Mass Homelessness Soon?

[nightrider 13]

15 hours ago, Anna B said:

What if Dennis and Doris' tenants can't afford to pay more weekly, never mind with the added burden of paying back arrears?

This is going to be all too common too. Don't forget Universal Crediit generally does not cover all of the rent payment anyway. So yes evictions are going to rocket.  But Doris and Dennis aren't out of the woods either, particularly if they are still paying a mortgage on said rental houses. Nevermind the loss of the £4,500 debt, they may well find it difficult to find dependable new tenants at all as their particular demographic might all be in the struggling catagory with insecure jobs etc.

Doris and Dennis may also now be in debt, and the only people willing to take the houses off their hands are the big companies who can ride the losses, but they only pay the minimum because there's now a glut of buy- to- let on the market. Their companies grow and the bottom drops out of the buy to let market for the small guys. The big companies want more money from the houses they bought for a song and start to gentrify the houses, and put the rents up accordingly. 

Doris and Dennis now have to rely on their state pension which doesn't cover their costs, so they too begin slipping down the ladder and into poverty. 

 

Homelessness can be catching....

We are thinking of moving house this year and believe me - they won't have any trouble selling if its in a good (or even just ok) area. As far as we can tell houses are almost all going to STC within weeks of being marketed in all the desirable areas currently. Plenty of people with money want to buy houses in Sheffield (have heard some say many are from London with huge pots of cash to splurge on a new home for remote working).

 

Might be different if their BTL is in a really crappy area that no-one would want to buy to live in though.

 

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, nightrider said:

We are thinking of moving house this year and believe me - they won't have any trouble selling if its in a good (or even just ok) area. As far as we can tell houses are almost all going to STC within weeks of being marketed in all the desirable areas currently. Plenty of people with money want to buy houses in Sheffield (have heard some say many are from London with huge pots of cash to splurge on a new home for remote working).

 

Might be different if their BTL is in a really crappy area that no-one would want to buy to live in though.

 

STC ? - forgive my ignorance, I've just googled it and come up with Saudi Telecom Company, is this who you mean? 

Are they setting up in Sheffield? Or did you mean somebody else?

 

As for the London lot with plenty of cash coming north, I have heard of this, but thought they were after the big country houses, farms etc, I wouldn't have thought they'd be interested in your average terrace, unless they want a second home (and this causes different problems.)

 

Actually, you've highlighted another concern, that Sheffield is quite a divided city, with an affluent side and a much poorer side living within a few minutes drive of each other. You're suggesting that as always, the wealthier side will be OK, but those with more modest property/means or living in a 'crappy' area will struggle. Well that's always the way of it, isn't it?

A lot of perfectly nice people live in 'not nice' areas. Time was that you started out in these homes and traded up as your prospects improved, and newcomers onto the property market would buy in at the bottom by buying your house, but with insecure working and poorer job prospects that upward mobility seems to have ground to a halt.  

 

This means the divide will become more pronounced,  and 'ghettos' will form, which helps no one.    

[Arnold_Lane 0]

Subject To Contract

[nightrider 13]

52 minutes ago, Anna B said:

STC ? - forgive my ignorance, I've just googled it and come up with Saudi Telecom Company, is this who you mean? 

Are they setting up in Sheffield? Or did you mean somebody else?

 

As for the London lot with plenty of cash coming north, I have heard of this, but thought they were after the big country houses, farms etc, I wouldn't have thought they'd be interested in your average terrace, unless they want a second home (and this causes different problems.)

 

Actually, you've highlighted another concern, that Sheffield is quite a divided city, with an affluent side and a much poorer side living within a few minutes drive of each other. You're suggesting that as always, the wealthier side will be OK, but those with more modest property/means or living in a 'crappy' area will struggle. Well that's always the way of it, isn't it?

A lot of perfectly nice people live in 'not nice' areas. Time was that you started out in these homes and traded up as your prospects improved, and newcomers onto the property market would buy in at the bottom by buying your house, but with insecure working and poorer job prospects that upward mobility seems to have ground to a halt.  

 

This means the divide will become more pronounced,  and 'ghettos' will form, which helps no one.    

STC = sold Subject to Contract

 

Not everyone can afford a country mansion, seems plenty are happy with a terrace in Walkley/Crookes both of which are near very nice countryside. Terraced houses seem to have gone up from average asking price of 140k to 180-200k in less than a year!

 

I am not saying the wealthier side will "be ok". I am saying no house owners there need worry about not being able to sell their house and ending up taking a loss. OTOH people who traditionally buy in these areas are being priced out and consequently moving to other areas, no doubt forcing house prices to increase there and so on. No-one really wins from increasing prices. OTOH maybe e.g residents in Loxley should stop blocking new housing developments if they want their kids to be able to afford a house nearby....

Edited February 16, 2021 by nightrider

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, nightrider said:

STC = sold Subject to Contract

 

Not everyone can afford a country mansion, seems plenty are happy with a terrace in Walkley/Crookes both of which are near very nice countryside. Terraced houses seem to have gone up from average asking price of 140k to 180-200k in less than a year!

 

I am not saying the wealthier side will "be ok". I am saying no house owners there need worry about not being able to sell their house and ending up taking a loss. OTOH people who traditionally buy in these areas are being priced out and consequently moving to other areas, no doubt forcing house prices to increase there and so on. No-one really wins from increasing prices. OTOH maybe e.g residents in Loxley should stop blocking new housing developments if they want their kids to be able to afford a house nearby....

The housing being built in Loxley will be very nice, but unaffordable to a large proportion of the population.

Contracts often stipulate that building projects should include 'affordable' housing, but all that means is they can stick on one cheaper house, (usually a two bedroom or a couple of flats,) and they've fulfilled their obligation. 

The more expensive the house, the more profit the builders make, so it's no surprise this is what they prefer to build, but what is needed is a lot more affordable housing, and dare I say it, Council housing. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Anna B

[nightrider 13]

5 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The housing being built in Loxley will be very nice, but unaffordable to a large proportion of the population.

Contracts often stipulate that building projects should include 'affordable' housing, but all that means is they can stick on one cheaper house, (usually a two bedroom or a couple of flats,) and they've fulfilled their obligation. 

The more expensive the house, the more profit the builders make, so it's no surprise this is what they prefer to build, but what is needed is a lot more affordable housing, and dare I say it, Council housing. 

but where will the buyers of these more expensive houses come from? Presumably they will be moving up the housing ladder thus freeing up starter homes elsewhere nearby.

[catmiss 12]

If you paid ‘married woman’s ‘ contributions your lower pension, applicable from age 60,will be topped up by Pension Credit which entitles you, if no other income, to passported benefits such as maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefits and other benefits such as additional fuel allowances and other means tested benefits. If you’re slightly younger, you’ve had to pay or be credited, full NI contributions for at least 40 years, work extra years to get the ‘new’ pension which takes you a bit above Pension Credit entitlement. A friend is in the former group having had a few sporadic part time jobs and I’m in the latter, having worked full time for 50 years-financially she’s better off than me

[Anna B 1,401]

13 hours ago, catmiss said:

If you paid ‘married woman’s ‘ contributions your lower pension, applicable from age 60,will be topped up by Pension Credit which entitles you, if no other income, to passported benefits such as maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefits and other benefits such as additional fuel allowances and other means tested benefits. If you’re slightly younger, you’ve had to pay or be credited, full NI contributions for at least 40 years, work extra years to get the ‘new’ pension which takes you a bit above Pension Credit entitlement. A friend is in the former group having had a few sporadic part time jobs and I’m in the latter, having worked full time for 50 years-financially she’s better off than me

Thankyou.

 

I paid full stamp for 40 years, but I'm one of the women born in the 1950's who lose out both ends because they have to work longer, but still only get the old rate. I don't get any top ups because I have a small private pension which takes me just  above the pension credit entitlement, but in effect wipes out the value of my private pension, and nor do I get any of the benefits that come with getting pension credit, so I'm worse off. 

 

I know there have been a lot of petitions going to the government for women in this position (there are thousands of us,) but no joy, and I believe there's a campaign to raise money to take it to court - which brings me to another point, when did law and justice become the preserve only of the rich? Nobody else can afford it.

  

Edited February 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Arnold_Lane 0]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Thankyou.

 

I paid full stamp for 40 years, but I'm one of the women born in the 1950's who lose out both ends because they have to work longer, but still only get the old rate. I don't get any top ups because I have a small private pension which takes me just  above the pension credit entitlement, but in effect wipes out the value of my private pension, and nor do I get any of the benefits that come with getting pension credit, so I'm worse off. 

 

I know there have been a lot of petitions going to the government for women in this position (there are thousands of us,) but no joy, and I believe there's a campaign to raise money to take it to court - which brings me to another point, when did law and justice become the preserve only of the rich? Nobody else can afford it.

  

The WASPI women took it to court and lost already.
 

In my humble opinion they made a mistake in their argument that their treatment was discrimination.  The judge said something along of the lines of it actually being sexist that women were allowed to retire earlier than men.  
 

They should have just argued better that the large jump in retirement age was unfair and argued for a staggered increase - which is what I think happened in Germany.  I think this would have been much fairer than the blanket increase. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

The WASPI women took it to court and lost already.
 

In my humble opinion they made a mistake in their argument that their treatment was discrimination.  The judge said something along of the lines of it actually being sexist that women were allowed to retire earlier than men.  
 

They should have just argued better that the large jump in retirement age was unfair and argued for a staggered increase - which is what I think happened in Germany.  I think this would have been much fairer than the blanket increase. 

That's true, but then these women are of an age where they have been negatively affected by sexism and discrimination all their working lives, particularly in the early years.

 

It's hard to remember the amount of blatant sexism and discrimination they had to put up with back in the day.

Even today they still don't get equal pay if looked at over a lifetime of work. And they also shouldered the majority of housework and child rearing at the same time. Even now I doubt it is equitably shared, it usually falls to the women to look after aged parents etc. too. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Anna B 1,401]

Meanwhile back on topic:

The main reason for homelessness is lack of money.

Rents too high, wages/benefits too low.

 

Until this is sorted out the problem will continue to grow. We are heading into a time of mass unemployment so it's going to be a huge problem.

[El Cid 214]

8 hours ago, Anna B said:

Meanwhile back on topic:

The main reason for homelessness is lack of money.

Rents too high, wages/benefits too low.

 

Until this is sorted out the problem will continue to grow. We are heading into a time of mass unemployment so it's going to be a huge problem.

What was the impact of QE?

As well as bonds, it increases the prices of things such as shares and property. This tends to benefit wealthier members of society who already own these things, as the Bank itself concluded in 2012.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

 

So when we stop the banks and big bussiness from going bust, what we are doing is helping the wealthy among us.