Compulsory electrical inspections

[Windmill]

I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.

It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.

The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.

Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.

The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.

And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.

There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.

Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?

Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

[Derek F]

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

[Geoff Pearson]

Post by Derek F

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland - so no
Labour there.

[Murff]

Post by Geoff Pearson
rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland -
so no Labour there.

No indeed. It looks remarkably like the SNP and their jumped-up county
council in Holyrood are going to make Edinburgh really into the Athens of
the North all by themselves.

It'll be interesting to see who they blame when they can't lay it on
Westminster any more.

[Windmill]

Post by Murff

Post by Geoff Pearson
rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland -
so no Labour there.

No indeed. It looks remarkably like the SNP and their jumped-up county
council in Holyrood are going to make Edinburgh really into the Athens of
the North all by themselves.
It'll be interesting to see who they blame when they can't lay it on
Westminster any more.

Can't see who I should be voting for. They're all nasty bastards in one
way or another.

[Murff]

Post by Windmill
Can't see who I should be voting for. They're all nasty bastards in one
way or another.

Indeed. With the possible exception of the Lib Dems (who probably don't
count any more) they're all out to destroy the country one way or another.

[Windmill]

Post by Murff

Post by Windmill
Can't see who I should be voting for. They're all nasty bastards in one
way or another.

Indeed. With the possible exception of the Lib Dems (who probably don't
count any more) they're all out to destroy the country one way or another.

If there was a party whose manifesto claimed that as far as possible
they intended to do nothing at all, I'd vote for them!

[August West]

Post by Windmill

Post by Murff

Post by Windmill
Can't see who I should be voting for. They're all nasty bastards in one
way or another.

Indeed. With the possible exception of the Lib Dems (who probably don't
count any more) they're all out to destroy the country one way or another.

If there was a party whose manifesto claimed that as far as possible
they intended to do nothing at all, I'd vote for them!

The prospective hung parliament may go a good way towards that.
And after all Belgium survived fine without a government.

[Windmill]

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Derek F

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland - so no
Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?

[Geoff Pearson]

Post by Windmill

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Derek F

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland - so no
Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?
--
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

different Labour party.

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Windmill

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Derek F
And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland - so no
Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?

different Labour party.

The local branch office, surely.

Sam

[August West]

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Windmill

Post by Geoff Pearson
rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for
Scotland - so no Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?

different Labour party.

Not a different Labour party.
Legally, same one.

[charles]

Post by August West

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Windmill

Post by Geoff Pearson
rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for
Scotland - so no Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?

different Labour party.

Not a different Labour party.
Legally, same one.

I suspect that the Scottish Labour party is not the same as the (nu) Labour
party in E&W. Similarly in Scotland the Tories are the Conservative &
Unionist Party - when I first had a vote they were simply the Unionist
Party.

[August West]

Post by charles

Post by August West

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Windmill

Post by Geoff Pearson
rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for
Scotland - so no Labour there.

They have some Holyrood seats surely?

different Labour party.

Not a different Labour party.
Legally, same one.

I suspect that the Scottish Labour party is not the same as the (nu) Labour
party in E&W. Similarly in Scotland the Tories are the Conservative &
Unionist Party - when I first had a vote they were simply the Unionist
Party.

Why just suspect? Legally, they _are_ the same parties; the Scotish
branches are just "accounting units". There's only one, UK-wide, party
registered for each with the Electoral Commission.

[Martin]

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by Derek F

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?
Derek

rents are not controlled by the UK government - that is for Scotland -
so no Labour there.

Milliband has now put it in his agenda.
Martin

[Windmill]

Post by Derek F

Post by Windmill
I know there are or were some landlords who read this NG, so it won't
be just me who's affected.
It's not to be just the portable appliances (for which the PAT test is
to become compulsory) but the whole of the house wiring.
The Scottish government has passed a law requiring private landlords
(but not the Council; they are of course exempt) to employ an
electrical contractor to inspect the wiring and appliances in property
they rent out, and has adopted a scheme which makes it unlikely that
individual electricians could qualify as suitable persons to do the
work.
Maybe we'll see last week's new hire, given a zero-hours contract by an
employer who possesses appropriate accreditation, being sent out to
check the fusebox, and told that if it looks more than two years old to
insist that it and all the wiring must be replaced at a cost of 5,000.
The CORGI scheme seems to work a bit like that.
And employers are in a very good position to apply pressure to
zero-hours people.
There'll be favourite ploys, of course. Wasn't it at one time catalytic
converters on cars needing MOT renewal? Methods will be found to
extract money.
Politicians bleat about too-high rents: OK, how much should rents
increase to cover the new costs which are surely coming?
Of course they don't really care about rents, it's just a vote-catcher,
based partly on the fiction that landlords have a huge income.

And when Labour cap rents?

Then landlords will be forced to skimp on other things, decoration for
example. Then they'll 'fix' those nasty landlords by fining them for
not doing what they can no longer afford to do. And when that doesn't
improve the situation they'll pass yet more laws, and when that again
fails pass even more.

What are the characteristics of a police state? A clumsy one uses death
squads, but a cleverer one would have other techniques.

When I bought a $20 bill recently, the woman behind the counter kept
trying to get me to tell her what I wanted it for.
I suppose I'm lucky not to have been arrested for my facetious answer.

[Murff]

Post by Windmill
Then landlords will be forced to skimp on other things, decoration for
example. Then they'll 'fix' those nasty landlords by fining them for not
doing what they can no longer afford to do. And when that doesn't
improve the situation they'll pass yet more laws, and when that again
fails pass even more.

... which will destroy the private rental market, which will probably
clobber private housing values as landlords try to exit the market. Which
will probably cause increased homelessness as landlords exercise their
notices-to-quit before the house prices fall enough for ex-renters to be
able to afford to buy.

Not that that would necessarily mean councils mopping up cheap ex-private-
rented accommodation. Because the councils will be boracic, too (bear in
mind Greece' central government recent raid on local authorities' "spare
cash" to try to hold off default a wee bit longer).

That would appear to be the way they want it, anyway. At least they'll
have done away with all those horrid, exploitative private landlords.

[Windmill]

Post by Murff

Post by Windmill
Then landlords will be forced to skimp on other things, decoration for
example. Then they'll 'fix' those nasty landlords by fining them for not
doing what they can no longer afford to do. And when that doesn't
improve the situation they'll pass yet more laws, and when that again
fails pass even more.

... which will destroy the private rental market, which will probably
clobber private housing values as landlords try to exit the market. Which
will probably cause increased homelessness as landlords exercise their
notices-to-quit before the house prices fall enough for ex-renters to be
able to afford to buy.
Not that that would necessarily mean councils mopping up cheap ex-private-
rented accommodation. Because the councils will be boracic, too (bear in
mind Greece' central government recent raid on local authorities' "spare
cash" to try to hold off default a wee bit longer).
That would appear to be the way they want it, anyway. At least they'll
have done away with all those horrid, exploitative private landlords.

And having destroyed the latter's income, will refuse to provide any
kind of pension or even living allowance on the grounds that they don't
deserve it.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
At least they'll
have done away with all those horrid, exploitative private landlords.

I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants. None
of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it, and we
waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over to private
landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

At least they'll have done away with all those horrid, exploitative
private landlords.

I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants. None
of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it, and we
waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over to private
landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property

I'm not a private landlord. And no expropriation would be involved: it's
a right to BUY.

Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property

I'm not a private landlord. And no expropriation would be involved: it's
a right to BUY.

No, it isn't. It is an enforced sale.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property

I'm not a private landlord. And no expropriation would be involved: it's
a right to BUY.

No, it isn't. It is an enforced sale.

It isn't anything, because it doesn't exist, but if it did exist it
would be like the third section of the Land Reform Act 2003, which
allows crofting communities to buy their land at any time.

What have you got against a property-owning democracy, comrade?

Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor
What have you got against a property-owning democracy, comrade?

What has forcing an owner to sell their property to another individual,
on that other individual's demand, got to do with democracy ?

Kleptocracy would be nearer that mark.

[Windmill]

Post by Murff

Post by The Real Doctor
What have you got against a property-owning democracy, comrade?

What has forcing an owner to sell their property to another individual,
on that other individual's demand, got to do with democracy ?
Kleptocracy would be nearer that mark.

Amen to that, in bloody great spades.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
What has forcing an owner to sell their property to another individual,
on that other individual's demand, got to do with democracy ?

It's regularly done, with land (compulsory purchase) and shares. If you
don't like it, stand against it, win and change the democratically
enacted laws which make it possible.

Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
What has forcing an owner to sell their property to another individual,
on that other individual's demand, got to do with democracy ?

It's regularly done, with land (compulsory purchase) and shares. If you
don't like it, stand against it, win and change the democratically
enacted laws which make it possible.

No it isn't. I specified "individual".

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
No it isn't. I specified "individual".

A trivial detail.

Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
No it isn't. I specified "individual".

A trivial detail.

A very important detail.

Regarding the individual as a "trivial detail" is a common error of the
left, and a significant contributor to its persistent failure.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
Regarding the individual as a "trivial detail" is a common error of the
left, and a significant contributor to its persistent failure.

There are many cases in which an individual can get compulsory purchase
of someone else's property.

Ian

[Windmill]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property

I'm not a private landlord. And no expropriation would be involved: it's
a right to BUY.

No, it isn't. It is an enforced sale.

It isn't anything, because it doesn't exist, but if it did exist it
would be like the third section of the Land Reform Act 2003, which
allows crofting communities to buy their land at any time.
What have you got against a property-owning democracy, comrade?

I shouldn't think he has anything against it. I have noticed repeatedly
how much more concerned people seem to be about property when it is
their own, rather than belonging to some amorphous entity like 'the
Cooncil'.

But if a sale is forced on the seller, while that may be better than
the French Revolution, it's not what most people think of as justice.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Windmill
But if a sale is forced on the seller, while that may be better than
the French Revolution, it's not what most people think of as justice.

[citation needed]

Ian

[Windmill]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
... or at least until they come along to expropriate your property

I'm not a private landlord. And no expropriation would be involved: it's
a right to BUY.

Of what use would such a right be, if the landlord had the right to set
the price?

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Windmill
Of what use would such a right be, if the landlord had the right to set
the price?

The landlord would not have the right to set the price. Market value,
reduce to reflect rent paid, just like social housing.

Ian

[August West]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Windmill
Of what use would such a right be, if the landlord had the right to
set the price?

The landlord would not have the right to set the price. Market value,
reduce to reflect rent paid, just like social housing.

It's that bit there, "reduce to reflect rent paid", that's the legally
problematic bit. Looks awfully like confiscation, and open to attack
under A1P1, as I mentioned before.

A1P1 permits the state to expropriation property where "it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest". But that does not give the state the power to to deprive the
inocent owner of the value of their property (it's different in cases
involving criminiality and/or tax).

So, either the state had to stump up the difference between the reduced
price, and the market value, or it is acting in contravention of A1P1.

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Windmill
Of what use would such a right be, if the landlord had the right to set
the price?

The landlord would not have the right to set the price. Market value,
reduce to reflect rent paid, just like social housing.

I notice that you've omitted to include future rent lost to the landlord
due to their having their assets confiscated.

The tenant always, at any time, has a right to buy. They can go to the
landlord at any time and make an offer and, if the landlord accepts that
offer, then after the exchange of money and title, the property belongs
to the former tenant. That is the case now and I'm all for it.

Were the tenant interested and able to afford it, they can do that today,
or they can look for property elsewhere. You've not indicated that you
wish to force tenants to buy, so the only thing you could be addressing
is price.

So, other than proposing a state-enforced confiscation of other peoples'
assets (which is what a forced sale at a knocked-down price is), what are
you trying to achieve ?

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
I notice that you've omitted to include future rent lost to the landlord
due to their having their assets confiscated.

No confiscation involved.


Ian

[Murff]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
I notice that you've omitted to include future rent lost to the
landlord due to their having their assets confiscated.

No confiscation involved.

Confiscation is involved. You've confiscated future earnings from the
property. You've also confiscated that part of the market value of the
property (as a physical asset as opposed to its being a revenue stream)
that you decided to discount in your "reduction for rent already paid".

So, confiscation. Actually, being honest, theft.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Murff
Confiscation is involved. You've confiscated future earnings from the
property. You've also confiscated that part of the market value of the
property (as a physical asset as opposed to its being a revenue stream)
that you decided to discount in your "reduction for rent already paid".

Nope. Or at least, not any more than any other compulsory purchase,

Post by Murff
So, confiscation. Actually, being honest, theft.

And again, nope. read the definition of "theft".

Ian

[August West]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
Confiscation is involved. You've confiscated future earnings from the
property. You've also confiscated that part of the market value of the
property (as a physical asset as opposed to its being a revenue stream)
that you decided to discount in your "reduction for rent already paid".

Nope. Or at least, not any more than any other compulsory purchase,

Indeed.

The purchase price paidto the owner for the property should be
sufficient for the woenr to another revenue generating property. Which
the owner is quite a liberty to buy.

So there is no loss of future income, and certainly no confiscation of
of future revenue stream.

Unless it is being suggested that the property being transfered under
law is somehown uniquely profitable. Which seems rather unlikely.

[Windmill]

Not sure why I received this post after so long a delay, but.......

Post by Murff

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
Confiscation is involved. You've confiscated future earnings from the
property. You've also confiscated that part of the market value of the
property (as a physical asset as opposed to its being a revenue stream)
that you decided to discount in your "reduction for rent already paid".

Nope. Or at least, not any more than any other compulsory purchase,

Indeed.
The purchase price paidto the owner for the property should be
sufficient for the woenr to another revenue generating property. Which
the owner is quite a liberty to buy.

Unless there was something special about the location of the
compulsorily-purchased property, there would seem to have been no
reason at all to confiscate it if the owner was to be compensated to
the full extent of its value, because the compensation money could have
been used instead to buy an equivalent property which was for sale by a
willing owner in a different location.

Post by Murff
So there is no loss of future income, and certainly no confiscation of
of future revenue stream.

I suspect that what happens in real life is that reasons are found to
pay an amount less than that necessary to buy an equivalent property in
a different location, after payment of any taxes and expenses.

Post by Murff
Unless it is being suggested that the property being transfered under
law is somehown uniquely profitable. Which seems rather unlikely.
--
We've come this far.
... And besides, anything could happen yet

[Windmill]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
At least they'll
have done away with all those horrid, exploitative private landlords.

I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants. None
of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it, and we
waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over to private
landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

I note that you've chosen to take Murff's remarks at face value.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

[August West]

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Murff
At least they'll
have done away with all those horrid, exploitative private landlords.

I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants. None
of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it, and we
waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over to private
landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

I note that you've chosen to take Murff's remarks at face value.
So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

[Jack Campin]

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Murff]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it, and
we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over to
private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant?
The Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to
have any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

Protocol 1 Article 1, Human Rights Act 1998: "Right to peaceful enjoyment
of property".

"Public" ownership in that sense doesn't exist, as the "owns" things
vicariously at best and certainly isn't "enjoying" it.

[August West]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

"(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided
for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the
right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to
control the use of property in accordance with the general interest
or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or
penalties."

It didn't apply to public owners because they were, you know, the owners
selling off the houses.

[Jack Campin]

Post by August West

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

"(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided
for by law and by the general principles of international law.

"Legal person" presumably allows the public to be an owner, then.

If it didn't, that clause would be a license for expropriation
of peoples who don't recognize private property. I doubt the
Convention intended to model Europe on the state of Queensland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile [phone] <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Murff]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant?
The Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord
to have any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

"(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international
law.

"Legal person" presumably allows the public to be an owner, then.

How so ? How do you define "public" in this case ?

For the definition of "legal person" I think you have to consider who,
should it come to that, you would sue. You might sue "the government" -
either local/city/district council, or HMG. But you'd not be suing "the
public".

Post by Jack Campin
If it didn't, that clause would be a license for expropriation of
peoples who don't recognize private property. I doubt the Convention
intended to model Europe on the state of Queensland.

I don't see in what Mr West quoted, anything to restrict the rights based
on the acceptance of their principles or recognition of what those
principles describe.

[Windmill]

Post by Murff

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant?
The Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord
to have any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

"(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international
law.

"Legal person" presumably allows the public to be an owner, then.

How so ? How do you define "public" in this case ?
For the definition of "legal person" I think you have to consider who,
should it come to that, you would sue. You might sue "the government" -
either local/city/district council, or HMG. But you'd not be suing "the
public".

Post by Jack Campin
If it didn't, that clause would be a license for expropriation of
peoples who don't recognize private property. I doubt the Convention
intended to model Europe on the state of Queensland.

I don't see in what Mr West quoted, anything to restrict the rights based
on the acceptance of their principles or recognition of what those
principles describe.

Do you know that he's a Mr. ? I've wondered for some years now if
August might be a she (I've a notion that back in the long-gone days of
my youth, Playboy had a Miss August whose name was in fact - or was
said to be - August.)

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Windmill
Do you know that he's a Mr. ? I've wondered for some years now if
August might be a she (I've a notion that back in the long-gone days of
my youth, Playboy had a Miss August whose name was in fact - or was
said to be - August.)

I think you'll find it's a pseudonym.

-- Richard

[Windmill]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Windmill
Do you know that he's a Mr. ? I've wondered for some years now if
August might be a she (I've a notion that back in the long-gone days of
my youth, Playboy had a Miss August whose name was in fact - or was
said to be - August.)

I think you'll find it's a pseudonym.

Didn't know how to find, but rather suspected something of the sort.

[August West]

Post by Windmill

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Windmill
Do you know that he's a Mr. ? I've wondered for some years now if
August might be a she (I've a notion that back in the long-gone days of
my youth, Playboy had a Miss August whose name was in fact - or was
said to be - August.)

I think you'll find it's a pseudonym.

Didn't know how to find, but rather suspected something of the sort.

It all depends on what you mean by "pseudonym". After all, in Scots law
there no prohibition on changing names, or even having and using
multiple names.

[Windmill]

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Jack Campin

Post by August West

Post by Windmill

Post by The Real Doctor
I think it's time the right to buy was extended to private tenants.
None of the arguments for a property owning democracy exclude it,
and we waste far, far too much taxpayers money by handing it over
to private landlords. It's a win-win-win situation.

So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Ignoring the fact that it's, prina facie, a violation of P1A1.

Whatever P1A1 might be, why didn't it apply to public owners?

"(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided
for by law and by the general principles of international law.

"Legal person" presumably allows the public to be an owner, then.
If it didn't, that clause would be a license for expropriation
of peoples who don't recognize private property. I doubt the
Convention intended to model Europe on the state of Queensland.

To revert to the original topic, I see that the weel-kent online
encyclopedia claims that Ms. Caviar's father was an electrician.

How do you like your LED streetlights? Mine remind me of moonlight or
even gaslight. But no doubt the City of Edinburgh knows on which side
its bread is buttered, especially when faced with monstrous tram bills.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by August West
It didn't apply to public owners because they were, you know, the owners
selling off the houses.

And it doesn't apply to Compulsory Purchase Orders, or to Community
Buyouts, or in lots of other cases.

Ian

[Windmill]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by August West
It didn't apply to public owners because they were, you know, the owners
selling off the houses.

And it doesn't apply to Compulsory Purchase Orders, or to Community
Buyouts, or in lots of other cases.

You can be reasonably sure that (for the sake of argument) Miller Homes
or Barrett, if they still exist under those names, would be able to
fight such an order to a standstill, should it somehow come to apply to
them.

But the little guy would not.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Windmill
So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Use the same algorithm as is used for social housing. Easy.

Ian

[Windmill]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by Windmill
So, who would decide what the purchase price should be? The tenant? The
Council? The Courts? Presumably you wouldn't wish the landlord to have
any say in the matter of his property.

Use the same algorithm as is used for social housing. Easy.

So tell me what it is. (The chances of any algorithm producing
realistic prices for every type and condition of property are close to
zero IMHO.)