Dubbya Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSW01.html Just notice today's headlines: £73 per week rent sounds kinda steep Shameless! RESIDENTS of a private Royton housing estate are outraged that some of the £190,000 homes are to be rented out for around £70 per week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Girl’s two-year ordeal at hands of pervert A 61-year-old Oldham man has been convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl over a period of two years, after he befriended her mother. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Man, 35, on child sex charges A 35-year-old Oldham man has appeared in court charged with sexual activity with a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReggiePerrin Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Just notice today's headlines: £73 per week rent sounds kinda steepShameless! RESIDENTS of a private Royton housing estate are outraged that some of the £190,000 homes are to be rented out for around £70 per week. Wasn't that place on the League of Gentlemen? The picture looks like them/there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claireinspain Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) It's rather reminiscent of that video of a US TV news programme last year, showing an aggrieved gentleman who found out that an identical house to the one he bought just a few months earlier had just sold at auction for approximately half the price he paid."Dude, that's not fair", as I believe he put it. Never mind, eh? I'm sure I read that all new developments over a certain size have to include an element of social housing - the privatisation of council housing effectively. Edited April 23, 2008 by claireinspain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I'm sure I read that all new developments over a certain size have to include an element of social housing - the privatisation of council housing effectively. IIRC in southampton for certain developements its 20-25% must be social housing, 20-30% shared ownership/affordable housing and the rest private/BTL i think for over a certain number of properties built its based on. also if it reaches a certain number of properties there has to be shops etc built in that estate, basically Tesco's express's and the like. probably a MCDonnalds as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garybug Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Her indoors' mate lives in a nice new build development in Herts (not cheap either) They get woken at 3am with the sound of a toddler crying in the street. Her bloke goes out to make sure it's OK, only to meet with his 'social tenant' neighbour, who rounded the kid up. "Must have left the kitchen door open" was his reply. Also, did I mention the kids dad was starkers!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Hatred Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I'm sure I read that all new developments over a certain size have to include an element of social housing - the privatisation of council housing effectively. They certainly do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chichi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 They certainly do! But developers can buy out of this if they desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 "David Wilson Homes has two other developments in Royton, at St Anne’s Place and Sandy Mill, and the company confirmed that some houses on those estates had been sold to Guinness Northern Counties."So how much have housing associations overpaid for them? And let's be honest rents at £70 a week benefit everyone. You have that wrong mate. The deal is that builder give so many house FOC to the local council and pass the costs on to people that are paying full costs. Just about every new estate has social housing and they always build these social house last. Builders also need to pay big bribes just so that they can build and ofcourse thats past on too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chichi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 You have that wrong mate.The deal is that builder give so many house FOC to the local council and pass the costs on to people that are paying full costs. Just about every new estate has social housing and they always build these social house last. Builders also need to pay big bribes just so that they can build and ofcourse thats past on too. You're confusing affordable with social? They're two different things. The quote from the article says sold. Affordable homes are sold either at a reduced price (% under MV which sticks with property for life) or on shared ownership. I don't think councils actually get any property to manage - it'd all be done by ha. HA were offered newbuilds that hadn't sold elsewhere in the country but refused saying they were not up to their standards. Either way £70 a week rent is excellent news. Oldham's had loads of new build done and loads more started, some has been cancelled though from what I can see - because there is too much of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shedfish Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 my 2500th post. nowt much to say, just curious as to whether i get an upgrade... the last episode of Shameless was a classic... Frank's dream / coma scene, priceless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Oh £70 P/w benefits claimants living next door to £190K mortgage holders. Now if that doesn't start the Fraud lines at benefits agency ringing, nothing will. I would expect that estate to get some serious social tension when the haves realise the have nots don't actually have it that bad after all. However cheaper rents has to be good news for all tax payers, social housing makes up a big slice of the tax costs, perhaps if we could get one of the big developers to build a huge gated development far away from anywhere with decent schools and a police station and a doctors and move all long term(Healthy) benefit claimaints there and give them alotments to help them reduce thier food costs we could cut the tax burden. You could even incentivise the developers by letting them sell 35% of the houses to investment buyers at inflated prices. So kind of like an old victorian work house but scaled up to an entire estate. Hang on a minute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sourman Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 But those houses are not really worth £190K aer they?? The HA has valued them worth £70 pw, seems fine to me, though the reality of the situation will likely take a while to sink in to those fools who paid £190K for a newbuild rabbit hutch in Oldham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) Nothing new: happened in the 70s crash and also in the 1989/93 debacle too. The point is that HAs obatine HAG (Housing Aid Grant) from the Housing Corporation which is funded from the public purse. And HAG is not a loan; it's an outright grant. Used to be as high as 85%, now I seem to recall circa 60-70%. So the capital investment recovery has to be only on the HA funded portion. Spec builders use this dodge to recover sunk capital quickly; they also tend to de-spec the houses in terms of fit out too. Cheap kitchens, bathrooms, doors, door furniture, electricals etc. They also tend to not advise buyers who only discover the reality after they have signed on the dotted line and lived there for a bit! They should sue their solicitor for not carrying out the full searches properly and failing to demand an owner occupier only warranty from the vendor. Still, when you have monkeys in charge of a ridiculous credit rating/mortgage offer............................................ Edited April 23, 2008 by Prescience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saberu Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 HAHAHAHAHA SERVES THOSE SERFS RIGHT! Damn serfs, the lot of y'all, with your little service jobs and your property obsession. If I ever get rich enough I will buy a nuke and bomb the UK from orbit, I think i'll be doing the world a favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSW01.html and soon the proud owner of the "190K" house will be surounded by neighbours who have paid less than 100K (maybe a lot less) for the same type of property. The neighbourhood will go down the toilet and 190K man can't move out because he will have negative equity. This scenario will be repeated across the UK as it was in 1991-93. Could be good TV for the next Location Location Location series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.