Skip to main content

The House of Lords and Overcrowding

It is a bit odd that the House of Lords have voted down a proposal that encourages unemployed people who are under occupying a council house or housing association property to downsize. There are lots of people living in overcrowded accommodation. At the same time there are people who have spare space.

It is as if those Lords voting for the amendment are not concerned about overcrowding.

These rules already apply to those people renting a private sector property.


Jerry said…
John I have to disagree with you here, which must be a first, your not looking at the wider picture, I had a two bedroom house, due to circumstances I only used one bedroom,for obvious reasons would that mean I would have to move out, then if things changed for the better what would happen then, its not about kicking people out of their homes simply because they have a spare room, build more affordable housing, the situation of hand me downs is not as common as it used to be, building more affordable housing creates jobs keeps the building industry alive, or better still devise a plan to bring back in to use the 1 million un-occupied and derelict houses, there are over ten thousand in the outskirts of Liverpool alone, the city council was going to develop them but sadly due to cuts some two years later these houses still stand empty though still in conditions to be lived in. look at the bigger picture John.
John Hemming said…
The point about the government's proposals is that people are not forced to move out. Currently what happens (at times) is that people are forced to move.
moira said…
Ive just moved into a housing association property and the tenancy agreement says that if this is underoccupied in the future that they can decide not not renew my tenancy and help me downsize. So does this still apply from 2 months ago?
John Hemming said…
That has been the case for some time.
moira said…
It cant be now if the House Of Lords has opposed it?Or are they allowed to be ignored? why is it just unemployed people?
John Hemming said…
What affects you has been the law for a number of years.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…