|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 13, 2016 21:24:01 GMT
I'm one of those (sometimes hated) faceless buy to let landlords. Faceless because I'd rather pay an agent to deal with the abusive calls from next door neighbours when someone throws a party. I'd also rather not conduct property inspections of houses where the tenant eats canned stuff off paper plates and doesn't appear to possess a bed. Yes folks this is Gorton, Manchester.
Anyway, the boiler broke down at one of my houses the other day. My gas man went round and condemned the boiler. Knackered; mainly due to sludge that had built up in the system over the years. Better get a new one fitted eh? Well yes, but when I asked my agent if they knew anyone reputable and reasonable they suggested that I'd be better served getting a new one fitted for nothing. What?? Yes, apparently, because my tenant is on benefits, as almost everyone around there is, and has a child, as almost everyone around there does, I, the house owner, get a free boiler. Too good to be true, surely? Well, no. A firm went round to check it out and make sure the tenant had a kid. Not only do I get a free top of the range boiler fitted but they will de sludge free of charge, saving me 400 quid. And then, they are going to fit free loft insulation to bring the thickness up to modern day standards.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for someone else to pay for all this work, which comes to around £2.5K. I do have a nagging feeling though that this isn't quite right. Why should a property owner who rents his house get a free boiler when other people who work, and live in their houses, have to pay for theirs? Not just that. Why should everyone who buys gas and electricity have to pay a premium, a 'levy', to enable buy to let landlords who happen to rent their houses to single parents to avoid the cost of maintaining the heating system in their houses?
How can this be justified?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 6:13:35 GMT
I'm one of those (sometimes hated) faceless buy to let landlords. Faceless because I'd rather pay an agent to deal with the abusive calls from next door neighbours when someone throws a party. I'd also rather not conduct property inspections of houses where the tenant eats canned stuff off paper plates and doesn't appear to possess a bed. Yes folks this is Gorton, Manchester. Anyway, the boiler broke down at one of my houses the other day. My gas man went round and condemned the boiler. Knackered; mainly due to sludge that had built up in the system over the years. Better get a new one fitted eh? Well yes, but when I asked my agent if they knew anyone reputable and reasonable they suggested that I'd be better served getting a new one fitted for nothing. What?? Yes, apparently, because my tenant is on benefits, as almost everyone around there is, and has a child, as almost everyone around there does, I, the house owner, get a free boiler. Too good to be true, surely? Well, no. A firm went round to check it out and make sure the tenant had a kid. Not only do I get a free top of the range boiler fitted but they will de sludge free of charge, saving me 400 quid. And then, they are going to fit free loft insulation to bring the thickness up to modern day standards. Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for someone else to pay for all this work, which comes to around £2.5K. I do have a nagging feeling though that this isn't quite right. Why should a property owner who rents his house get a free boiler when other people who work, and live in their houses, have to pay for theirs? Not just that. Why should everyone who buys gas and electricity have to pay a premium, a 'levy', to enable buy to let landlords who happen to rent their houses to single parents to avoid the cost of maintaining the heating system in their houses? How can this be justified? According to this website, it is free because we are in the EU. www.boilergrants.org.uk/I wonder if this will get used in the fight against BREXIT...  |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on May 14, 2016 6:26:42 GMT
I'm one of those (sometimes hated) faceless buy to let landlords. Faceless because I'd rather pay an agent to deal with the abusive calls from next door neighbours when someone throws a party. I'd also rather not conduct property inspections of houses where the tenant eats canned stuff off paper plates and doesn't appear to possess a bed. Yes folks this is Gorton, Manchester. Anyway, the boiler broke down at one of my houses the other day. My gas man went round and condemned the boiler. Knackered; mainly due to sludge that had built up in the system over the years. Better get a new one fitted eh? Well yes, but when I asked my agent if they knew anyone reputable and reasonable they suggested that I'd be better served getting a new one fitted for nothing. What?? Yes, apparently, because my tenant is on benefits, as almost everyone around there is, and has a child, as almost everyone around there does, I, the house owner, get a free boiler. Too good to be true, surely? Well, no. A firm went round to check it out and make sure the tenant had a kid. Not only do I get a free top of the range boiler fitted but they will de sludge free of charge, saving me 400 quid. And then, they are going to fit free loft insulation to bring the thickness up to modern day standards. Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for someone else to pay for all this work, which comes to around £2.5K. I do have a nagging feeling though that this isn't quite right. Why should a property owner who rents his house get a free boiler when other people who work, and live in their houses, have to pay for theirs? Not just that. Why should everyone who buys gas and electricity have to pay a premium, a 'levy', to enable buy to let landlords who happen to rent their houses to single parents to avoid the cost of maintaining the heating system in their houses? How can this be justified?
The only sense I can make of it is that you are a provider of housing that would have in the past been more readily available as part of the social housing stock and maintained by the local councils. You as an owner have received a benefit, due to the financial circumstances of your tenants. I presume this money is taxpayer's money, so it's coming off the money that would be available for welfare and is ending up in the hands of business. Overall, it is probably argued as a cheaper option than the upkeep of a council owned property liabilities.
It kind of points to the favouring of business over state protection and provision for the less well able; a Thatcher legacy and continuing in the right to buy schemes heading the housing associations' way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 6:29:12 GMT
I'm one of those (sometimes hated) faceless buy to let landlords. Faceless because I'd rather pay an agent to deal with the abusive calls from next door neighbours when someone throws a party. I'd also rather not conduct property inspections of houses where the tenant eats canned stuff off paper plates and doesn't appear to possess a bed. Yes folks this is Gorton, Manchester. Anyway, the boiler broke down at one of my houses the other day. My gas man went round and condemned the boiler. Knackered; mainly due to sludge that had built up in the system over the years. Better get a new one fitted eh? Well yes, but when I asked my agent if they knew anyone reputable and reasonable they suggested that I'd be better served getting a new one fitted for nothing. What?? Yes, apparently, because my tenant is on benefits, as almost everyone around there is, and has a child, as almost everyone around there does, I, the house owner, get a free boiler. Too good to be true, surely? Well, no. A firm went round to check it out and make sure the tenant had a kid. Not only do I get a free top of the range boiler fitted but they will de sludge free of charge, saving me 400 quid. And then, they are going to fit free loft insulation to bring the thickness up to modern day standards. Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for someone else to pay for all this work, which comes to around £2.5K. I do have a nagging feeling though that this isn't quite right. Why should a property owner who rents his house get a free boiler when other people who work, and live in their houses, have to pay for theirs? Not just that. Why should everyone who buys gas and electricity have to pay a premium, a 'levy', to enable buy to let landlords who happen to rent their houses to single parents to avoid the cost of maintaining the heating system in their houses? How can this be justified?
The only sense I can make of it is that you are a provider of housing that would have in the past been more readily available as part of the social housing stock and maintained by the local councils. You as an owner have received a benefit, due to the financial circumstances of your tenants. I presume this money is taxpayer's money, so it's coming off the money that would be available for welfare and is ending up in the hands of business. Overall, it is probably argued as a cheaper option than the upkeep of a council owned property liabilities.
It kind of points to the favouring of business over state protection and provision for the less well able; a Thatcher legacy and continuing in the right to buy schemes heading the housing associations' way.
The difference is the private land owner gets to own the boiler instead of the council (which supposidly belongs to us all). |
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on May 14, 2016 6:37:20 GMT
The only sense I can make of it is that you are a provider of housing that would have in the past been more readily available as part of the social housing stock and maintained by the local councils. You as an owner have received a benefit, due to the financial circumstances of your tenants. I presume this money is taxpayer's money, so it's coming off the money that would be available for welfare and is ending up in the hands of business. Overall, it is probably argued as a cheaper option than the upkeep of a council owned property liabilities.
It kind of points to the favouring of business over state protection and provision for the less well able; a Thatcher legacy and continuing in the right to buy schemes heading the housing associations' way.
The difference is the private land owner gets to own the boiler instead of the council (which supposidly belongs to us all).
Yes, precisely. Capital investment for the business. But, the social housing is evaporating in favour of capitalising on the asset and winning votes for allowing people to buy cheap as tenants of social housing. Backing that; there will be over £4 billion of taxpayers' money to compensate the housing associations for the reduced sale prices of their property. £4 billion, to win votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 14, 2016 6:49:49 GMT
Let's face it a lot of by to let landlords are subsidised. With housing benefit paying their mortgages. I can kind of see the reasoning behind providing boilers and insulation. At least it's likely the more unscrupulous landlords will get them fitted if it's free. So benefiting the tenant. This is in no way meant as a dig at yourself Ricco.
|
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on May 14, 2016 6:57:12 GMT
Let's face it a lot of by to let landlords are subsidised. With housing benefit paying their mortgages. I can kind of see the reasoning behind providing boilers and insulation. At least it's likely the more unscrupulous landlords will get them fitted if it's free. So benefiting the tenant. This is in no way meant as a dig at yourself Ricco.
I would agree that the tenants will benefit, and their comfort may be improved. How about if the landlord is also forced to reduce the rent for a number of months, to return some of his capital benefit to the state; reducing the housing benefits bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 14, 2016 7:08:00 GMT
The money is raised through energy bills. Each bill is hiked. I'm not sure whether it's a 'social levy' or a 'green levy' but that's how it works. It might seem fair that those who can afford it pay a little more in order that those who can't don't have to pay. There again, it seems our steelworks are struggling a bit of late....
Also look out for higher insurance premiums in the future. Not just the hike in IPT at the last budget. A new scheme has been agreed whereby a levy is applied to each policy in order that those who have the misfortune to live on flood plains can obtain insurance at no more than 200% of what the premium would be if the house had been built in a sensible area. Those who allowed houses to be built on flood plains get off scot free, it's other house owners that carry the financial can.
Incidentally the energy levy scheme was masterminded and incepted under Gordon Brown's stewardship.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 14, 2016 8:28:16 GMT
I can believe it was Gordon brown who introduced the energy levy, after all working tax credits was his idea which is basically a subsidy to corporations so they don't have to pay a living wage.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 14, 2016 13:36:37 GMT
Its a mess is what it is Jayne had to pay to replace hers last year!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on May 14, 2016 21:16:33 GMT
According to this website, it is free because we are in the EU. www.boilergrants.org.uk/I wonder if this will get used in the fight against BREXIT... Bit of a joke really, like a lot of these schemes it's a good idea but poorly managed. Maybe the cost of the install should be loaned and written off over a reasonable period, what happens if the property is sold soon after the boiler is fitted? Bit like domestic solar panels, effectively a nice investment giveaway paid for by other electricity users. What would help lower income energy customers is making sure energy from prepayment meters doesn't cost extra, it can work out 30 - 50% more.  |
|
|
|
Post by zigspider on May 14, 2016 21:30:41 GMT
I'm one of those (sometimes hated) faceless buy to let landlords. Faceless because I'd rather pay an agent to deal with the abusive calls from next door neighbours when someone throws a party. I'd also rather not conduct property inspections of houses where the tenant eats canned stuff off paper plates and doesn't appear to possess a bed. Yes folks this is Gorton, Manchester. Anyway, the boiler broke down at one of my houses the other day. My gas man went round and condemned the boiler. Knackered; mainly due to sludge that had built up in the system over the years. Better get a new one fitted eh? Well yes, but when I asked my agent if they knew anyone reputable and reasonable they suggested that I'd be better served getting a new one fitted for nothing. What?? Yes, apparently, because my tenant is on benefits, as almost everyone around there is, and has a child, as almost everyone around there does, I, the house owner, get a free boiler. Too good to be true, surely? Well, no. A firm went round to check it out and make sure the tenant had a kid. Not only do I get a free top of the range boiler fitted but they will de sludge free of charge, saving me 400 quid. And then, they are going to fit free loft insulation to bring the thickness up to modern day standards. Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for someone else to pay for all this work, which comes to around £2.5K. I do have a nagging feeling though that this isn't quite right. Why should a property owner who rents his house get a free boiler when other people who work, and live in their houses, have to pay for theirs? Not just that. Why should everyone who buys gas and electricity have to pay a premium, a 'levy', to enable buy to let landlords who happen to rent their houses to single parents to avoid the cost of maintaining the heating system in their houses? How can this be justified? Quite frankly, it can't be justified, |
|
