Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
HMO or possible Tardis for sale.
This 3 bedroom house contains;-
Studio 1:
15' 8" x 12' 6" (4.78m x 3.81m)
Kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
Studio 2:
11' 5" x 10' 7" (3.48m x 3.23m)
Separate kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
Studio 3:
13' 2" x 12' (4.01m x 3.66m)
Separate kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
First Floor
First floor landing:
Access to loft
Studio 4:
11' 1" x 9' 6" (3.38m x 2.90m)
Kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
Studio 5:
11' 7" x 9' 4" (3.53m x 2.84m)
Separate kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
Studio 6:
15' 9" x 14' 2" (4.80m x 4.32m)
Separate kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
Top Floor
Studio 7:
13' 2" x 12' (4.01m x 3.66m)
Kitchenette.
Self contained shower room.
This one house has been taking £5,000 in rent every month !!! With tenants paying £700/room pcm.
There needs to be a campaign for rent control and against greed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
So that property has nearly trebled in price in 8 yrs (assuming sale at the asking price). Yes also assume it has been converted in betw but still!
Rental prices in the Netherlands are regulated precisely because the authorities do not want the inner city of cities like Amsterdam and the surrounding area to be turned into 'yuppie' zones--even more than they already have already become--ratherlike what has happened in London, Paris or New York. If the rental system had been liberalised, as the government proposed around two years ago, most locals would have already left the inner cities, and the apartments of popular areas ....
-
Permalink Reply by GillianM on
-
I noticed this too Maggie and did the same sum.... after working out how seven bedsits could fit in a 3 bed house!
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
I imagine a fair amount of this rent has been paid by Haringey Council in the form of housing benefit.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
There's a lot of wasted space on that landing. Surely they could install a camp bed ?
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
We are desperately short of homes for all sorts of people thanks to a lack of building policies from successive governments (not helped by Thatcher making it illegal for councils to invest money made from the great council sell off to build more housing), however HMOs are not the answer. There is a huge difference between a purpose made block of studio flats designed for single people and 7 en-suite studios hacked out of an existing terrace.
I live next to a 4 bed terrace which for a while was converted into 8 studio en suites so I speak from experience. As profit is the name of the game the conversions are done as cheaply as possible with no consideration for the tenants or safety. The people living in these HMOs are rarely well earning singles (why on earth would anyone earning good money want to live in these conditions) they are often hard pressed couples and families living in a single room. The houses are not built with sound proofing between these rooms or between the adjacent terrace properties so you can imagine the problems experienced. Having families living in rooms means that there is no space for the kids and no where for them to go (my mum lived like this as a child; they were called slums and I'd hoped we had moved away from this). The plumbing outlet is not made to have 7-8 showers and 7-8 toilets venting into it so in my case there were often pools of untreated sewage outside of my kitchen. Rubbish from so many people living in one house meant that even three large bins could not contain the rubbish which was left in piles in the front yard. 7-8 kitchenettes in one small house, think of the dangers. You suggest unfettered conversions but you can't do this without thinking first of all the support services that the new tenants would rely on such as GPs, school places etc.
"Allow the market to prevail, if people want to live right close to the action and are paying from their hard earned money, then let them." What about the poor? What about those we depend on in the service industries on low wages? What about those on DHSS? Shall we ship them all out to Grimsby? Unfettered profiteering would mean even higher prices and don't hold your breath about these modern day Rachmans paying tax, they make enough money to duck and dive out of that one.
We used to have rent controls, as many other countries in the EU still have, and guess whose rents and houses are cheaper. The market is not the answer, experience from the last thirty years has shown this. We need the government to invest in a house building programme supported by proper planning.
-
-
I would also like to agree with Maggie. I am single and currently trying to find somewhere to live in any part of Haringey before being evicted from my current place due to the landlord selling up. It is really really difficult to find somewhere affordable and of reasonable quality and this is not exactly central London. I feel really angry and depressed about the housing situation for single people in London and I would leave London if I could but sadly my personal circumstances mean that I have to stay here.
I can only imagine that FPR hasn't been through this nightmare himself.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
FPR, nobody's proposing to ban housing because it's cheap. The point is to control accommodation which is of poor quality, unhealthy; often overcrowded; sometimes bug and mice infested; and occasionally downright dangerous. Much of which is not in the slightest bit cheap.
Did you read Maddy's comment above? What were your thoughts about what she wrote? Have you seen some of the poorly built hutches where people are being forced to live? Have you thought about the impact for instance on children there? Or on people's mental health?
A few months ago people were squatting near our home in a building which - at that point - had been left empty for six months by the Council. As far as I could find out this was due to poor planning and incompetence. The water was turned off and I couldn't persuade the Council to turn it back on temporarily. So the squatters were carrying fresh water from a tap on the nearby Council estate. And using this to drink, wash, flush the toilets etc.
I talked to one man who was living there. He told me that he had some part time jobs; but that after paying his fares, if he used his money to pay the rent asked for available places he'd have little left for food. "The Invisible hand" of "the market" is providing low wage and/or zero hour jobs. And housing squalor.
The squatters were removed; the building is still empty. There's a security firm. Men with dogs guard it day and night in shifts.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
P.S. My partner Zena Brabazon suggested you might like to read an article by James Meek called: "Where will we live?".
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I think what you're probably referring to FPR is the new Article 4 Direction. In a few posts over the past few years, I outlined why this control might be needed. (in that post, you'll also see a link to a Channel 4 documentary related to the issue). David Schmitz explained here what it means. It's not a ban, merely a control; essentially it brings the creation of an HMO within the remit of planning policy.
-
-
I hate to say it as I don't want to encourage this kind of thing, but for lots of people who value independence/privacy these self-contained studios are an acceptable option. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the renters are professionals who don't want a house share and can't afford their own one bedroom or who want to save some money. Anyone on benefits would probably be renting a one bedroom or at least a decent studio somewhere, as I believe even with the cap you can still claim 250 quid a week. I've rented similar places myself while working, and quite frankly would rather do that than share a bathroom with six or seven people. I am, however, very glad not to have to do this any more. This kind of thing no doubt looks very different from the point of view of property owners than from those looking for privacy. We have to recognise that for some people this is actually preferable to what we might think is more acceptable house-sharing.
-
-
Yes, but it depends what you mean by acceptable... maybe better than moving in with a bunch of strangers when you're an older single person but still a depressing prospect, especially without the prospect of ever being able to move to a bigger place.
I think the housing benefit cap for single people is only £250 a week in the very south of the borough (which qualifies for inner London rates); otherwise it's about £180 or 185 a week. Which doesn't now get you anything much better than the sort of places we're discussing. So it's no better for them than for those of us who are working in averagely paid jobs.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
