By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
2631  Profile Views

About Me


my expertise in the industry


RITA's Recent Activity

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

HBB Solutions HBB Solutions HBB Solutions