Archive for the ‘homelessness’ Category


March 9, 2015

8th March 2015

I’ve just seen a TV programme about three single mothers being homeless and the utterly filthy way they are treated by their local councils. (BBC one March 3rd 2015 –  ‘No Place to Call Home)  see it here:

One woman & her two kids had been forced to leave the privately rented flat she was renting because the boiler broke  and the typically nauseating private landlord simply refused to mend it. So this single mother arranged to live with her own mother in the mother’s council house.

But the council found out and told the mother she would be evicted from her own council house herself if she continued to allow her daughter & two kids to stay with her as the council said that made the council house overcrowded.

As the threat from the council now meant the mother, daughter and two kids would all be thrown out on the streets to be homeless by this spiteful and vindictive council, the mother had no choice but to tell her own daughter to leave.

This made the daughter and two kids ‘street homeless’- they had absolutely nowhere to go except live on the streets because they could not find private accommodation they would be able to afford quickly enough, if at all, as rents were nearly all far higher than they had any hope of being to afford – even if they received ‘Housing Benefit’.

Housing benefit has been cunningly arranged by this disgusting Tory Government to be too low for tenants receiving it to have much hope of finding any privately rentable accommodation.

So, this single mother is obliged to inform the council she and her young children will be on the streets, and could the council therefore re-house her as the law says it has a legal obligation to do.

No, said the council. We know we have a statutory duty where an Act of Parliament says councils have a legal obligation to house homeless parents with children, but we’re not going to. And we’re not going to because part of that same Act of Parliament says that if a person has made themselves ‘intentionally homeless’ we are allowed to refuse people we would otherwise have a legal obligation  to re-house.

So we are telling you, single mother with two young kids, that we think you are intentionally homeless and you can go F**k yourself; we’re not going to house you.

The Council used the Alice in Wonderland logic that this single mother was “intentionally homeless’ because she had ‘voluntarily’ left ‘her previous accommodation’ the privately rented accommodation with it’s broken boiler the private landlord refused to mend  with winter approaching.

The council seemed to have a convenient memory lapse in forgetting it was the council itself which had forced her own mother to evict her daughter, throw her out onto the streets with her kids  by threatening to make all of them homeless by taking the council house away from the woman’s own mother. This is a brutally corrupt piece of pure Kafkaesque wickedness on behalf of the council.

Another single mum with three kids had been evicted by her private landlord as revenge because she had asked him to do essential repairs like stop the excessive dampness which was making all the walls and ceilings covered in black mould – which is dangerous to health as it produces lung disease. She was intentionally homeless too, said the council.

I know of another single parent evicted from their house by the fraudulent USA bank Lehmans, who went bankrupt after causing the recent World wide recession by their criminally  dishonest, immoral, grasping and evil banking activities.

The council told that parent too they were ‘intentionally homeless’ on the grounds they shouldn’t have bought their house several years previously by using a mortgage as ‘they ought to have known they would be unlikely ever to work again because they were a single parent’.

I know the councils up and down the country are actually breaking the law ( I’ve checked the legislation) by using this ‘intentional homeless’ nonsense in the way they are, but more of that later.

Then I saw today’s (8th March 2015 BBC) news rabbiting on about the sixty thousand homeless people in New York right now, enduring the coldest winter weather, lots of ice & snow, for decades. New York is always very cold in winter anyway, so this must be awful if you’re living on the streets.

Then the news item featured a single mum in her early thirties working in the financial industry who still didn’t earn enough to afford the stratospheric rents of New York, so she was sharing  hostel accommodation with other homeless families.

This housing crisis is almost entirely caused by the banks ramping up the price of housing so they can lend ever larger sums of money. Housing in the UK is now about eleven times an average salary instead of the three times it was in about 1970 – before the greedy banks got into the business of mortgage lending by destroying most of the building societies.

But what should a house really cost do you think ? The average (slightly approximate) cost of building a new house is about £1200 a square metre. And the average British rabbit hutch of a new house is now only 76 sq metres, not big enough to swing  a cat, (see Daily Mail story here –  ).

That would cost £91 200 to build, plus the extra cost of buying the land on which it stands. Agricultural land averages about £10 000 at the moment and with at least 16 tiny little rabbit hutches to the acre the land should cost a miniscule £62 or so, and it did a couple of generations or so ago.

But of course today, the bureaucracy and corruptions of the entire housing market and in particular that Orwellian gem of corruption ‘planning permission’ has made a nonsense of land value to build housing on and consequently it can cost millions per acre.

Apparently the average cost land with building permission per acre is now about £800 000 which makes one building plot to build a tiny rabbit hutch of a house on with the average of 76 sq metres for this type of house, is now about £50 000.

So after adding that extortionate £50 000 cost of the building plot to the build cost of  £91 200 we get the total cost of a new house for £141 200. Actually the average price is about twice that at present. That will be the £141 000 profit for the house builder then !

But, whatever the price new, shouldn’t the cost of a second hand house decrease at least a bit over time just like other second hand, used goods ?

Errrrrr, yes, I should think it ought to and certainly did before property started to become a good wheeze for Spivs & speculators from about 1950 onwards.

So, take my ordinary four bedroomed London terrace house of 200 square metres which would cost about £240 000 to build new today, plus the average cost of £50 000 for the plot of land, that would be £290 000 built new today. But actually the current value is about £1.4 million.

Anyway, back to the real cost of building it at £290 000. If the house lost just one half per cent a year in value ( about £1500 in the first year) the 135 year old house would have lost 67% of its original cost and would be about £194 300 to buy today. Or that rabbit hutch house costing £141 200 today would cost about £94 604 when 135 years old; (except it will never get to be 135 years old because that type of house is generally built so badly & shoddily it is unlikely to have life of barely more than 20 years).

So this example means over a theoretical life of a house off 200 years each inhabitant pays a modest half percent cost of the total building cost which  is £1 500 a year towards the building cost of the London house costing £290 000 to build in 2015. But instead, if you rent that same house today in London you will be paying the 6% of the 2015 ‘value’ the house has of £1 400 000 that landlords expect to rent homes out to tenants for and this will be a cool £84000 a year rent you will paying instead of £1500 previously mentioned.

That’s what it used to be like for centuries until the modern era, when the banks made houses repositories of value, rather than real homes to live in.

Bastards !

So, what with the builders building revoltingly cheap and nasty miniature homes too small even to contain normal necessary possessions and making extortionate profits of up to 100% and even higher, and the banks making billions of pounds out of expensive, often rip-off loans to people to buy homes, the entire country is in the icily corrupt grip of a bunch of thieving sharks really. And at the bottom are the people being forced to live on the streets or in repulsively inhumane  council ‘emergency accommodation’.





March 27, 2014

Anyone interested in  setting up a housing co-operative to buy housing to then rent to our members along the lines of the idea below ?


My idea is to simply set up an organisation which would continuously seek crowdfunding  for redeemable shares offering (at present) about 3-4% which would be used to purchase rentable homes. The redeemable shares would enable savers currently offered laughable savings rates by the banks to be able to use this as a safe and reliable method of  savings offering much better returns than banks.


The tenants to which these homes would be rented  would also share in the profit their rent ultimately generates as it pays off the purchase cost. The whole idea is to enable the tenants to build up a sum of money from the profits of the organisation for them to use as a deposit to buy their own home.


If the funds borrowed to 100% fund the purchase are fully repaid by means of charging rent, at the end of a term similar to an average type of mortgage of, say 25 years, then at that point the organisation would own the asset outright. It would obviously then be able to offer a portion of the value of that asset to the tenant.


This portion would accrue from the moment the tenant commences paying rent and would be available to the tenant whenever he leaves  which could be at any time. He does not have to remain any longer than any initial short tenancy.


The tenant would always be paying a ‘market’ rent the same as any other tenant. But he would be getting something back that no other tenant ever does. He will be getting back a portion of the rent he has paid which he can then use as his deposit to go and buy his own home with an ordinary mortgage if he so wishes.


Instead of just paying rent to line a landlord’s pocket, tenants would get something back so their rent would be not completely wasted money dow the drain as it normally is for all tenants.


This model would thus enable a person with no capital whatever to accrue a deposit for their own home purchase, or even use this organisation to end up either a long leaseholder on  low rent if he wished to remain in the property. It could almost be viewed as a means of just turning an ordinary rental into a (different) type of mortgage for the ultimate purchase of a home. A mortgage where no deposit is needed at all. It’s just a rental that eventually just turns into actual home ownership.


It offers a means of home ownership which dis-enfranchises no-one and whereby any tenant turns progressively into an owner.


If set up as the legal concept of a Co-op, it is legally allowed to ask the public to invest in redeemable shares which  would pay an interest rate which might currently be 3-4%.


This is just a brief description of the idea, obviously there is a lot of detail to ramble on about, but I’ll leave that for  the moment as it isn’t needed until people want to know more and join.


Oh, by the way. I have spent a lot of time doing all the maths and the idea does work. You can have a look for yourself if you are interested & contact me.


With the help of the crowdfunding crowd, we can cut the legs of those greedy bankers and eventually take all their mortgage business away from them so that every penny people pay to live in a home goes directly towards actually paying for that home and not the huge profits for  greedy bankers.


This idea has wings; it could take off and fly !







November 11, 2010


government creating a wandering homeless horde of penniless beggars and outcasts

Most unemployed people would jump at the chance to have a job – if they could get one – which paid them more than the total amount they received in State benefits.

The problem is you have to have a job paying at least about £21 000 or even more, just to equal the amount the State might be paying an unemployed person, possibly with a child to look after. There just aren’t enough jobs out there that pay more than £21 000.

Unemployed people at the very bottom of the pile, those, badly educated by a useless State education system, and lacking in social skills or any other skills, are expected to take on jobs paying the minimum wage or even less. The minimum wage pays about £240 a week before tax, perhaps about £1300 a year, before tax.

A two bedroomed flat in a grubby part of the South East of England might typically cost £800 a month at the lowest and grubbiest end of the housing market. At a rent of £9600 a year that leaves £3400 a year to live on and pay for everything else. It is £65 a week – almost exactly what the unemployment benefit for a single person is.

Ian Duncan Smith’s crazy scheme to force the supposedly work-shy army of unemployed people back into work by removing their benefits for three years is completely bonkers.

Duncan Smith and the Government thinks people on benefits don’t work because they don’t want to work. That is a parody of the truth. Most people on benefits don’t work because they cannot get a job which pays them enough to live on and possibly a bit extra left over for a bit of fun out of life as well as just work. They work like a shot in the ‘black’ or hidden economy because it pays well.

The real problem is that because successive Governments have meddled so much in people’s lives and distorted the entire economy with a vast array of restrictive and expensive interferences, that same economy has steadily become poorer and poorer. It is now a basket case weakly tottering around, wheezily grasping for something to prop it up before it collapses completely.

Employers no longer offer workers wages which are sufficient to live on as employers know the Government will pay their workers benefits to subsidise the inadequately low wages workers are now expected to accept from employers.

It is ridiculous that our Government subsidises employers in this way. Make no mistake, it IS the employers being subsidised, not the workers.

And the this is the reason why millions of new jobs (at the lowest, impossible to live on level) have been created, only for 70 per cent of them to be taken up by a horde of immigrants from third world countries who think all their Christmases have arrived at once when they earn in a day in the UK what takes them at least a month in their own countries.

So, the insane stupidities of successive Governments have effectively imported the Third World into the UK, making us all poorer and the UK more and more like a Third World country as each sorry year blunders by.

Another myth that is being peddled is that it is such a good idea for a UK business to pay people like the Chinese to make things cheaply to be sold here in the UK.

Being made so cheaply, it is said, means the UK business (not, obviously a manufacturer any more as that is now being done by the Chinese) can sell the items more cheaply on the UK market, giving a better deal to the consumer as well as making more money for themselves.

It does seem that way at first glance. But it isn’t really true because as more and more people lose their jobs in the UK as more and more things are ‘outsourced’ to be made or done abroad, there are fewer and fewer people with less and less money in the UK available to buy items made abroad.

That is why David Cameron is desperately trying to persuade the Chinese to pay US more of their own money by buying more things from us because at the moment we import three times as much from China as they buy from us.

The fact is real wealth is not money but jobs, and the ability of jobs to make things of value. Money is only something conveniently used to measure the real value of goods and services, i.e. jobs and people’s labour and what those jobs create.

If we give even a small part of our wealth away by using our money to give to other countries for them to employ their own citizens at slave wage levels as in China and India, then we create more and more unemloyment and poverty in our own country.


June 7, 2010

I came across this exchange of views from two people with lots of experience of the sub-prime mortgage scam and thought I would re – post it here as it so neatly describes the everyday reality of the nasty behaviour the banks have been getting up to with their criminally wicked greed.

You might have noticed the news right now is all about just about every country in the World going through financial hell as they are all overwhelmed by debt which has been engineered by the banks.

Hundreds of millions of people all over the World are suffering financial hardship as their governments struggle with out of control run away financial chaos caused by the idiot banks with their greedy, dishonest and fraudulent behaviour.

It was the bank’s creation of their cunning sub-prime mortgage scams that triggered the Global financial meltdown from which the whole Worldwide economy is now suffering.

Read on :

This thread is located at:

Here is the message that has just been posted:

—Quote (Originally by newstarter)—

Hi to the caggers on this thread.I have been following this discussion for a short time,however i feel i have to side with supersleuth, Actionsnotwords, and co and heres why.

Whilst i cannot use the legal jargon you caggers use, when i read about sub prime lenders using every trick in the book to generate false arrears on borrowers accounts, using repossession as a first not last resort, i have to think there must be a reason why.

Don’t forget people, this is about borrowers. For example getting an eviction notice for say next Wednesday for sometimes less than 1k of arrears with another 2 k added on in charges,lenders must be doing this to actively repossess their homes. what other reason could there be for doing it.?

Sorry to bring this debate down to my level, but its about real people, wondering whether they are going to have a roof over their heads or not.

I have been in that position, a sub prime lender screwing me for every penny and more, then still try to repossess, i won in court but so many others have lost their homes because of ignorance of the banking system,together with the legal system. Somethings been going off and if i can see it why not everyone else. Well done Supersleuth and co,i shall read on with intrest.

—End Quote—

Supersleuth then said :

You’ve got it in one.

Repossession is far more profitable than lending to the customer for 25 years. That’s why they force people into arrears.

Firstly they charge interest at rates they know is untenable for the borrower to sustain. They know how to force the borrower into arrears because they know exactly the fixed income that the borrower declared on their application.

Secondly, they know that once they’ve tripped the borrower up on its first missed payment – from there they can add all the extortionate fees that are really profitable. If you manage to re-mortgage, then they can stuff you for an Early Redemption Charge in the tens of thousands. So it’s good business for them to force you into “alleged” arrears.

But then the next mortgage company will soon have you in the same boat a few years down the line anyway, plus they’ve also screw you for all the extensive costs in remortgaging as well. Maximised profits. Why should they lend for 25 years? It’s much more profitable to force you into arrears.

If you haven’t been able to remortgage, the next profit centre is just as lucrative – taking your home. Then they can steal all the equity from your home. And, even after taking all your equity, there’s more. Fees, fees and more fees for the sale of your property and then they get to have you in their clutches for the contrived “shortfall”, all of which attracts compound interest.

So then they leave you alone for a few years while you financially recover and then, once you recover, they miraculously appear. With their compounded interest on the alleged shortfall over say 6 or 12 years and they get to hound you for another small fortune. Read the many threads on this topic regarding repossessions that took place in the 1990’s.

Oh boy, it’s soooo much more profitable to repossess than it is to let the borrower have the loan for 25 years. You will never be allowed to get out of their clutches even after they’ve taken everything you’ve got. Until our blind, deaf and dumb moron judges understand the abuse and frauds perpetrated on the back of their “rights” over a mortgaged person, Bankruptcy or Death is the only way out.


March 27, 2010




I find it ludicrous that despite it becoming more and more widely known the mortgage market is riddled with criminality, that no legal action is being taken which should protect the unfortunate people losing their homes as a result of what is simply criminal fraud on behalf of banks.

I have been systematically ‘milked’ of the entire equity on my house now worth about £800 000. I was deliberately ‘pushed’ by the original high street lender from a mortgage of only £100 000 on that house into sub-prime mortgage after sub-prime mortgage – churned is the word used by that filthy industry – and now I am about to be made homeless by these bastards, now owning nothing.

In other words, I have lost £700 000. It has been stolen from me by systematic fraud on behalf of the banks.

It isn’t just about one particular mortgage, or just one broker or just one bank. people don’t seem to have grasped the fact that there is just a handful of banks who have a cosy monopoly over the entire mortgage lending market.

These evil, corrupt banks have, collectively, devised a cunning system of mortgage lending, using the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Financial Services Authority and other weasily pseudo legalities – including ‘credit rating’ and contract law – to knowingly fleece mortgage borrowers with dishonest, misrepresented lending.

You only have to compare it with the ‘old fashioned’ type of building society lending to see the difference. It is the same house and the same idea of borrowing money to buy a house, but instead of an honest loan from a building society to a borrower trying to buy a house, the loans have become mortgage ‘products’ or ‘packages’ which are carefully designed to fleece borrowers and at the same time inflate the overall property market to enable the banks to lend ever larger sums of money on ballooning property prices.

Without the huge value of lending in the property market, the banks would be deprived of a gigantic source of potential lending and therefore profit.

So, in a nutshell, the banks, behaving rather like the Mafia, saw there was tons of money to be made in property lending, and they muscled in on it by destroying the old fashioned building societies that had originally been the honest, moral, reasonable, helpful lenders in the housing market.

This has become so blatantly dishonest and destructive that it has now damaged the whole World Economy.

The banks are nothing more than crooks and confidence tricksters who have found a way to misuse and abuse law and regulation to steal money from other people on a breathtaking scale.

It is time the authorities – Parliament, the FSA and so on, to take legal and regulatory action against these out of control thieving banks. They need to make an instant start by preventing mortgage lenders from causing further damage by repossessing homeowners who should never have been put in that position in the first place by these nasty, dishonest loan sharks.

Nurse wins reprieve over repossession

January 4, 2010

By Richard Dyson, Financial Mail

2 January 2010

A nurse whose home was to be repossessed this week has won a reprieve, thanks to Financial Mail and her lawyers.

Rate shock: Payments on Bola Eriksola’s terraced house went from £900 to £1,500 a month.

Bola Eriksola was to attend court on Wednesday as her mortgage lender, Rooftop, founded by failed bank Bear Stearns, sought to repossess her £192,000 terraced house.

Rooftop’s rate was high even in July 2008 when the Bank of England base rate was 5%. But by March 2009 the base rate had fallen to 0.5%. Rooftop, however, like other lenders, did not pass on a proportionate cut in rates.

Many such lenders, which are closed to new business and often owned by organisations not connected with the mortgage industry, escape regulation and are secretive about rates and charges.

Read the rest of the Financial Mail article by clicking here


This reader comment following the article about Bola in the Financial Mail is one of many similar ill thought out attacks on a borrower which seem to implicitly support and approve of the wickedness of Sub-Prime mortgage lenders.

Posted by: Mustafa, Leicester

3 January 2010, 6:32pm

8. This woman made the mistake of increasing her debt and moving to a dodgy sub-prime lender. Now she is not supposed to take responsibility for her mistakes?

This Financial Mail campaign is MISGUIDED and RECKLESS – the economy is wrecked because we need to DISCOURAGE people from taking on unaffordable debts and end the unsustainable asset bubble in housing which has made it so overpriced. Why shouldn’t this woman accept her mistake and go into rented accommodation like many of the rest of us?

Financial Mail should be supporting savers, not bailing out those who have recklessly got themselves into debt.


I am astonished at all these attacks on Bola making out it is entirely her fault for being ‘milked’ by disgustingly devious mortgage lenders who deliberately trap people into a carefully designed structure of what is clearly ‘constructive’ fraud.

There is a legal description for this. It is called ‘conversion’ – whereby ‘artifice’ (that’s deviousness), one person ‘converts’ another person’s property to their own use.

You will see a remarkably similarity between the artifice of sub -prime mortgages and the criminal loan sharks. Loan sharks use escalating physical violence to enforce ever increasing repayments until a borrower is completely ruined and has been stripped of everything they own for the sake of a trivial loan.

Sub-prime mortgage lenders use precisely similar tactics designed to fleece borrowers the moment they have the slightest difficulty with the rising repayments which are specially designed to make it deliberately difficult for borrowers to continue making them.

The only difference between sub -prime lenders and criminal loan sharks using physical violence is mortgage lenders use legally inspired mental violence, together with a huge amount of remorselessly contrived follow up psychological pressure and violence.

Most victims remain damaged and scarred for the rest of their lives.

This is eventually followed by a certain amount of physical violence. That is legal because it occurs when the mortgage lender smugly tell a court that a feckless and irresponsible borrower is simply not repaying the rapidly inflating mortgage. This is now being artificially loaded with increasing penalty fees making it grow into a gargantuan sum of money impossible for the borrower to keep up with.

Like criminal loan sharks, the original sub-prime mortgage loan soon dwarfs into insignificance as all the extra penalty costs are added to the loan in a blizzard of uncontrollable and ever escalating debt quite beyond any borrower’s ability to control.

So the court simply orders that the lender can send in the bailiffs to physically evict the homeowner, using any legally allowed physical violence that may be required to achieve this purpose.

The house becomes possessed by the lender who now has the opportunity to fleece the hapless homeowner even more, invariably doing so to such a degree that often the homeowner loses everything – including all other domestic possessions because there is nowhere else to put them.

“Your whole life is ruined; it just comes to an end” one victim said.

There is really not a lot of difference between the criminal loan sharks using thuggery and physical violence to steal money, and the artfully thought up ‘sub-prime’ mortgage contracts intentionally designed to be increasingly impossible to repay.

It’s just that mortgage lenders have realised they can achieve the same dishonest and immoral results as the loan sharks by using legal and financial gobbledegook to trick thousands of people out of their homes and make billions and billions of pounds of profits for their fat little banker’s bonuses we hear so much about.