Waltham Forest 'wild west' rental market warning

Rosie Walker helped to set up Waltham Forest Renters

Rosie Walker helped to set up Waltham Forest Renters

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter, covering Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone. Call me on 07768 507 739

Tenants are in danger of being pushed out of Waltham Forest by a “wild west” rental market, a housing body has warned.

Changes to housing benefit and astronomical rent rises have resulted in many people moving out of neighbouring boroughs such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

This has created increased demand in Waltham Forest and there are fears a lack of controls on landlords could see many priced out of the area.

Former Hackney resident, Rosie Walker, helped to set up the group Waltham Forest Renters, which offers advice and support to tenants.

She has seen a rise in people seeking assistance and says some are in a desperate situation as landlords exploit rising demand.

She said: “In the last couple of years, thousands of us have been pushed out of our homes in Hackney and other boroughs by a 'wild west' rental market.

“Rents rocketed, landlords were allowed to bully and evict for no reason, and the council failed to enforce standards.

Lots of us have sought refuge here in Waltham Forest, but without proper intervention we're going to see the same thing happening here.

“Housing is too important to be left to an unfettered market. At a local level, we need compulsory landlord licensing and trained tenancy relations officers who have the time and resources to go after bad landlords.”

Miss Walker says she is regularly contacted by people struggling to cope with large rent hikes.

She added: "We get people coming to us saying their landlord is putting the rent up by 30% and asking what they can do about it, and we have to be the bearer of bad news.

“We advise people on how to handle the situation and help point them in the right direction. It is terrible, especially for families.

Miss Walker welcomed a Labour proposal to abolish charges by letting agents, but said much more needs to be done.

“First we've got to get those in power to understand the problem, and that's hard when so many of them are landlords themselves. But a third of Waltham Forest rents privately, and our numbers are only going to grow,” she added.

A decision on whether to require all landlords to be registered to protect tenants’ rights will be taken by Waltham Forest Council in July.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:03pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington.

Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter.

Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights.
So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington. Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter. Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 3

2:19pm Mon 19 May 14

Leytonstonia says...

'Sought refuge' in Waltham Forest? How very nice of her.

I wonder where Rosie lived before Hackney? If she moved into Hackney from elsewhere, she's part of the problem not part of the solution.
'Sought refuge' in Waltham Forest? How very nice of her. I wonder where Rosie lived before Hackney? If she moved into Hackney from elsewhere, she's part of the problem not part of the solution. Leytonstonia
  • Score: 7

2:26pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Leytonstonia wrote:
'Sought refuge' in Waltham Forest? How very nice of her.

I wonder where Rosie lived before Hackney? If she moved into Hackney from elsewhere, she's part of the problem not part of the solution.
Yes exactly. I just looked her up, she is some kind of 'writer' so probably this will lead to some boring book.
[quote][p][bold]Leytonstonia[/bold] wrote: 'Sought refuge' in Waltham Forest? How very nice of her. I wonder where Rosie lived before Hackney? If she moved into Hackney from elsewhere, she's part of the problem not part of the solution.[/p][/quote]Yes exactly. I just looked her up, she is some kind of 'writer' so probably this will lead to some boring book. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 7

2:46pm Mon 19 May 14

Dr S Brule says...

Why do you say that Leytonstonia?

I've lived in Leytonstone for one year more or less to the day as it happens - is this a problem? It seems that you are suggesting that nobody should move out of thier home town?

I was born in the isle of dogs however I grew up in the south west of England. Now I have come back to London for work. Leytonstone is a nice area, with good pubs, transport links and easy access to parks and so on. But most importantly it is an area I can afford. That is the crux of the issue which effects everybody - not just "locals".

just to clarify - I am not the lady in the article.
Why do you say that Leytonstonia? I've lived in Leytonstone for one year more or less to the day as it happens - is this a problem? It seems that you are suggesting that nobody should move out of thier home town? I was born in the isle of dogs however I grew up in the south west of England. Now I have come back to London for work. Leytonstone is a nice area, with good pubs, transport links and easy access to parks and so on. But most importantly it is an area I can afford. That is the crux of the issue which effects everybody - not just "locals". just to clarify - I am not the lady in the article. Dr S Brule
  • Score: 13

3:13pm Mon 19 May 14

Mark Dawes says...

We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London. Mark Dawes
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Mon 19 May 14

Thunderbird4 says...

“First we've got to get those in power to understand the problem, . . . .

They do; they deliberately created it some seven years ago, so housing associations and private landlords, could start to put up the rents, which would then allow local councils to do the same.

. . . . and that's hard when so many of them are landlords themselves.

Well, you wouldn't expect those in the know not to start a portfolio, would you?
“First we've got to get those in power to understand the problem, . . . . They do; they deliberately created it some seven years ago, so housing associations and private landlords, could start to put up the rents, which would then allow local councils to do the same. . . . . and that's hard when so many of them are landlords themselves. Well, you wouldn't expect those in the know not to start a portfolio, would you? Thunderbird4
  • Score: 1

3:30pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Mark Dawes wrote:
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list.

You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.
[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.[/p][/quote]You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list. You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Mon 19 May 14

Mark Dawes says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Mark Dawes wrote:
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list.

You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.
Rent control would not stop private landlords but stop the excessive profiteering. There does need to a program of building affordable & social housing as well. The primary objective of housing policy needs to be to provide decent, affordable housing.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.[/p][/quote]You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list. You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.[/p][/quote]Rent control would not stop private landlords but stop the excessive profiteering. There does need to a program of building affordable & social housing as well. The primary objective of housing policy needs to be to provide decent, affordable housing. Mark Dawes
  • Score: 7

4:58pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Mark Dawes wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Mark Dawes wrote:
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list.

You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.
Rent control would not stop private landlords but stop the excessive profiteering. There does need to a program of building affordable & social housing as well. The primary objective of housing policy needs to be to provide decent, affordable housing.
Yes the trouble is housing associations are building thousands of flats around the borough some of which are shared ownership which can be fraught with problems. Many of the flats are cramped and of incredible high density for the sites used. As an example the ones in Capwoth Street are crammed onto a site that previously had tiny bungalows. They seem to be recreating the problems of the 60's high rise blocks which were great to begin with but then became anti-social ghettos. The truth is that many of the old Victorian stock were effectively 'badly designed' lovely properties but had vast hallways and unused space, often on huge plots with large gardens whereby new buildings these days would utilise the space more efficiently and one would never hope to have in excess of a 100 foot garden as is the case in many properties around the Walthamstow Village. This is why these properties are so desirable as you get an awful lot of property for the money.

Areas like Walthamstow are now paying the price for improved transport links and investment as everyone wants to live in these types of areas.
[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.[/p][/quote]You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list. You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.[/p][/quote]Rent control would not stop private landlords but stop the excessive profiteering. There does need to a program of building affordable & social housing as well. The primary objective of housing policy needs to be to provide decent, affordable housing.[/p][/quote]Yes the trouble is housing associations are building thousands of flats around the borough some of which are shared ownership which can be fraught with problems. Many of the flats are cramped and of incredible high density for the sites used. As an example the ones in Capwoth Street are crammed onto a site that previously had tiny bungalows. They seem to be recreating the problems of the 60's high rise blocks which were great to begin with but then became anti-social ghettos. The truth is that many of the old Victorian stock were effectively 'badly designed' lovely properties but had vast hallways and unused space, often on huge plots with large gardens whereby new buildings these days would utilise the space more efficiently and one would never hope to have in excess of a 100 foot garden as is the case in many properties around the Walthamstow Village. This is why these properties are so desirable as you get an awful lot of property for the money. Areas like Walthamstow are now paying the price for improved transport links and investment as everyone wants to live in these types of areas. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Mon 19 May 14

kalex2 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Mark Dawes wrote:
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list.

You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.
Why would private landlords pull out of the market if rent control was capped at say, inflation plus three or four percent? They should have already set their rents at a level that covers their costs, interest rates have not changed for years and no amount of new mattresses and washing machines comes to a 30% increase in rent. Those landlords are profiteering.
If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value.
There must be thousands of qualified economists/accountan
ts that the government can turn to who can come up with a fair maximum increase per year - one that keeps fair minded landlords satisfied and protects tenants from crippling increases.. Ok the greedy landlords may pull out, but they would have to sell to someone, so the housing stock would remain the same.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.[/p][/quote]You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list. You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.[/p][/quote]Why would private landlords pull out of the market if rent control was capped at say, inflation plus three or four percent? They should have already set their rents at a level that covers their costs, interest rates have not changed for years and no amount of new mattresses and washing machines comes to a 30% increase in rent. Those landlords are profiteering. If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value. There must be thousands of qualified economists/accountan ts that the government can turn to who can come up with a fair maximum increase per year - one that keeps fair minded landlords satisfied and protects tenants from crippling increases.. Ok the greedy landlords may pull out, but they would have to sell to someone, so the housing stock would remain the same. kalex2
  • Score: 7

5:24pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

kalex2 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Mark Dawes wrote:
We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.
You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list.

You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.
Why would private landlords pull out of the market if rent control was capped at say, inflation plus three or four percent? They should have already set their rents at a level that covers their costs, interest rates have not changed for years and no amount of new mattresses and washing machines comes to a 30% increase in rent. Those landlords are profiteering.
If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value.
There must be thousands of qualified economists/accountan

ts that the government can turn to who can come up with a fair maximum increase per year - one that keeps fair minded landlords satisfied and protects tenants from crippling increases.. Ok the greedy landlords may pull out, but they would have to sell to someone, so the housing stock would remain the same.
Buy to let mortgages are based on projected rental income for a start. Also the recent boom in certain hot spots are putting prices out of reach. There was a small four bedroom house advertised in the village this week for 850k! This is double what they were selling for 6 years ago. People will become more reliant on Landlords. If a sudden cap was introduced, people who invested and became a Landlord on a carefully planned business plan could suddenly find their business scuppered whereby the income would fall short to make it worthwhile.
[quote][p][bold]kalex2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote: We need rent control to stop excessive rents and profiteering by private landlords and also a program of affordable house building to enable people to be able to afford to live in London.[/p][/quote]You are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. Do you realise what would happen if private landlords pulled out of the market, cashed in and left people in limbo? There would be chaos of course because there is hardly any social housing being built and the private sector is the main provider these days. Landlords 'profiteer' as you claim but you fail to grasp the financial input that they put in to provide the housing with many individuals owning maybe one property other than their main residence as a 'pension pot' for later as the regular pensions have performed so badly. Why is it wrong for people to invest in an extra property to provide for others? The councils even encourage this and often offer grants to individuals to bring properties needing work into letable condition to rent to those on the councils housing list. You may want to paint all landlords as nasty Rackman types but there are an awful lot of responsible ones out there whose Tenants appreciate their services and housing.[/p][/quote]Why would private landlords pull out of the market if rent control was capped at say, inflation plus three or four percent? They should have already set their rents at a level that covers their costs, interest rates have not changed for years and no amount of new mattresses and washing machines comes to a 30% increase in rent. Those landlords are profiteering. If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value. There must be thousands of qualified economists/accountan ts that the government can turn to who can come up with a fair maximum increase per year - one that keeps fair minded landlords satisfied and protects tenants from crippling increases.. Ok the greedy landlords may pull out, but they would have to sell to someone, so the housing stock would remain the same.[/p][/quote]Buy to let mortgages are based on projected rental income for a start. Also the recent boom in certain hot spots are putting prices out of reach. There was a small four bedroom house advertised in the village this week for 850k! This is double what they were selling for 6 years ago. People will become more reliant on Landlords. If a sudden cap was introduced, people who invested and became a Landlord on a carefully planned business plan could suddenly find their business scuppered whereby the income would fall short to make it worthwhile. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Mon 19 May 14

Brisbane says...

If half of eastern Europe wants to live here, that's bound to lead to a housing shortage. This in turn is bound to push up prices.

It's really not rocket science.
If half of eastern Europe wants to live here, that's bound to lead to a housing shortage. This in turn is bound to push up prices. It's really not rocket science. Brisbane
  • Score: 10

5:57pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Brisbane wrote:
If half of eastern Europe wants to live here, that's bound to lead to a housing shortage. This in turn is bound to push up prices.

It's really not rocket science.
This influx and demand has fuelled the beds in sheds problem also.
[quote][p][bold]Brisbane[/bold] wrote: If half of eastern Europe wants to live here, that's bound to lead to a housing shortage. This in turn is bound to push up prices. It's really not rocket science.[/p][/quote]This influx and demand has fuelled the beds in sheds problem also. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 8

6:55pm Mon 19 May 14

Heartlysmum says...

The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built.

Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?
The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built. Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents? Heartlysmum
  • Score: 9

7:00pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Heartlysmum wrote:
The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built.

Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?
The councils should do more to tackle the problem of people in council homes renting them out to third parties. Now these are the worse types of Landlords often claiming benefits as well whilst defrauding the taxman as well.
[quote][p][bold]Heartlysmum[/bold] wrote: The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built. Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?[/p][/quote]The councils should do more to tackle the problem of people in council homes renting them out to third parties. Now these are the worse types of Landlords often claiming benefits as well whilst defrauding the taxman as well. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 14

8:07pm Mon 19 May 14

StanE11 says...

Heartlysmum wrote:
The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built.

Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?
Half of all single mothers under the age of 21 were still living at home with their parents. Teenage mothers were only ever a small proportion of those demanding housing from their local council. Research published by the Institute of Housing showed that teenage mothers made up between 2 and 14 per cent of local council lists.

Blaming single mums or Polish people for house price and rental inflation is stupid, we are not building enough housing stock to replace the social housing flogged off by Thatcher.
[quote][p][bold]Heartlysmum[/bold] wrote: The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built. Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?[/p][/quote]Half of all single mothers under the age of 21 were still living at home with their parents. Teenage mothers were only ever a small proportion of those demanding housing from their local council. Research published by the Institute of Housing showed that teenage mothers made up between 2 and 14 per cent of local council lists. Blaming single mums or Polish people for house price and rental inflation is stupid, we are not building enough housing stock to replace the social housing flogged off by Thatcher. StanE11
  • Score: -7

8:18pm Mon 19 May 14

stickmanny says...

It is common for landlords to claim benefits. It's called housing benefit, and we're all paying for it.

The market is not holy.

No more human sacrifice on its altar.
It is common for landlords to claim benefits. It's called housing benefit, and we're all paying for it. The market is not holy. No more human sacrifice on its altar. stickmanny
  • Score: -1

9:30pm Mon 19 May 14

Brisbane says...

StanE11, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Yes lots of social housing was sold off by Thatcher, and people can decide for themselves whether they think that was right or wrong, but those homes still exist, they are still being lived in.

If they had not been sold off we would have more homes in the social housing sector, but fewer in the private sector. The aggregate supply/demand balance would be exactly the same.

As for single mothers, you've chosen to quote figures for teenage mothers instead. There is a difference.
StanE11, I'm afraid you're wrong. Yes lots of social housing was sold off by Thatcher, and people can decide for themselves whether they think that was right or wrong, but those homes still exist, they are still being lived in. If they had not been sold off we would have more homes in the social housing sector, but fewer in the private sector. The aggregate supply/demand balance would be exactly the same. As for single mothers, you've chosen to quote figures for teenage mothers instead. There is a difference. Brisbane
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

StanE11 wrote:
Heartlysmum wrote:
The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built.

Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?
Half of all single mothers under the age of 21 were still living at home with their parents. Teenage mothers were only ever a small proportion of those demanding housing from their local council. Research published by the Institute of Housing showed that teenage mothers made up between 2 and 14 per cent of local council lists.

Blaming single mums or Polish people for house price and rental inflation is stupid, we are not building enough housing stock to replace the social housing flogged off by Thatcher.
Thatcher introduced the policy yes and Blair and Brown continued it as it gave thousand the opportunity to buy their council homes and get on the property ladder and it is still a popular policy and no party dare abolish the right.

When you get people on large salaries like the late Bob Crow, Baroness Uddin and Frank Dobson living in desirable council homes then this is a mockery of the system.

London is a thriving prosperous City at the moment and now named as the business capital city of the world which is one reason why millions want to be here. It is all about supply and demand. Some families are over crowded living in small accommodation and yet choose to have more children. This is a life choice and cannot expect to be re home by magic.
[quote][p][bold]StanE11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Heartlysmum[/bold] wrote: The question is. All these people who are on the housing waiting list must be in some sort of accommodation as we do not see them out on the street sleeping. Maybe a few , but not the thousands of houses that we are constantly being told need to be built. Why are single mothers allocated houses, why can they not live with their parents?[/p][/quote]Half of all single mothers under the age of 21 were still living at home with their parents. Teenage mothers were only ever a small proportion of those demanding housing from their local council. Research published by the Institute of Housing showed that teenage mothers made up between 2 and 14 per cent of local council lists. Blaming single mums or Polish people for house price and rental inflation is stupid, we are not building enough housing stock to replace the social housing flogged off by Thatcher.[/p][/quote]Thatcher introduced the policy yes and Blair and Brown continued it as it gave thousand the opportunity to buy their council homes and get on the property ladder and it is still a popular policy and no party dare abolish the right. When you get people on large salaries like the late Bob Crow, Baroness Uddin and Frank Dobson living in desirable council homes then this is a mockery of the system. London is a thriving prosperous City at the moment and now named as the business capital city of the world which is one reason why millions want to be here. It is all about supply and demand. Some families are over crowded living in small accommodation and yet choose to have more children. This is a life choice and cannot expect to be re home by magic. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 7

10:47pm Mon 19 May 14

StanE11 says...

The very crucial problem is a lack of competition since the councils that used to steady the market with affordable rents have almost disappeared as an alternative. They were forced to flog their housing stock (at a loss to us taxpayers) and further dissuaded from building more. This was a deliberate political policy in the 80's to emasculate Labour councils and remove their power. Now we have an unregulated marketplace with a finite amount of product.
The very crucial problem is a lack of competition since the councils that used to steady the market with affordable rents have almost disappeared as an alternative. They were forced to flog their housing stock (at a loss to us taxpayers) and further dissuaded from building more. This was a deliberate political policy in the 80's to emasculate Labour councils and remove their power. Now we have an unregulated marketplace with a finite amount of product. StanE11
  • Score: 1

11:52pm Mon 19 May 14

mdj says...

'If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value.'

But it will only increase in value if the housing supply is not increased, as you doubtless wish it to be, surely?

When new tenants pay swingeing rent increases, it's because they are bidding against other tenants: how often have you accepted a lower price for something, such as your services or an item of property, when someone was offering you more?
Most of us only do this for those who matter most to us. So it is with landlords: unpleasant as it is, they're following the money, not leading it.

The market is defective because supply is inelastic - often because of worthy reasons we have voted or even campaigned for, such as protection of open space or height limitations. Cutting the income to be earned from the existing stock is no incentive to increase the provision of more.
We either get more housing, or we reduce the number of people (or buyers, not the same thing), or we change peoples' expectations of what it is reasonable to expect by way of accommodation at a given point in life. Two generations ago it was normal for young single middle-class people in decent employment to be living in boarding houses with a ferocious landlady overseeing their lives; there has never been a golden age of housing, especially in the capital. The cadre of young people now in uni accommodation or sharing flats was sleeping in barracks on National Service.

The least painful step I can see is to ban the purchase of real property until the buyer has been legally and physically resident for perhaps two years: an excellent article in today's national Guardian about Woodberry Down shows what happens when our housing stock is allowed to become a casino for absentee investors.
Also, to plan for rational immigration policy by taking back our sovereignty. Disturbingly and amazingly, only a Right-of Tory party is offering this option. One would think that to the Left, with state planning as the nostrum for so many problems, this would be the first option.
'If people own one property as a pension pot they will be satisfied with a modest, guaranteed return on an asset that increases in value.' But it will only increase in value if the housing supply is not increased, as you doubtless wish it to be, surely? When new tenants pay swingeing rent increases, it's because they are bidding against other tenants: how often have you accepted a lower price for something, such as your services or an item of property, when someone was offering you more? Most of us only do this for those who matter most to us. So it is with landlords: unpleasant as it is, they're following the money, not leading it. The market is defective because supply is inelastic - often because of worthy reasons we have voted or even campaigned for, such as protection of open space or height limitations. Cutting the income to be earned from the existing stock is no incentive to increase the provision of more. We either get more housing, or we reduce the number of people (or buyers, not the same thing), or we change peoples' expectations of what it is reasonable to expect by way of accommodation at a given point in life. Two generations ago it was normal for young single middle-class people in decent employment to be living in boarding houses with a ferocious landlady overseeing their lives; there has never been a golden age of housing, especially in the capital. The cadre of young people now in uni accommodation or sharing flats was sleeping in barracks on National Service. The least painful step I can see is to ban the purchase of real property until the buyer has been legally and physically resident for perhaps two years: an excellent article in today's national Guardian about Woodberry Down shows what happens when our housing stock is allowed to become a casino for absentee investors. Also, to plan for rational immigration policy by taking back our sovereignty. Disturbingly and amazingly, only a Right-of Tory party is offering this option. One would think that to the Left, with state planning as the nostrum for so many problems, this would be the first option. mdj
  • Score: 6

7:26pm Tue 20 May 14

stickmanny says...

Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.

Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited.

Think about it.
Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use. Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited. Think about it. stickmanny
  • Score: -4

7:45pm Tue 20 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

stickmanny wrote:
Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.

Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited.

Think about it.
Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use. Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 5

10:14pm Tue 20 May 14

mdj says...

' to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.'

Current use, or potential use? And by whose estimation? The cans of worms opened by this issue are too vast to mention here. The presumption that public ownership of land ushers in an golden age of disinterested benevolence is, to put it mildly, not supported by experience.
Ask the Kulaks, if you can find any.
' to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.' Current use, or potential use? And by whose estimation? The cans of worms opened by this issue are too vast to mention here. The presumption that public ownership of land ushers in an golden age of disinterested benevolence is, to put it mildly, not supported by experience. Ask the Kulaks, if you can find any. mdj
  • Score: 1

10:50pm Tue 20 May 14

It's good to talk says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington.

Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter.

Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights.
Was " forced" to move from Islington 45 years ago, had to go where we could afford and where the work was. That's life, you just have to get on with it. Work hard and maybe someday you could afford to move back. Personally Epping offered good schools, open spaces and a freedom to be safe. So now staying put!
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington. Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter. Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights.[/p][/quote]Was " forced" to move from Islington 45 years ago, had to go where we could afford and where the work was. That's life, you just have to get on with it. Work hard and maybe someday you could afford to move back. Personally Epping offered good schools, open spaces and a freedom to be safe. So now staying put! It's good to talk
  • Score: 1

1:40pm Wed 21 May 14

T. Watts says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington.

Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter.

Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights.
HOORAY!!!!

Good old Cornbeefur - nice to see you're talking about the Orford Road again!

Now do the one about the darleks...
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: So what is Rosie Walker moaning about? She has had to move from hip Hackney to lowly Waltham Forest? She can at least wander up and down Orford Road pretending she is in Islington. Market forces are just that and as for Labour planning to start charging Landlords for a Licence, this will only make matters worse as the Landlords will put this financial burden on the renter. Anyhow, we were informed that the reason for the charge was to 'tackle anti-social behaviour not give tenants anymore rights.[/p][/quote]HOORAY!!!! Good old Cornbeefur - nice to see you're talking about the Orford Road again! Now do the one about the darleks... T. Watts
  • Score: 1

5:29pm Wed 21 May 14

stickmanny says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.

Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited.

Think about it.
Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears.
No envy here. I am one of those landowners, but also capable of seeing what is best for all, unlike yourself.

You are a landowner and the selfishness is oozing out of your ears.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use. Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears.[/p][/quote]No envy here. I am one of those landowners, but also capable of seeing what is best for all, unlike yourself. You are a landowner and the selfishness is oozing out of your ears. stickmanny
  • Score: -1

6:25pm Wed 21 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

stickmanny wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use.

Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited.

Think about it.
Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears.
No envy here. I am one of those landowners, but also capable of seeing what is best for all, unlike yourself.

You are a landowner and the selfishness is oozing out of your ears.
I do not own any land, know all, I rent my property from private landlords and have been for years. They receive their rent on time and I am more than happy here. I spend my hard earned salary on nice things in life and do not owe anyone anything and certainly do not have a mortgage around my neck.

Are you going to donate your Land to the poor? Of course you would not, you are a typical all talk champagne socialist. Talk is cheap, especially when you talk.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Ironic that the Coalition is planning to privatise the Land Registry. Instead they should be instructed to oversee the nationalisation of land, and tax it based on use. Land is theft. It was never earned and should never be inherited. Think about it.[/p][/quote]Yes, I have thought about it and it is one of the daftest things, ever said on this site, even by your standards, imbecilic and one can sense the green envy oozing out of your ears.[/p][/quote]No envy here. I am one of those landowners, but also capable of seeing what is best for all, unlike yourself. You are a landowner and the selfishness is oozing out of your ears.[/p][/quote]I do not own any land, know all, I rent my property from private landlords and have been for years. They receive their rent on time and I am more than happy here. I spend my hard earned salary on nice things in life and do not owe anyone anything and certainly do not have a mortgage around my neck. Are you going to donate your Land to the poor? Of course you would not, you are a typical all talk champagne socialist. Talk is cheap, especially when you talk. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 0

7:32pm Wed 21 May 14

stickmanny says...

I don't believe a single work you say.
I don't believe a single work you say. stickmanny
  • Score: 1

12:41pm Thu 22 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

stickmanny wrote:
I don't believe a single work you say.
Who cares what you believe? Your brain is like cheese.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: I don't believe a single work you say.[/p][/quote]Who cares what you believe? Your brain is like cheese. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 2

7:02pm Thu 22 May 14

stickmanny says...

True. I'm off to vote UKIP.
True. I'm off to vote UKIP. stickmanny
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree