# FOR SALE bargain house in Poets' Corner



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Our lovely house in Chaucer Rd is for sale. (Who needs an estate agent when there's Urban75?!) Full details, photos, floorplan and our contact info can be viewed at: http://www.houseladder.co.uk/Property_For_Sale/707398*

Yes, I know this not the best place to post this...


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Your link doesn't work.


----------



## spanglechick (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Your link doesn't work.


 take the asterisk off the end


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Oh yeah.

http://www.houseladder.co.uk/Property_For_Sale/707398

I predict a moderator will move this to the Brixton noticeboard forum within the hour.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I predict a moderator will move this to the Brixton noticeboard forum within the hour.


 
I predict a moderator will lock/delete this thread


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2011)

> Who needs an estate agent when there's Urban75?!


 
Does 1% of the purchase price go to the server fund?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

How fucking much?


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How fucking much?


 
1%


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 30, 2011)

This is a spam really. Let's not turn Urban75 into a free estate agency.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

The concept of a bargain has changed rather over the years. How much did you pay for it, hel9a?


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 30, 2011)

I suppose it might be considered a 'bargain' for the area, but fuck me, £380k?! I realise South Norwood is grotty compared with Herne Hill, but our place cost half that for a similar size of property in similar condition. And that was before the crash!


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

Brixton noticeboard forum post: 



editor said:


> Just to clarify: this forum is not for posting items for sale.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Right ok, I'll open the bidding. 

£10,000. _Cash_, mind.


----------



## stethoscope (May 30, 2011)

280k a bargain? fucking hell


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> 280k a bargain? fucking hell



£380,000 actually


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> 280k a bargain? fucking hell


 

It's £380k!

e2a:  Goddamn you Badgers    I wanted to relay the good news.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2011)

I'll give you a fiver for it if you pay the stamp duty?

You can take the curtains HTH


----------



## moomoo (May 30, 2011)

It's not even a whole house!!!!!  Blimey!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Right, I'm winning at the moment. How many hours are left?

*starts packing*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

bin race with a twist. Last bid posted before the bin wins the house!


----------



## stethoscope (May 30, 2011)

Badgers said:


> £380,000 actually


 
Oh, that's not so bad then


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

I will offer £10,036.50


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

This is a Dutch auction, silly.

£5,000.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> Oh, that's not so bad then


 
Chaucer Rd is very expensive, the price is probably not far off actually. 

Just should not be offering any items for sale on Urban75, let alone a house.


----------



## stethoscope (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I will offer £10,036.50



I shall raise you with an offer of £11,111.11


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

£3,500.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a Dutch auction, silly.
> 
> £5,000.


 
The OP had best get in quick then. 


£3000


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2011)

Is it currently empty? Looks like a good place for a squat!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> The OP had best get in quick then.
> 
> 
> £3000



Ach. Getting nervous now. 

£2,000


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

£1,250


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

£1,249.50

Ha!


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Is it currently empty? Looks like a good place for a squat!


 
His mobile number's in the add. Why not call him and ask.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 30, 2011)

One fahsahn paahnd.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> His mobile number's in the add. Why not call him and ask.



A cruel person would do something nasty with that number...


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

£995


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A cruel person would do something nasty with that number...



Oh dear, what a terrible suggestion.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A cruel person would do something nasty with that number...


 
Let's hope no cruel person ever finds a telephone directory then. It's full of names, addresses and telephone numbers.

You worry too much.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> £995


 
If it's a Dutch auction shouldn't you be bidding in euros?


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> If it's a Dutch auction shouldn't you be bidding in euros?


 
I am happy to amend my bid to €995


----------



## twistedAM (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> If it's a Dutch auction shouldn't you be bidding in euros?



It's a global market; I bid $900 with 24 hours notice.


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> It's a global market; I bid $900 with 24 hours notice.


 
Then I bid KP₩198,303


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

I am willing to offer the FULL asking price,  ZMK380,000


----------



## stethoscope (May 30, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Chaucer Rd is very expensive, the price is probably not far off actually.



Was more just expressing my general shock/despondency at property prices.


I've been pondering a move SW/SE for a while - Brixton/Camberwell/Herne Hill/Forest Hill, but think I shall end up stuck in Strat for a bit longer!


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Can I go halves with someone?


----------



## bi0boy (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I am willing to offer the FULL asking price,  ZMK380,000


 
I could go to ZMK380 

hel9a - what do you think? Special low price just for you.


----------



## twistedAM (May 30, 2011)

B£200


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

I love urban75!
Might have to accept one of your offers at this rate


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Can I go halves with someone?


 
Alright. I'll put in a quid if you'll match it. And that's my final offer.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Magic beans.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Alright. I'll put in a quid if you'll match it. And that's my final offer.


 
I've only got a fiver?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Magic beans.


 
Pah. Bloody gazunderers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I've only got a fiver?



Bugger.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2011)

I'll be happy to caretake and in exchange I require only board and your assistance in a scheme I have cooked up that is basically long firm fraud but updated to the modern age.


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Yep, I'd accept magic beans. Defo


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll be happy to caretake and in exchange I require only board and your assistance in a scheme I have cooked up that is basically long firm fraud but updated to the modern age.


 
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

What is your reason for moving?  If it so happens to be to move to a £100k + lower value property with 2beds in a considerably less salubrious area of town, communal garden, short lease and constant traffic noise I'm willing to do a straight swap for a small admin fee of £15k


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

How about this one - http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33548858.html?premiumA=true

Not far off the OP property size
In the road next to Chaucer Rd (sought after Poets' Corner area of Herne Hill)
Only £340k including estate agent fees so probably less than £300k if sold privately


----------



## trashpony (May 30, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How about this one - http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33548858.html?premiumA=true
> 
> Not far off the OP property size
> In the road next to Chaucer Rd (sought after Poets' Corner area of Herne Hill)
> Only £340k including estate agent fees so probably less than £300k if sold privately



Yeah I have to say expecting to get £380k for that flat (particularly when you're too tight to pay EA fees) is a fucking joke.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Are we really now going to discuss property values?


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

C'mon, this is the best offer on the thread!   It won't be on the table for ever. 



quimcunx said:


> What is your reason for moving?  If it so happens to be to move to a £100k + lower value property with 2beds in a considerably less salubrious area of town, communal garden, short lease and constant traffic noise I'm willing to do a straight swap for a small admin fee of £15k


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Are we really now going to discuss property values?


 
No


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".

This is the kitchen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> C'mon, this is the best offer on the thread!   It won't be on the table for ever.




Too hot for me.


----------



## trashpony (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".
> 
> This is the kitchen.



Well it's big enough for a table AND someone to be able to walk around at the same time as someone is sitting at it which is enormous compared to mine


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".
> 
> This is the kitchen.



Perhaps the photographer was standing with his back to the middle of the room. This could be just one small corner.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

It's ergonomic.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Maybe all of the furniture is 20ft high, so it looks smaller than it really is.


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

A discussion bout house prices?!!! Am just spreading the word bout a house for sale. Yes, it's ****ing expensive!


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".



Property Misdescriptions Act 1991?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".
> 
> This is the kitchen.


it's enormous for a midget


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> Yes, it's ****ing expensive!


 
If only you didn't have to ask that much. It's the law.  

How much did you pay for it, btw?


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> A discussion bout house prices?!!! Am just spreading the word bout a house for sale. Yes, it's ****ing expensive!


 


hel9a said:


> Am just spreading the word bout *my flat* for sale.



Corrected for you ^


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How much did you pay for it, btw?


 
We can have a look tomorrow and post the details - http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

Yep, it's a matter of public record. Can't be arsed to look it up, though, so I thought I'd ask the person who'd know.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If only you didn't have to ask that much. It's the law.
> 
> How much did you pay for it, btw?


 
That's a bit irrelevant unless he no longer wishes to live anywhere.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's enormous for a midget


 
And I'm a midget.   This flat is destined to  be mine!


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Flat? House? Think the official description is "maisonette."
Don't bed the landregistry for sold prices! Get with it!
So nice to see my kitchen on urban75 heeee


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 30, 2011)

I can't believe the wardens haven't been round and clamped this thread yet. They must be off for the Bank Holiday.


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".
> 
> This is the kitchen.


That's a kitchen with a table in it. It is enormous.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> Flat? House? Think the official description is "maisonette."
> Don't bed the landregistry for sold prices! Get with it!
> So nice to see my kitchen on urban75 heeee


 
heeee?  heeee? 

stop taking the tablets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> That's a bit irrelevant unless he no longer wishes to live anywhere.


 
Just trying to put 'bargain' into perspective. Perhaps it's an _enormous_ bargain?


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Midgets'd love it


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just trying to put 'bargain' into perspective. Perhaps it's an _enormous_ bargain?


 
it's not a bargain is it.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 30, 2011)

You could get 3 or 4 houses in my street for that .


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

It's not enormous unless you are used to living on a boat or in trashy's house.  It's the same size as mine, which is 'a perfectly good size for a kitchen'.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> Flat? House? Think the official description is "maisonette."
> Don't bed the landregistry for sold prices! Get with it!
> So nice to see my kitchen on urban75 heeee


 
*Maisonette: an apartment / flat on two levels with internal stairs, or which has its own entrance at street level.
*

Flat not house


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

So I think we all agree that it's a enormous, bargain of a house?!!


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 30, 2011)

I don't want to live in shitty London. I'll buy it and flip it on ebay though. I have sixty quid spare.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> So I think we all agree that it's a enormous, bargain of a house?!!




*The world’s biggest house is Windsor Castle, located in England, Berkshire, with a surface of around 484,000 square feet (about 45,000 square meters).*

Enormous ^


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> And I'm a midget.   This flat is destined to  be mine!


 
I think you'll find it's already been sold to me. See post #54.


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Maisonette!


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> Maisonette!


 
Maisonette: an *apartment / flat* on two levels with internal stairs, or which has its own entrance at street level.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Hel9a, you're an idiot!   Magic beans.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

it would be a bargain if there's £350,000 stashed under the floorboards for the lucky purchaser


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> It's not enormous unless you are used to living on a boat or in trashy's house.  It's the same size as mine, which is 'a perfectly good size for a kitchen'.


 
I grew up in a rambling old farm house that housed three generations when my dad was a kid. I know about big kitchens!

But for anywhere within limits of affordability (at mid-90s house prices) in London, that is a big kitchen, no? I've never even lived in London, and I haven't lived anywhere big enough to have a dining table for 23 years, apart from the place that was all one open-plan downstairs, which was ace.

The boat has the biggest kitchen I've had in years. 25' by 6' room, 10' of work surfaces, with drop-leaf table, chairs and living room incorporated. It's bigger than the one in that photo anyway.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

tbf, that kitchen isn't really big enough  for a dining table.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> tbf, that kitchen isn't really big enough  for a dining table.


 
except for a midget's dining table


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> except for a midget's dining table


 
I'm as broad in the beam as a normal person.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I'm as broad in the beam as a normal person.


 
what a funny looking midget you must be


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

yes.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

I think I'll knock through into the living room.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I think I'll knock through into the living room.


 
a slight tap should do the trick. i bet the walls are really thin.


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> tbf, that kitchen isn't really big enough  for a dining table.


 
Table, then. I didn't mean mahogany polished up to impress guests!  

Somewhere to sit and eat not on your lap.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

> No chain. *Reduced!* £380,000 or nearest offer.



How much did you reduce it?


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Table, then. I didn't mean mahogany polished up to impress guests!
> 
> Somewhere to sit and eat not on your lap.


 
I mean that table.  It's not really big enough for that table.  I'll, at most, do a breakfast bar under the window and have more cupboard space.   Of course I might change my mind once I've moved in.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I mean that table.  It's not really big enough for that table.  I'll, at most, do a breakfast bar under the window and have more cupboard space.   Of course I might change my mind once I've moved in.


 
are you sure you'll be able to manoeuvre round such a flat given your unusual physique?


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure you'll be able to manoeuvre round such a flat given your unusual physique?


 
I'm assuming that if a normal person (beamwise) can I can.  And I have a little stool for reaching things.


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I mean that table.  It's not really big enough for that table.  I'll, at most, do a breakfast bar under the window and have more cupboard space.   Of course I might change my mind once I've moved in.


 
Mebbe. Line it with workspace and have a breakfast bar along one wall. It's a nice kitchen as it is though. Needs more shelves and making use of nooks and crannies, but it feels spacious, which matters too. And it's nice to be able to eat round a table.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure you'll be able to manoeuvre round such a flat given your unusual physique?


 
It doesn't matter. She's not moving in.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Mebbe. Line it with workspace and have a breakfast bar along one wall. It's a nice kitchen as it is though. Needs more shelves and making use of nooks and crannies, but it feels spacious, which matters too. And it's nice to be able to eat round a table.


 
But with that one you can either eat looking at a wall or sideways on in the corner, by the looks of it.


----------



## quimcunx (May 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It doesn't matter. She's not moving in.


 
I can understand that you would think that, if you're naive enough to think there isn't some gazumping going on by pm.


----------



## Badgers (May 30, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> You could get 3 or 4 houses in my street for that .


 
How many maisonettes (apartments / flats) could you get in your street for that?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I can understand that you would think that, if you're naive enough to think there isn't some gazumping going on by pm.


----------



## hel9a (May 30, 2011)

Ymu - youre right. More shelve would be good. You really should buy this place - you could do wonders with it!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> I can understand that you would think that, if you're naive enough to think there isn't some gazumping going on by pm.


 
there's probably all sorts of unwholesome things going round by pm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

I call foul too. Any other day than a bank holiday and I'd have won.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 30, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How many maisonettes (apartment / flat) could you get in my street for that?



I've no idea, but my house would already be out of my reach if I was starting out now and not 27 years ago ...


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 30, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> You could get 3 or 4 houses in my street for that .


 
I think 3 or 4 of those bargain houses can fit into my back garden, and at  least 2 into the front garden


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I call foul too. Any other day than a bank holiday and I'd have won.


 
i'm not so sure. any other day than a bank holiday and you'd have missed the thread entirely


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

hel9a said:


> Ymu - youre right. More shelve would be good. You really should buy this place - you could do wonders with it!


 
If I earnt enough to afford that place, I wouldn't because I'd use my earning power to buy more time to have fun with. It's insane. Sorry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

I went to the time shop last week. It was closed.


----------



## trashpony (May 30, 2011)

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-price...ce_types=F&sold_price_years=7&so=date&sd=desc


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I went to the time shop last week. It was closed.


 
The trick is to work less of it, if your earning power is enough to make that possible.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 30, 2011)

I'd only waste it.


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd only waste it.


 
Still beats working it. 

We're fortunate enough to be able to live on one income, and I love being able to switch from work to leisure without having to think about shopping, cooking or cleaning. Now I'm self-employed, he's doing the paperwork and I've gone part-time to do more chores.

I know it's not possible for most people, but if you can afford to buy a place for that much ... it's insane. Sorry.


----------



## weepiper (May 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm slightly puzzled by the word "enormous".
> 
> This is the kitchen.


 
That's approximately 4 times the size of my kitchen. There is not room for me and Fed to be in my kitchen cooking and washing up at the same time, never mind putting a table in it. However, obligatory non-Londoner £380 grand for a 2-bed _flat_ post too


----------



## Ms T (May 31, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How about this one - http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33548858.html?premiumA=true
> 
> Not far off the OP property size
> In the road next to Chaucer Rd (sought after Poets' Corner area of Herne Hill)
> Only £340k including estate agent fees so probably less than £300k if sold privately



That one's got a garden but one less reception room.  I agree that 380K is a bit steep but my friend just bought a place on Milton Rd and it was eyewateringly expensive.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 31, 2011)

My kitchen is about 6 feet by 8 feet. I was chosen to be interviewed for the '91 census and it barely qualified.

Not that it's ever likely to happen, but my plan has been to change the 15 foot by 12 foot front room / hall into a breakfast / diner - as well as bike workshop - sort of like a country kitchen.


----------



## Red Cat (May 31, 2011)

Shit pictures. 

We used to rent around the corner from there and left London partly cos we couldn't afford to buy and feeling envious of people who have gorgeous flats in Poet's Corner is not a good head space to inhabit. But your flat looks shit - it's like you think you don't have to bother making it look nice cos some dickhead with too much money will buy it anyway.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2011)

some dickhead with too much money WILL buy it.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 1, 2011)

Probably not for 380K though.  Especially if it's the one with nasty aluminium windows.  (I live round the corner and walk down Chaucer Rd a lot.)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

Plus they'll have to deduct their 5% to the server fund (a goodwill gesture for us not going round and forming a picket for putting this thread on Urban with no permission from us).


----------



## trashpony (Jun 1, 2011)

Oh dear, the OP's taken down their details from the website. Were people making prank calls?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jun 1, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Oh dear, the OP's taken down their details from the website. Were people making prank calls?


 
I can still see them!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 1, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I can still see them!


 
Oh year, I forgot the link was fuckwittedly wrong in the OP. <sigh>


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jun 1, 2011)

this is why we can't have nice things


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2011)

Is there anything to be said for urban actually having a "for sale" forum?  As an offshoot from its Brixton forum only, maybe, with a fee payable to the server fund?  It could even be restricted only to established posters, so that it does have some value as a service to members rather than purely being a revenue raiser.  

I know it's rather NPU* but it could actually be a happy medium between full-on commercialism and permanently being on the brink of server-bankruptcy.


*not proper urbanz


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 1, 2011)

I could buy a fleet for that


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2011)

A fleet of trained kamikaze monkey pilots?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 1, 2011)

If only


----------



## pianissimo (Jun 1, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How about this one - http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33548858.html?premiumA=true
> 
> Not far off the OP property size
> In the road next to Chaucer Rd (sought after Poets' Corner area of Herne Hill)
> Only £340k including estate agent fees so probably less than £300k if sold privately



It has a much nicer kitchen then the OP's.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Is there anything to be said for urban actually having a "for sale" forum?  As an offshoot from its Brixton forum only, maybe, with a fee payable to the server fund?  It could even be restricted only to established posters, so that it does have some value as a service to members rather than purely being a revenue raiser.
> 
> I know it's rather NPU* but it could actually be a happy medium between full-on commercialism and permanently being on the brink of server-bankruptcy.
> 
> ...



It would be nice but I can't see it being anything other than a massive headache. 



Mrs Magpie said:


> Plus they'll have to deduct their 5% to the server fund (a goodwill gesture for us not going round and forming a picket for putting this thread on Urban with no permission from us).


 
Why is the thread still here out of interest?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

Entertainment value, I think, and to discourage others from doing the same (another mod moved it here, so it's 'known').


----------



## Badgers (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Entertainment value, I think, and to discourage others from doing the same (another mod moved it here, so it's 'known').


 
I see  

So we should be meaner than we are?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

Got to say, I'm in social housing on an infamous estate and my kitchen has more appeal. The Poet's Corner kitchen pictured is devoid of merit, let alone charm. It's made me feel really quite smug.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I see
> 
> So we should be meaner than we are?



Within reason.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 1, 2011)

Has it been sold yet?

I want to move, I am sick of Maidenhead....but not sure I can persude Mr. QofG's that a move back towards, or indeed into, that there London would be good for us


----------



## Badgers (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Within reason.


 
The 'chandelier' in picture 8 is shit and the seller could have at least made an effort with the garden if they want £380k.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 1, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Has it been sold yet?
> 
> I want to move, I am sick of Maidenhead....but not sure I can persude Mr. QofG's that a move back towards, or indeed into, that there London would be good for us


 
quoggy, while i would like very little more than having you move round the corner, you could find somewhere much nicer in herne hill for the money.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 1, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> quoggy, while i would like very little more than having you move round the corner, you could find somewhere much nicer in herne hill for the money.


 
Thanks lovely 

I always thought that as I got older I'd be hankering to move further and further out of London but it has been the exact opposite.

I think I shall go and look longingly at rightmove for a bit!


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Got to say, I'm in social housing on an infamous estate and my kitchen has more appeal. The Poet's Corner kitchen pictured is devoid of merit, let alone charm. It's made me feel really quite smug.


 
i like your kitchen better too


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

Badgers said:


> The 'chandelier' in picture 8 is shit and the seller could have at least made an effort with the garden if they want £380k.


 
They haven't got a garden, just a potential roof terrace which needs planning permission.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> They haven't got a garden, just a potential roof terrace which needs planning permission.


 
Sorry, the 'outside space' needs work


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

Can't put plants in tubs on that unless you get a surveyor in to check it's safe to take the weight. Also it could cause damp problems in the room underneath. Flat roofs are a complete nightmare.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2011)

I doubt its any easier to place plants in tubs on sloping roofs.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 2, 2011)

There's a six bed detached house here for 280k. Two acres of land too.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

Quite a long way from London though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> Quite a long way from London though.


 Pfft.  Who cares?

Still can't afford it.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Pfft.  Who cares?
> 
> Still can't afford it.


 
It's annoying to those of us who live in London when people point out that you can get a lot more for a lot less in other places in the country.  Like the Orkneys.  Yes, I know that but my job and friends are in London and guess what, I actually like living here.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> It's annoying to those of us who live in London when people point out that you can get a lot more for a lot less in other places in the country.  Like the Orkneys.  Yes, I know that but my job and friends are in London and guess what, I actually like living here.


 
It's completely fucking pointless too


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> It's annoying to those of us who live in London when people point out that you can get a lot more for a lot less in other places in the country.  Like the Orkneys.  Yes, I know that but my job and friends are in London and guess what, I actually like living here.


 
Yeah. And the rest if us have to fork out a fortune in housing benefit so you lot can afford to live in that glorious(ly unaffordable) city. At leat allow us to point and laugh at the stupidity of it. It's that or cry tbh.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. *And the rest if us have to fork out a fortune in housing benefit so you lot can afford to live in that glorious(ly unaffordable) city.* At leat allow us to point and laugh at the stupidity of it. It's that or cry tbh.


 
say what?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

I didn't understand that post either.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> say what?


If everyone who worked in low paid jobs in London had to be paid enough to live there, no one else would be able to afford to live there.

Cities like London can't exist without taxes from the provinces.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

That's not actually true. The UKs biggest tax revenue comes from the South East.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

It's not the fault of people who have to live and work there, but single person rents that are unaffordable on wages paid for a full-time worker are not right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Not many people in London who are working full-time claim housing benefit, tbf. If you don't live in social housing, you're likely to be in a shared house, not in your own flat. 

And anyway, it's not the workers who are being subsidised. It's the landlords.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> If everyone who worked in low paid jobs in London had to be paid enough to live there, no one else would be able to afford to live there.
> 
> Cities like London can't exist without taxes from the provinces.


 
bollocks....

as most of the jobs and money made by the country comes from London and is div'ved up to the rest of the country how the hell do you work that out??


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not the fault of people who have to live and work there, but single person rents that are unaffordable on wages paid for a full-time worker are not right.


 
true - whch is my most people in that situation live in shared accommodation. and certainly aren't eligible for housing benefit. which at any rate is more than covered by the tax revenue contributed by people who live here.

your original point is just bizarre.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That's not actually true. The UKs biggest tax revenue comes from the South East.


 
Doesn't matter.

How many shops/restaurants/hotels/theatres would there be in London if they had to have a viable business plan based on no housing benefits or tax credits to support the workers?

London can't exist in its current form without massive subsidy from the poor (the taxpayer) to the rich (those who can afford a decent place in London without social housing, benefits or tax credits, and the businesses that can pay huge rents and poverty wages).

I'll see if I can find figures on the size of the benefits subsidy to the SE.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Um, the 'rich' are in the main the ones charging the massive rents, not those struggling to pay them. The majority of single people not in social housing in London who work live in shared housing and don't claim any form of housing benefit. Housing benefit inflates private rents to an extent, making landlords rich, nobody else.

And I'm sorry, but do you know how much they leave you to live on with housing benefit? I'll tell you. It is the dole plus ten quid (or was the last time I claimed). Such people are not swanning around in shops/restaurants/hotels/theatres. And you just don't work full time if your rent is that high that you have to claim HB. You move somewhere cheaper.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. And the rest if us have to fork out a fortune in housing benefit so you lot can afford to live in that glorious(ly unaffordable) city. At leat allow us to point and laugh at the stupidity of it. It's that or cry tbh.


 
I have no idea what you're talking about but I don't rent my home or claim housing benefit.  And I'm not particularly rich, just lucky enough to have bought a flat a long time ago.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Doesn't matter.
> 
> How many shops/restaurants/hotels/theatres would there be in London if they had to have a viable business plan based on no housing benefits or tax credits to support the workers?
> 
> ...


 

London subsidises the rest of the country, not the other way round.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

.


----------



## mattie (Jun 2, 2011)

Cheers London.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Here's the problem caused just by the coalition's proposals. Finding the numbers is trickier. ...



> A third of England will become unaffordable for low-income households within a decade according to a study by two leading housing organisations A report by the housing charity Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) claims that government plans to overhaul housing benefit would price low-income households out of a third of local authorities in England, pushing them into areas of high unemployment The changes, to be introduced in 2013, were outlined in last month's welfare reform bill, which established that future increases to local housing allowance for private tenants will be linked to the consumer price index of inflation rather than the cost of local rents Shelter and CIH warn that this means that, in places where rents rise faster than inflation housing benefit will increasingly fail to cover housing costs. Their report claims that by 2023, 34% of local authorities outside London will be unaffordable for people claiming local housing allowance, including those in working households on low incomes or unable to work such as pensioners, carers and people with disabilities Earlier research carried out for Shelter by Cambridge University has already predicted that many on housing benefit in London will have to move out of their homes to areas where rents are lower. But suggestions that those outside the capital will also be affected is likely to revive concerns that the changes will contribute to a form of social engineering that will have consequences for much of the country.
> 
> http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/05/benefit-low-income-households?cat=society&type=article.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

What does that have to do with what you posted before. I repeat: full-time workers do not claim housing benefit in London. And if any do, they certainly don't have any disposable income to spend anywhere other than Lidl. Have you ever claimed housing benefit? I don't want to be rude, but you don't seem to understand what it is.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Here's the problem caused just by the coalition's proposals. Finding the numbers is trickier. ...


 
wtf has that to do with your claim that the rest of the uk is paying for london's housing benefit?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

Jesus wept nearly £400,000 for a 2-bed flat!


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What does that have to do with what you posted before. I repeat: full-time workers do not claim housing benefit in London. And if any do, they certainly don't have any disposable income to spend anywhere other than Lidl. Have you ever claimed housing benefit? I don't want to be rude, but you don't seem to understand what it is.


 
They bloody well do! How on earth do you think people afford the rents! We fork out £400/week if you're unemployed, but if you're on minimum wage you'll have to pay out more in rent than you earn?

What planet are you on?

There would be no shops, hotels, restaurants or theatres in London without housing benefit. Or rather, London would not exist in its current forn because businesses would not get subsidised on the cost of being there, so they would create jobs somewhere more sensibly priced.

To shop in London is to receive a state subsidy.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> wtf has that to do with your claim that the rest of the uk is paying for london's housing benefit?


 
You don't need housing benefit on minimum wage in Brum.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 2, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Jesus wept nearly £400,000 for a 2-bed flat!


 
http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?bed...ch_form=map&search_type=SS&submit_type=search


----------



## Ms T (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> They bloody well do! How on earth do you think people afford the rents! We fork out £400/week if you're unemployed, but if you're on minimum wage you'll have to pay out more in rent than you earn?
> 
> What planet are you on?
> 
> ...


 

But why is the rest of the country subsididing housing benefit in London, when the tax receipts in the capital are greater than anywhere else in the country?

And why do you think house prices in London are so expensive?  Because demand far outstrips supply.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't need housing benefit on minimum wage in Brum.


 
but london supports the rest of the uk's tax burden, not the other way around - which is what you said.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

Badgers said:


> http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?bed...ch_form=map&search_type=SS&submit_type=search


 
That's not in Shitsville though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> But why is the rest of the country subsididing housing benefit in London, when the tax receipts in the capital are greater than anywhere else in the country?
> 
> And why do you think house prices in London are so expensive?  Because demand far outstrips supply.


 
I pay the same tax as someone earning the same anywhere else. The in-work housing benefit bill is spent largely on the SE, ergo it us a subsidy.

I'm not saying London cobtributes nothing, but is misleading to quote tthe gross tax contribution without saying what the subsidy was. How much do we spend on in- work housing benefit

And the demand point you make is mine! If Londoners had to pay the full economic cost of living there, demand would fall. The silly prices are only possible because the state subsidises employers who pay less than the cost of living.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> They bloody well do! How on earth do you think people afford the rents! We fork out £400/week if you're unemployed, but if you're on minimum wage you'll have to pay out more in rent than you earn?


 
This is simply not true. I repeat, do you understand HB? It is a classic example of a benefits trap as the money you're paid is reduced pound for pound with the money you earn. First, virtually nobody claims £400 per week in HB. As a single person over the age of, 30, I think it is, you are allowed your own one-bed flat. If you're lucky they'll pay the whole rent without finding some arbitrary excuse to deduct some of it (which they often do). But that doesn't include any bills. 

I don't know what the current figure is, but let us say for convenience that they allow you £400 per month to live on, and your rent is £700 per month. That means that if you earn £1,000 per month, you are eligible for £100 HB. If you earn £400 per month, you get £700 HB. Effectively, every hour you work a month to earn more than 400, you are working for nothing. So you don't. You work out how much you have to work before you're working for nothing, and you try to get those hours. 

And claiming HB is an intrusive, ugly process - made like that on purpose to put people off. It isn't some kind of clever lifestyle choice - it is something you do because you have to because you are skint.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 2, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> That's not in Shitsville though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

I know that lbj. You seem to be under the impression that £400/week rent is payable on low wages. You'd need to be on £30k just to meet the Tory cap, before any other expenditure.

80% of HB is paid to people in work, many of them working full- time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know that lbj. You seem to be under the impression that £400/week rent is payable on low wages.



What? Try reading what I wrote again. And then try moving to London and going to the benefits office to claim £400 per week HB! Only a tiny number of people claim anywhere near this much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> 80% of HB is paid to people in work, *many of them working full- time*.


 
Where do you get that from? Working tax credits aren't housing benefit, btw. They are two completely different systems.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know that lbj. You seem to be under the impression that £400/week rent is payable on low wages. You'd need to be on £30k just to meet the Tory cap, before any other expenditure.
> 
> 80% of HB is paid to people in work, many of them working full- time.


 
Which benefits claimant would choose / pass the vetting for a £400 per week house?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ChrisFilter said:


> Which benefits claimant would choose / pass the vetting for a £400 per week house?!


 
Virtually none.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 2, 2011)

FYI. There's something called the Local Housinf Allowance. My borough, Tower Hamlets, allows maximum £400 pw HB for a 4 bedroom house. 

Shared Accommodation Rate:£125.00 per week
One Bedroom Rate:£250.00 per week
Two Bedrooms Rate:£290.00 per week
Three Bedrooms Rate:£340.00 per week
Four Bedrooms Rate:£400.00 per week


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

I think you're arguing completely different points, tbf.  Wildly different.  And if I'm right about that then you're both right.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is simply not true. I repeat, do you understand HB? It is a classic example of a benefits trap as the money you're paid is reduced pound for pound with the money you earn. First, virtually nobody claims £400 per week in HB. As a single person over the age of, 30, I think it is, you are allowed your own one-bed flat. If you're lucky they'll pay the whole rent without finding some arbitrary excuse to deduct some of it (which they often do). But that doesn't include any bills.
> 
> I don't know what the current figure is, but let us say for convenience that they allow you £400 per month to live on, and your rent is £700 per month. That means that if you earn £1,000 per month, you are eligible for £100 HB. If you earn £400 per month, you get £700 HB. Effectively, every hour you work a month to earn more than 400, you are working for nothing. So you don't. You work out how much you have to work before you're working for nothing, and you try to get those hours.
> 
> And claiming HB is an intrusive, ugly process - made like that on purpose to put people off. It isn't some kind of clever lifestyle choice - it is something you do because you have to because you are skint.


You're not correct. Housing benefit can be claimed as an out-of-work or an in-work benefit, regardless of hours worked. It is assessed on the basis of your income, after tax/NI. If you claim for living in a privately-owned property, you are also subject to something called a local housing allowance (LHA), which limits the maximum eligible rent for HB, whereas if you live in social housing, all of your rent is potentially eligible.

To calaculate entitlement to HB, your personal circumstances are looked at and you are given an personal allowance or eligible amount, which is deemed to be the bare minimum that you need to live on a week. For someone aged over the age of 25, that amount is currently £67.50 per week, who has no other dependents and no health problems.

So, as a single person with rent of £400 per 4 week-month (or £100p/w), your maximum LHA is actually £250 p/w for a one-bedroom flat, thus all of your rent is potentially eligible for HB. If you earn £1,000 pcm, your weekly income is £230 p/w - this exceeds your personal allowance by £162.50 p/w, which means that your maximum HB is reduced by 65% of this figure (£105.62) which is why you wouldn't get any HB as your rent is "only" £100 p/w. 

If however, your rent was £600 per 4 week month (or £150 p/w), you would be entitled to £44.38 p/w HB. All very rough and ready calcs admittedly but that's basically how it works at the moment, although it is going to be changed again substantially soon. The marginal deduction rate is 65p in the £, so every extra £ you earn, you only see 35p of it tops. If you have council tax liability, this will decrease gains by a further 20p in the £.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about but I don't rent my home or claim housing benefit.  And I'm not particularly rich, just lucky enough to have bought a flat a long time ago.


 
I never saud you did! But if your local shops and services had to pay their workers enough not to have to either, your cost of living would shoot through the roof. HB is a subsidy to the well off, not the poor.

Which is why London, and its prices and cultural life, could not exist without this subsidy. Which all of us pay through taxes but sonehow never gets mentioned when the employers who abuse this massive state subsidy report their profits.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Given the way that HB is calculated, the actual amount is irrelevant really. If rents in London were all halved overnight, more people would find themselves in a position where they weren't stuck in a benefits trap and could profitably work more hours. That would help the economy overall, and of course, everyone's rents would be lower, so everyone would feel the benefit. Everyone except the landlords, that is. It is the landlords who are subsidised by the housing benefit system, nobody else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> You're not correct. Housing benefit can be claimed as an out-of-work or an in-work benefit, regardless of hours worked. It is assessed on the basis of your income, after tax/NI. If you claim for living in a privately-owned property, you are also subject to something called a local housing allowance (LHA), which limits the maximum eligible rent for HB, whereas if you live in social housing, all of your rent is potentially eligible.
> 
> To calaculate entitlement to HB, your personal circumstances are looked at and you are given an personal allowance or eligible amount, which is deemed to be the bare minimum that you need to live on a week. For someone aged over the age of 25, that amount is currently £67.50 per week, who has no other dependents and no health problems.
> 
> ...


 
I stand corrected, then. That's changed since a decade ago, though, when I last claimed.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Virtually none.


Because being a benefit claimant us lifeling, right? 

The 400/week is the Tory cap for 4+ beds, which is part of the changes that Shelter says may drive a third of the low paid out of London over the next 12 years.

If you had enough kids and list your £50k job, your rent will be paid.

Some claimants collude with the landlord to get max LHA for no deposit. It's big business, this state subsidy thing.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where do you get that from? Working tax credits aren't housing benefit, btw. They are two completely different systems.


 Shelter stats, I think.

I know what fucking HB is you patronising cretin.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I stand corrected, then. That's changed since a decade ago, though, when I last claimed.


159,370 households in London predicted to lose out in changes to HB system following June 2010 Budget, see Work and Pensions Select Committee report

See also the analysis from 53 onwards:

_53. The impact of the LHA reforms will be particularly acute in London. This is partly because the maximum caps will affect more households in central London, but also because of the high number of properties with more bedrooms in many parts of outer London. Only six London boroughs (out of 33) are not affected by the national cap for any size of dwelling.[43] Another significant factor is that the private rental sector is a much larger part of the overall housing market in London. Rents are therefore higher and consequently average cash reductions in LHA rates will be much larger than in other parts of the country, even in cases where the national caps will not apply (see Table 7 above).

54. The deep impact of the national caps in central London (City of London, Kensington and Chelsea, and parts of Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Tower Hamlets and Westminster) may result in unsustainable shortfalls. The proportion of lettings available at or below LHA rates is estimated by DWP to fall from 52% to just 7% in that area.[44]

55. Evidence from the Mayor of London stated that the package of cuts (the caps, the change from the median to the 30th percentile and the loss of the £15 excess), will mean that London LHA claimants will lose an average of £22 per week — compared with £12 in the South East and £10 or less elsewhere. It pointed out that London is the only region of the country where over 20,000 households (12% of claimants) will have weekly losses of more than £30. Almost a quarter of London claimants will lose £20 per week or more, compared with 2% in two regions, 1% in two regions and none in the rest.* Overall, all of the capital's LHA claimants will face losses as a result of the changes.*_


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

I think ymu's point is all part of the same concept that says it is ridiculous that anybody in full time employment should have to have their income supplemented by the state; that any such supplements are, in effect, a subsidy to the employer so that they don't have to pay an equitable wage.

If that is her underlying issue then I think it's a fair point.

Arguing about the exact nature of the supplement is a bit nitpicky.  If a supplement exists then it is naturally distorting the market.  One such distortion could well be to artificially keep rents (and therefore house prices) higher than they would naturally otherwise be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

How are higher rents of benefit to anyone other than landlords? 

You say that Londoners are subsidised by HB. I just don't see that argument. Landlords are subsidised by HB. And it's a complete scandal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If a supplement exists then it is naturally distorting the market.  One such distortion could well be to artificially keep rents (and therefore house prices) higher than they would naturally otherwise be.


 
Which is what I said a couple of pages ago. What is needed is proper fair rent legislation.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

ChrisFilter said:


> Which benefits claimant would choose / pass the vetting for a £400 per week house?!


 
One bed for a couple or aduot, one per rwo kids under ten, one per same sex pair of kids over 10. Household earnings less than approx £35k gross at a guess, you'd have to look it up. Currently renting somewhere for £400+/week.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> 80% of HB is paid to people in work, many of them working full- time.


Not true - 67% of HB claimants nationally were also claiming income support, JSA(IB), ESA(IB), or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit) - that may be a slightly different picture in London obviously but not to that extent I think you'll find.

DWP statistical summary May 2011, p.18


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How are higher rents of benefit to anyone other than landlords?


You're being very one-dimensional about it.  High rents directly benefit landlords, yes.  But why are the rents high in the first place?  Because of demand-push inflation.  And where does this come from?  From an overcrowded workforce who all need to live near their work.  And how can this workforce afford to pay for this high rent?  If it is because there is any income supplement at all then that means the employer is getting away with not paying the workforce what they would otherwise naturally need to pay.  

It's the income supplement that allows for the high rent and it's the employer that is managing to get the benefit of the workforce without paying this supplement.

It's a much more complicated interweaving of relationships than you are giving it credit for.



> You say that Londoners are subsidised by HB. I just don't see that argument. Landlords are subsidised by HB. And it's a complete scandal.


 
So what would happen if the supplements were removed?  Would nobody have any consequences except landlords?  Or would there still be enough demand for housing for landlords to basically be OK, whilst employers found themselves having to increase wages instead?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Shelter stats, I think.
> 
> I know what fucking HB is you patronising cretin.


 


Paulie Tandoori said:


> Not true - 67% of HB claimants nationally were also claiming income support, JSA(IB), ESA(IB), or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit) - that may be a slightly different picture in London obviously but not to that extent I think you'll find.
> 
> DWP statistical summary May 2011, p.18


 
You may see why I doubted that given that your figures seem so wildly wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> So what would happen if the supplements were removed?  Would nobody have any consequences except landlords?  Or would there still be enough demand for housing for landlords to basically be OK, whilst employers found themselves having to increase wages instead?


 
Given that most people in work, even in low-paid work, in London don't claim HB, I wouldn't think it would make that much difference. I would need to see some much more convincing stats to show that there are large numbers of people on minimum wage claiming HB before I accepted the premise, tbh.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which is what I said a couple of pages ago. What is needed is proper fair rent legislation.


When rent controls were scrapped back in the late 80's, that's when private rents shot through the roof, it's true.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2011)

In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of _vertical_ subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given the way that HB is calculated, the actual amount is irrelevant really. If rents in London were all halved overnight, more people would find themselves in a position where they weren't stuck in a benefits trap and could profitably work more hours. That would help the economy overall, and of course, everyone's rents would be lower, so everyone would feel the benefit. Everyone except the landlords, that is. It is the landlords who are subsidised by the housing benefit system, nobody else.


 
You think people are having to claim in- wwork benefits because they're choosing to work less hours? Good grief.

A third of the worforce earns less than £15k. ffs


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given that most people in work, even in low-paid work, in London don't claim HB, I wouldn't think it would make that much difference. I would need to see some much more convincing stats to show that there are large numbers of people on minimum wage claiming HB before I accepted the premise, tbh.


So how do you think someone on NMW paying private rent currently affords to maintain their home? I showed you offical stats above about 159,000 h/h's in London being affected, and would estimate that at least 40% of these would be in some kind of low-paid work (by definition), which represents 60,000-odd households. That's a pretty large number to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> You think people are having to claim in- wwork benefits because they're choosing to work less hours?


 
I know that a lot of people choose to work fewer hours because it is not worth their while working any more. I've been in that situation myself. The system is set up in such a way that this is what happens. If rents were reduced, fewer people would be in this position.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> So how do you think someone on NMW paying private rent currently affords to maintain their home? I showed you offical stats above about 159,000 h/h's in London being affected, and would estimate that at least 40% of these would be in some kind of low-paid work (by definition), which represents 60,000-odd households. That's a pretty large number to me.


 
To affect wages - ie put significant upward pressure on wages - I would doubt that this would change anything significantly. How many people in low-paid work instead live in shared housing because they can't afford their own place? Far more than 60,000 households. That's the typical situation of a Londoner on low wages, I would suggest - if they're not living at home or in social housing, they are far more likely to be renting a room in a house/flat than in their own place.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I think ymu's point is all part of the same concept that says it is ridiculous that anybody in full time employment should have to have their income supplemented by the state; that any such supplements are, in effect, a subsidy to the employer so that they don't have to pay an equitable wage.
> 
> If that is her underlying issue then I think it's a fair point.
> 
> Arguing about the exact nature of the supplement is a bit nitpicky.  If a supplement exists then it is naturally distorting the market.  One such distortion could well be to artificially keep rents (and therefore house prices) higher than they would naturally otherwise be.


 
Yes, precisely on the first part.

On the latter, I mean that the rich can squabble over nice properties in the SE, and still afford to site their businesses near where they live, ie where their self-ghettoisation has shot prices through the roof. If they had to pay the full economic cost of siting a business in the SE, they'd site it somewhere else.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of _vertical_ subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.


 
Can you explain what you mean?  Or provide a link to an explanation?  I'm sorry to say that I don't really understand.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> On the latter, I mean that the rich can squabble over nice properties in the SE, and still afford to site their businesses near where they live, ie where their sef-ghettoisation has shot prices through the roof. If they had to pay the full economic cost of siting a business in the SE, they'd site ut somewhere else.


 
It's not even just about wages.  Every time we come up against a natural disincentive to site a business in the SE, the government bends over backwards to remove it.  Flights full up?  Build another runway.  Roads full up?  Build more roads.  These are all things that would otherwise factor into a cost-benefit analysis of where to put a business and by removing them from the equation, pressure falls back on things like rents instead.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of 'subsidy' it's much more important to concentrate on the role and function of _vertical_ subsidy nationally as a whole rather than horizontal regional subsidies.


 
Yes, I agree. But you can't really split them out. Unemployment blackspots exist because of the distortion. If employers in the SE had to cover all costs, most of them couldn't be there, which means they'd be somewhere else. It"s part of what drives inequality, regionalisation if the vertical, if you like.


----------



## Hooly Martins (Jun 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Can you explain what you mean?  Or provide a link to an explanation?  I'm sorry to say that I don't really understand.


 
Nothing majorly important, and debate has moved well beyond what i was concentrating on anyway.  The role of welfare set-ups and schemes that allow the rich to rip off the public purse (for want of a better term) to funnel money upwards nationally are more important than which region subsidies which, the latter approach just flattens out the picture into competing parochialisms whilst ignoring the internal structure of the region.

(butchers posting)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing. 

That's stupid capitalist logic that allows people who own limited resources to charge what they want for others to use them. There's nothing right or fair or logical about that. It's simple extortion. The simple answer is proper rent controls, which we had before Thatcher scrapped them.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Not true - 67% of HB claimants nationally were also claiming income support, JSA(IB), ESA(IB), or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit) - that may be a slightly different picture in London obviously but not to that extent I think you'll find.
> 
> DWP statistical summary May 2011, p.18


 You have to exclude pensioners from the denominator when looking at in-work benefits!

Shelter ran the numbers a while back.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You may see why I doubted that given that your figures seem so wildly wrong.


 
You're supposed to be good with numbers. Surely you can do better than that? Why not actually try to make a rebuttal instead of this pathetic whining.

What kind of scientific thinking made you think it makes sense to include pensioners in the denominator when looking at in-work vs out-of-work benefits?

Or were you just too desperate to prove you were right you didn't stop to think?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

Hooly Martins said:


> Nothing majorly important, and debate has moved well beyond what i was concentrating on anyway.  The role of welfare set-ups and schemes that allow the rich to rip off the public purse (for want of a better term) to funnel money upwards nationally are more important than which region subsidies which, the latter approach just flattens out the picture into competing parochialisms whilst ignoring the internal structure of the region.
> 
> (butchers posting)


 
Cheers.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing.


 The benefit to landlords is a symptom of the problem alright.  It's not the only symptom though, nor is it the cause.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

80% still seems too high. 

From that report:



> At February 2011, the total number of people claiming Housing Benefit was 4.87 million





> At February 2011 there were 4.87 million recipients of Housing Benefit, *of whom almost three-quarters were aged under 65*. The average weekly amount of Housing Benefit was £84.81.
> 
> 68% of Housing Benefit recipients were tenants of Social Sector with 79% of Private Sector tenants receiving the Local Housing Allowance.
> 67% were also in receipt of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-based Employment and Support Allowance or Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit).



so, three quarters not pensioners, two thirds living in social housing, two thirds on income support.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How do you define 'full economic cost', though? To me the whole point of this is that the so-called 'full economic cost' is skewed by the iniquitous nature of things like rents, which is why so much HB has to be paid out in the first place. It is an entirely ludicrous situation in which landlords are made rich for doing nothing.
> 
> That's stupid capitalist logic that allows people who own limited resources to charge what they want for others to use them. There's nothing right or fair or logical about that. It's simple extortion. The simple answer is proper rent controls, which we had before Thatcher scrapped them.


 
Full economic cost means employers pay every penny of venefits for their employees and every penny of ibfrastructure needed to ease overcrowding. If they did, shopping and eating out would become too expensive and the jobs would move elsewhere and London would not exist in its current overpriced form.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> You have to exclude pensioners from the denominator when looking at in-work benefits!
> 
> Shelter ran the numbers a while back.


It is something like a 60/40 split though, I made a similar mistake of claiming that _most_ HB claimants were in F/T work and was proven wrong. I think part of the problem is around definitions basically, so essentially working less than 16 hours isn't classed as "work" for means-tested benefit (although it doesn't mean that you will get top-ups of MTB's necessarily), whereas 16-29 hours is kind of "part-time" work for tax credits and 30 hours+ p/w as "full-time" and extra payments.

Whatever, the wider point that many people can only afford to work in London due to state-assisted subsidy of some kind (whether wages and/or housing and/or childcare) is correct - its also correct that many of these people will almost inevitably need to move to outer London, with forthcoming changes to the welfare system - many youth advice servcies are already reporting seeing rises in the number of homeless young people, even before the worst effects of the changes come into force.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Full economic cost means employers pay every penny of venefits for their employees and every penny of ibfrastructure needed to ease overcrowding. If they did, shopping and eating out would become too expensive and the jobs would move elsewhere and London would not exist in its current overpriced form.


 
But in terms of the narrow issue of private rents, the level at which these are set is a political decision, one taken to maximise the profits of the already rich without having to work as they steal ( there is no other word for it) the rewards of the labour of others. You can't separate off an independent 'full economic cost' in such circumstances. In reality, I would argue that the full economic cost is distorted upwards by the current lack of fair rent legislation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The benefit to landlords is a symptom of the problem alright.  It's not the only symptom though, nor is it the cause.


 
I think you have missed my point. Why are private rents so high? That's the important question, I think, and the answer is because some people own more than one house when others own none, and there is not enough social housing around for those that own none. This has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the country subsidising another or anything like that. It is, purely and simply, the theft of money from the have-nots by the haves.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

....but is any of this pointing and laughing at the hapless twunts who thought it was OK to advertise their bargain overpriced £380,000 house maisonette on U75? Answer me that.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> It is something like a 60/40 split though, I made a similar mistake of claiming that _most_ HB claimants were in F/T work and was proven wrong. I think part of the problem is around definitions basically, so essentially working less than 16 hours isn't classed as "work" for means-tested benefit (although it doesn't mean that you will get top-ups of MTB's necessarily), whereas 16-29 hours is kind of "part-time" work for tax credits and 30 hours+ p/w as "full-time" and extra payments.
> 
> Whatever, the wider point that many people can only afford to work in London due to state-assisted subsidy of some kind (whether wages and/or housing and/or childcare) is correct - its also correct that many of these people will almost inevitably need to move to outer London, with forthcoming changes to the welfare system - many youth advice servcies are already reporting seeing rises in the number of homeless young people, even before the worst effects of the changes come into force.


 
Yeah, the definitions are tricky. I checked the shelter stats at the time and got close to them. Finding actial in/out of work splits is the problem.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But in terms of the narrow issue of private rents, the level at which these are set is a political decision, one taken to maximise the profits of the already rich without having to work as they steal ( there is no other word for it) the rewards of the labour of others. You can't separate off an independent 'full economic cost' in such circumstances. In reality, I would argue that the full economic cost is distorted upwards by the current lack of fair rent legislation.


 
I'm not looking at a narrow issue though. I'm looking at how it can ve sane to set up a business in the SE when costs are so stupidly high. Housing benefit makes massivee regional inequality in wealth sustainable.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ....but is any of this pointing and laughing at the hapless twunts who thought it was OK to advertise their bargain overpriced £380,000 house maisonette on U75? Answer me that.


No. Sorry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Housing benefit makes massivee regional inequality in wealth sustainable.


 
It contributes towards maintaining massive regional inequality in private rents, certainly. But with a fair rent act in place, this would make living in the SE cheaper for people renting privately. If there were more social housing available, that would have the same effect. If things were more equitable in housing, more just, there would in fact be more reason to set up a business in the SE.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

It's OK, I realise now you're trying to confuse them to death with the off-topicness. As you were.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you have missed my point. Why are private rents so high? That's the important question, I think, and the answer is because some people own more than one house when others own none, and there is not enough social housing around for those that own none. This has absolutely nothing to do with one part of the country subsidising another or anything like that. It is, purely and simply, the theft of money from the have-nots by the haves.


 
Rents are driven by house prices are driven by the degree to which the rich want to live in the area and open up businesses there.

You're refusing to engage with the point being made. I'm not looking for heroes and villains, just trying to point out that places like London can only get rich through massive subsidy from the rest of us. HB itself is peanuts compared to the loss of jobs and investment that HB inflicts on poorer areas.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, I love London, and Londoners. My partner and half my family are Londoners. I'd live there if we could afford it. Just annoyed at how benefits claimants are forced to claim for the benefit of the rich, and then demonised for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Rents are driven by house prices


 
That's not really true. If you look at how rents go up, they tend to go up in line with wages more or less, regardless of what is happening to house prices.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

Fuck's sake.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Look at the figures if you don't believe me. I'm not arguing for the sake of it, you know, but you do keep saying things that aren't true.


----------



## co-op (Jun 2, 2011)

Ms T said:


> And why do you think house prices in London are so expensive?  Because demand far outstrips supply.



This really isn't true - the supply/demand issue with house prices is not the houses, but the availability of cheap credit to buy them with. Otherwise there would be no way that house prices in London could end up being 12 times the average wage in London. Actually they would be literally unaffordable if it wasn't for the bubble-economics ponzi scheme of ever-increasing prices funded on a sea of cheap credit.

It's come to an end now and prices will crash accordingly, personally I can't wait. 

Long live the recession!

Anyway, £380,00 for a 2 bed flat in Brixton?? F***ing ridiculous. Buy now and lose a fortune!


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 8, 2011)

so, have you sold it yet?


----------

