevated to the gain of many owners/investors/BTLers - vs -  Gen Rent positions.

Also all those who at the same time as going on about plight to homeowners of SMI changes/Universal Credit - telling young they can sofa-surf, and to not want housing in the first place.. to begin new trend where don't need home, and how BTLers are no problem, with tenants who pay rent on time and have pride in society, and look after their landlords properties !!

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talk of cuts and it's 'people losing homes' and 'preying on misery by buyers' :rolleyes:

And projecting all owners having no equity to walk away with / logic of downsizing - just 'losing their homes' and instant repossession. :mellow:

Human shielding it to extremes.  Not being objective.   And so many holding those positions wanting to hug a landlord for providing homes, pat a tenant on the head for looking after a landlords property.  :rolleyes:

And then all the other views from those so passionate for some homeowners who might have to sell....  young can sofa-surf / should do something else and not follow the fashion/trend of wanting a home for their families.  :blink:

Quote

Some people seem to be quite happy that large numbers of younger people should have their quality of life thoroughly degraded on an ongoing basis just as long as that means that there is no HPC.

They hold up the possibility that a tiny minority of people might, what? Possibly end up having to rent themselves (the horror) if they've previously chosen to overstretch themselves financially, as if that were some kind of fundamental wrong that would justify forcing a much larger number of existing renters into perpetual insecurity of shelter for the rest of their lives?

It seems to me that central to the pity the homeowner argument is the notion that only people who own property are worth a d@mn, and all of the current and ongoing negative impacts of excessively high house prices on younger people don't matter enough to even warrant a mention, because people who don't own property aren't worth caring about.

It's fundamentally morally bankrupt.

Sofa-surfing/don't want homes.. "begin new trend".  Horror of anyone who might have to sell homes.  Preying on misery.  Tenants looking after BTLers homes pat-on-head.

You only need one story on HPC for the "victim" squad to come out.   No detail - but jump to conclusions of the worst.  Eg: Casting all claimants of mortgage benefits on houses as future victims who would 'lose homes' (repossession) and 'prey on misery' those who would buy (if they sell).

And positions such as this.......

Quote

Mumsnet: Tue 27-Jun-17

We have a one bed flat in London, it was on at 350K to begin with as advised by agents - I thought this was a bit overpriced, probably 330K was more realistic. We dropped to 325K after two weeks as didn't get one phone call, we then got about five viewings in one weekend but no offers then no interest for a further few weeks, finally after two months we got an offer at 310K and we accepted as we had found a house we liked.

Our buyers (who were investors and cash buyers) pulled out a day before exchange because they found 'something more suited' (complete wankers). 

....We are desperate to keep the house we've found, they don't know our sale has fallen through yet, which is why I'm so impatient to find a buyer asap.

We are in a fine mess! Any advice appreciated.

Quote

"HPCer"  

That's so sad. Irrespective of whether you're an idiot or not (let's not start They Made Their Free Choices. ) It's truly awful when you are stuck marooned in a place you don't want to be. 

Yes let's not 'start'  "They made Their Free Choices" - let's just assume they have no equity and in financial dire strait, that they lack intelligence, to continue the innocence of owners projection.  Far easier to jump to conclusions about the innocence of homeowners.

Mumsnet poster continued

Quote

I know rest of UK is cheaper than London, but it's all relative - we are selling a 1 bed for 305K, the house we are trying to buy is a VERY average 3 bed semi (tiny kitchen, tiny 3rd bedroom) for 700K.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/2965390-Why-is-our-flat-not-getting-viewings 

They're not stuck.  Earning fortunes/equity rich, to be in position and eager to upsize at £700,000.  Simply wanting mad-peak price for current home.  Where's the plight?  And must be doing something right to be in position to even consider upsizing to a house with a price of £700,000.  Market participants.  Not stuck and not in need of being told they are stupid, nor in need of the Control Squad superiors.

Same with MSE...

You get more sense on MSE/Mumsnet so much of the time vs HPCers, many here with an agenda to distort reality/protect HPI/have no problem with BTLism.

Quote

OP you're not an ''accidental'' landlord at all, you're a landlord of your of your own free choice.

You're already apparently in a position to buy a second property without having to sell your existing property and yet still you're whinging and whining about how ''unfair'' it is and how you're being ''penalised'' for not being able to hoard houses.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5663645

Here it was "The greatest innocence, and they didn't know what they were doing / victims of system." - for someone with rental property, not wanting to sell it, and deserves to buy another home (his moan being about having to pay extra SDLT for he already owns a rental property) with latest relationship person.  

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venger, I do find your posts hard to digest and sometimes difficult to read....but will try to reply to some of your points since you quoted me. If I am correct, looking at those who took up IO & liar loans in a pre credit crisis, get as much debt/credit out there as possible, a climate when all debt especially secured debt was highly encouraged, so now because of how the whole financial system almost collapsed and billions was spent to support it, affordability and credit risks have become more stringent rightly so.....these people will never repay the debt they undertook in their lifetime, if it were today they would be renting, benefits paying their rent...... can't exactly blame them for the position they find themselves in, the system promoted and encouraged it at the time....... Downsizing, might be an option for a few, if they have enough equity after costs, moving is very expensive and the type of housing that would meet their needs like bungalows or sheltered housing is in short supply like everything else......anyway the elderly find change very stressful and not good for health if have lived in an area for many years and have a good support network around them.

The problem is lack of supply, not what others have, it is what many others do not have and can only see a future where there is no possibility for them to secure their own family home they will one day hopefully own.

I think the children/relatives of these people should be helping them more if they can and not expect the state to pay.....I think they will have more of an incentive to help if they think their future inheritance will start to be erroded by compounded interest being added as a second charge on said home.......;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, winkie said:

Not got a problem with good BTL landlords

I heard unicorns make great pets. 

There are no good landlords. 

If you earn money by preventing other people having homes to live in, you are a bad person.

If your business relies on forced 'inspections' of other people's homes, to make sure they are living in a manner you deem suitable, then you are a bad person.

If you force people to live under the constant threat of eviction for money, you are a bad person. 

There are no exceptions.  

 

Edited by BuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

I heard unicorns make great pets. 

There are no good landlords. 

If you earn money by preventing other people having homes to live in, you are a bad person.

If your business relies on forced 'inspections' of other people's homes, to make sure they are living in a manner you deem suitable, then you are a bad person.

If you force people to live under the constant threat of eviction for money, you are a bad person. 

There are no exceptions.  

 

No, there have always been landlords be it social landlords, renting out a room in own home landlords, professional landlords, individuals buying a property with own money to rent out would mean there would be  far fewer landlords about, more homes available to buy........the problem is not being a landlord it is the tax benefits, cheap credit, interest only afforded to them, AST contracts means good tenants can be told to get out on a whim.....no rent tribunals or rent protection......a system where the indebted, interest only landlords have held all the cards and rights, good tenants hold few rights, pay high costs, fees, and rents with little security at all.....this is what needs to be rebalanced........not doing away with places to rent, there will always be people who prefer to rent, for many different reasons.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, winkie said:

No, there have always been landlords...

There has always been herpes and malaria. There have always been thugs and psychopaths.

There is no such thing as a good landlord, ever.   You've simply become accustomed to the idea, because it has been around for such a long time.  You've internalised the lie that, somehow, in a manner never really explained, 'landlords provide homes'.  They don't.

Similar arguments were made in defence of slavery.  That had also been around for thousands and thousands of years, that also seemed like a reasonable unavoidable fact of life.  How will we produce enough food/money/pocket watches, without slavery?

Well it wasn't reasonable, or neccessary, and neither is landlording.

No-one, anywhere, ever, has the right to 'own' someone else's home.

Edited by BuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the only way I can see around that one is for everyone to be given a home to buy at 18 or 21.....then removed at death to pass on to the next 18 or 21 year old......there will still be arguments on what house and where they wanted it......no pleasing everyone.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

There is no such thing as a good landlord, ever.   You've simply become accustomed to the idea, because it has been around for such a long time.  You've internalised the lie that, somehow, in a manner never really explained, 'landlords provide homes'.  They don't.

There's a role for rented accommodation, but it's only really for short-term situations (a few months) where you wouldn't want the hassle of buying and selling even if the process was quicker and simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 11:22 AM, Fletcher said:

 

You're f##king kidding me, right?  The State has been paying her mortgage interest since she retired in 2009?  Lord, tell me this is not true.

Quote

An estimated 135,000 low-income homeowners are at risk of losing their homes trying to sell their homes

 http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-4962692/Thousands-low-income-pensioners-risk-losing-homes.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winkie said:

Well the only way I can see around that one is for everyone to be given a home to buy at 18 or 21.....then removed at death to pass on to the next 18 or 21 year old......there will still be arguments on what house and where they wanted it......no pleasing everyone.;)

There are alternatives, but that isn't the point. 

The point is to recognise the principle, to understand how the land market works, what it is and what landlords are really up to.

Then, based upon that factual understanding of how the world really operates, to make pragmatic choices. Because you can have a pragmatic policy, you can't have pragmatic facts.  

I can think of several ways of distributing land that remove or reduce the problem. All have advantages and disadvantages.  The system we have now could be a reasonable compromise, if landlords were much fewer in number and properly taxed, and council housing was a real option.  

That won't happen if people persist  in defending the appalling antisocial behaviour of money grubbing land hoarders.  You can't make a good policy based upon lies.

If everyone can reasonably opt to buy, it's not a massive problem that the providers of short-term rented accommodation are also rent collecting feudalists.  

It's still wrong, though.  Always was, always is.

I don't know how to end war either, but that doesn't make war a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BuyToLeech said:

If everyone can reasonably opt to buy, it's not a massive problem that the providers of short-term rented accommodation are also rent collecting feudalists.  

 

Do you think the same applies to hotels?  What about (happened to someone I know) you have a friend who is homeless and you offer them a room and ask for rent - to make sure they don't stay with you forever for free? (In this case they had to find him a flat because he couldn't be bothered to look for one - and the social was paying the rent).

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 349 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • 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.