x

RITA RITA

Thunderer

3307 Profile Views

About Me

Recycler

my expertise in the industry

NONE

RITA's Recent Activity

Al sounds like good common sense and practicality to me. Some great work done here, and I hope it happens and is made to work .

From: RITA RITA 15 November 2016 07:36 AM

Hi Terry, I have lived abroad for a while and to be honest I'm not sure what the difference is between a housing association, and another way of renting? But the sad situation is that whatever seems to be introduced whether it is cashing in a pension, or being a leaseholder, or tenant, there always seems to be people who own nothing, and do very little who try to reduce whatever you have through 'fees' and charges which are just ridiculous, -- and a total lack of control of these 'vulture' fees and 'vulture' attitudes; through legislation and regulation.... from either government or local authorities. I'll go and try and find out more about HAs, but as I said, these days I wouldn't trust anyone with my home AND savings at the same time. No way!

From: RITA RITA 07 November 2016 17:51 PM

This is not good at all, I think it is frightening and government is being manipulated into potentially one of the biggest scams ever! At the moment the deposit holding system isn't enforced or working properly, so why should future house buyers trust these huge landlords with even more of their money? The tenants could open a regular savings account themselves and get what interest they can, tax free! AND, at least FSA is bound to support banks and institutions that go bankrupt? Or another option could be to contribute to their state old age pension, which is still one of the best investments ever. To me it's government actively encouraging people to 'give 'these huge landlords free money' to mis-manage and what happens if they go ' bust'? Who is going to compensate these people? This has the potential to be ruthless capitalism at it's most deceptive, and cynical. What if the tenants move move and decide not to buy? All I can see is huge administration fees being raked off from the poor 'again for administration fees and management ' of their hard earned money.

From: RITA RITA 07 November 2016 08:20 AM

Oh not another one -- with people with budgets beyond belief for 90% of the population looking at properties. What fun , oh joy, and I'll watch something else. BTW these people who call themselves "property experts", could I see their qualifications displayed at the end of the program please, or is it just a matter of wearing very high heels and knowing how to put false eye lashes on properly? A few Chartered Member of ....... professional qualifications would help their credibility wouldn't it now?

From: RITA RITA 04 November 2016 08:50 AM

If there are too many, then they must be charging everyone too much, or they would soon pack up and go wouldn't they?

From: RITA RITA 02 November 2016 07:57 AM

Why should retired people downsize before they want to, or can afford to? They have earned the right to live where they want to. More and more older people are taking in their younger relatives to ease the housing situation anyway, and this is a trend which will continue. All this retirement service provider seems to want to do is drum up some business - no doubt so he can retire into a small palace in the country to?

From: RITA RITA 28 October 2016 09:27 AM

If permission is being given, but builders aren't building why not introduce a penalty system? Build, complete, and sell within 2 years, or not only lose the permission to build, but fine for not building? No point handing out permission to build if it's not going to happen. Why bother? If landlords have to pay slab tax on BTL properties, and they are offering housing- why can't non-builders pay the same on the value of non- builds? Is a 3% slab tax on what should have been built going to be a good enough incentive to 'get on with the job' or release the land to let someone else 'get on with it?'

From: RITA RITA 25 October 2016 07:56 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, try going to France where the agents try to charge 10%, and its a falling market anyway!

From: RITA RITA 07 October 2016 10:10 AM

Frankly after the way "Countrywide" managing agents treated my property, I couldn't care less if the whole organisation disappeared.

From: RITA RITA 27 September 2016 07:29 AM

No, this misguided person is wrong. Why should we destroy more of our country's ability to clean the polluted air, especially in and around London? - because local authorities refuse to demand landlord licencing and inspect rented properties ? - and fines/punishments for slum landlords are so very low! The solution is not to build more, it is to make more of what we already have, and we do have a lot to improve and adapt. Throughout this land, including the South East, there is brown space, near to utilities, ready to be developed, and properties ready to be updated. We can do better than this can't we?

From: RITA RITA 27 September 2016 07:25 AM

Totally happy about that decision, -- what if a foreign government ended up owning it? Norman the Conqueror would never have sold the Domesday book would he? Indeed, a totally ridiculous idea!

From: RITA RITA 08 September 2016 09:54 AM

The land registry should be protected at all costs from privatisation. It is one of the most important facilities for inward property investment the UK has. Would you buy any land and build in a country which didn't operate a correct and respected land registry - just to have someone turn up with an ancient document claiming ownership of the land, as happens in Greece, Spain, and Cyprus?? No amount of scrutiny would replace the current honest culture of Land Registry employees. Instead of selling this asset, are HMRC using it to trace landlords not declaring their income from rented properties? I don't know the answer to this question, but surely they should be, and so benefit the nation from this well respected institution and service. Are the skills and experiences of setting up and running this valuable asset to the nation not offered as commercially valuable consultancy skills to other countries/territories? To me it is ridiculous to put such knowledge of the fundamental wealth of our nation state into private hands. The people who voted for Brexit, - the majority who voted, want less interference from other countries, - how can anyone prevent a privatized Land Registry being managed by foreign companies, or even foreign governments now or in the future? Privatize it and the nation has lost it. Let's face it judging by the absolutely ineffective way successive governments have failed to protect our privatized industries, steel/Tata Steel, the BHS closure and pensions fiasco, being recent examples, my message is, it should not be an asset any government should be allowed to sell.

From: RITA RITA 11 August 2016 08:42 AM

I think that new highly insulating materials should be used and parts of the buildings possibly pre- constructed off site and assembled on site. BUT YOU HAVE TO GET AROUND THE BUILDING INSURANCE ISSUE BEFORE THIS CAN REALLY GO AHEAD. THE BIGGEST BLOCK TO DEVELOPING THESE COST EFFICIENT BUILDING PROCESSES AND MATERIALS ISSUES IS THE UK INSURERS LOVE AFFAIR WITH BRICK AND SLATE CONSTRUCTION. These same international insurers aren't so rigid about this in 'Europe', and where construction materials old and modern and not bricks and slate!! Once upon a time there were 'pre-fabs' built to house many thousands of people, which lasted far longer than they were intended to, and my recollection is that members of my family who had to be housed in them, and raised their families in these absolutely adored them. The point is, we know how do this. My next point is to free up more building sites for people who wish to build their own houses to their own, environmentally friendly style. Again, materials such as cob, straw bales, old tyres, sub subterranean living, and wood should be encouraged, as these 'building pioneers' really study what they are doing and can lead the way for future larger projects. Again they will need help from the building insurers, and planners. We have retail parks, why can't we have new building development parks? Next problem is rogue landlords which let their properties run down. All landlords should be registered and their properties checked. If any tenant, including London Councils rents from an un - registered landlord, then the person who does the renting should face a mandatory prison sentence. and a fine. In other words it's a criminal offence. GET SERIOUS about the quality of people's lives with the building stock that already exists. Tenants and unregistered landlords letting out sheds in the back garden etc. must also face the same punishment - a prison sentence and a fine. A 24 hour court system for 'quick' justice would also be a good deterrent in itself; if the illegal occupiers and landlords - making a lot of money and paying no tax , were caught and banged up in 24 hours, while HMRC went through 'their business affairs', the demands for registrations would come pouring in. Just to add something a little controversial, all we here about is London, and the South East. For heavens sake if people's housing is being paid for from the public purse and they are not employed, why are London boroughs paying ridiculous rents to (some) disgusting landlords when there are super properties available outside of London. Where I am in the W. Midlands, a well fitted out 3 bed terrace costs between £375 - 425 pcm to rent, a nice semi with off road parking and gardens front and back £525 pcm! How does that compare with the S East? Clear the slums, in the S East, make the landlords upgrade their dreadful housing stock and I believe that would also be part of the better and more available housing mix. Getting even more controversial, properties empty for more than 12 months, unless the local council have real proof that work is underway at an acceptable pace, i.e. project plans of the refurbishment with time scales - then up the council tax by 10 times, not 2 times, 10 times, and after 2 years unaccounted for unoccupation then by 20 times! That will get things moving, and get many of those empty properties either brought into use or upgraded. If after 3 years the property is still empty, then allow the council to use the property to house people, - rent free to the landlords - even if it's in Knightsbridge or Kensington. No diplomatic immunity allowed on this one. My colleagues tell me that 70% of the top London addresses are empty because the owners, who live abroad, are making so much money just doing nothing with them, they leave them empty. OK I'll leave you all with those thoughts and look forward to your comments... I am sure there will be many replies, to my suggestions from many sides, so lets hear them, get them on the table now? Have a nice day. Collectively we all now what to do, please will someone, or some planning authorities and insurers have the guts to do it?

From: RITA RITA 08 August 2016 11:17 AM

Breaking News