Private landlords and Tenants

[MooseBreath]

I believe in fair pay for fair work. I'm against people who want something for nothing and against people who get something for nothing.

I think a reasonable argument could be made that the capital gains from property over the last couple of decades have been the result of intentional government policies to prop up house values to the detriment of those hard workers who can no longer afford to buy a property. So that's you and other landlords getting something for nothing at the expense of people who do put in a fair days work.

Not only that, but knowing that the housing market is in a terrible state due to intentional government policies, you want to be able to take further advantage and get even more for nothing by having control of payment systems and having the ability to raise the price of what is a basic human right as much as you like.

A "fair days pay" in respect of investment means taking on risk. What you're saying is that the government should make your investments risk free and that the risk of unaffordability and insecurity should be forced into tenants, who are generally at the poor and disadvantaged end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying I disagree necessarily, just as long as you recognise how much champagne you've poured on your socialism.

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you mean by this?  I know there is a maximum each council will pay in housing benefit for a certain type of property.  The landlord will charge the maximum the tenant is likely to recieve regardless of it's true value.

 

I have never heard of a tenant requesting the property be checked.  I know a couple of people who receive housing benefit & they have never had anyone visit their property from the council or whoever to calculate any kind of market value.  They tell the council what their rent is & it gets paid (up to a maximum).  A friend's rent is £500 a month, he's single & the council give him something like £350, as that is the most they will pay for a single person.  He somehow makes up the difference.

 

I'm sorry that I didn't explain myself very well. I can't remember the name that I'm thinking of. To better explain, any private rented property is let under a tenancy agreement - fixed term or periodic. Most are assured shorthold tenancy agreements. The rent is agreed before moving in and cannot be changed during the term of the tenancy only at the end of the tenancy when a new amount can be agreed. If the tenant does not think the rent is a "market rent" - down to availability and similar property rents - they can apply to a tribunal during the first 6 months - to have a "fair rent " set. A 3 person committee then looks at the rent and similar property rents in the area. The rent can then be set "by law" for the next 2 or 3 years. The 3 people are appointed by the UK government - a lawyer, a qualified member and a lay member.

 

This has nothing to do with the money paid in benefits by the council/government. That is another problem. The benefits have a tiered payment schedule - depending on the property and claimant. My problem there is that the benefits are piad directly to the tenant who isn't punished for not paying them to the landlord. It should be paid directly to the landlord - if there is an excess to pay that will still be down to the tenant obviously.

 

As Psinatra said there are good and bad tenants and landlords. My brother lets out a second property and always is happy with them. There are some landlords that own multiple properties and all they need to do to raise the rent is to evict the tenant or jgnore repair requests to make it uncomfortable. I know someone who moved into a property and was without hot water for over six months dispite several calls to the landlord. He seemed to be unavailable more than available. It was only when a friend called him up and quoted some law facts that something was done.

The place I am in I am protected by a sitting tenant agreement meaning the rent cannot go up by more than a certain %. If I were to move out the next tenant would pay something like £20-30pw more. Which is fair enough. I think what Labour are proposing is to protect the tenant from rising rent or eviction just so a higher rent can be put in. It will not punish the fair landlord.

 

A landlord cannot raise the rent in order to evict a tenant. A Landlord cannot raise the rent during a shorthold tenancy. It is really difficult for a landlord to evict a tenant even when they are not paying the rent. If the person was without hot water for over a week he should have gone to the environmental health department of the council. This area of property is well regulated and all landlords have a minimum that is allowed.

[Guest]

Haha FIF is just a hypocrite. Left wing when it suits indeed. Surely the current housing situation is a very clear example of extreme capitalism? I guess you're benefiting from it so it makes it alright.

 

I guess that's why he loves immigration so much too.

 

The last time I replied to you I got suspended, but I'll try again. The "current housing situation" is clearly not extreme capitalism, it is a balance of socialism and capitalism. For your information I no longer own any property in England and haven't for many years and I don't benefit from the situation. Your comment about immigration is simply abusive and racist and wrong.

[Guest]

For those aren't or cannot get on the property ladder, you're going to find it very difficult to get sympathy for private landlords. Considering the number of private landlords who own many multiples of property, and helped create the stagnation in the market, them complaining that they are getting the rough end of the stick would be quite ironic.

 

This is the falsehood. The vast majority of private landlords do not own multiple properties (unless you are classing 2 as multiple). Many landlords are actually letting out their own homes and most have only one other property.

 

People can't get onto the property ladder for a number of reasons. Mostly it's because they limit their choice to a particular location and a property which is beyond their wage level. Too many people think it is their right to have their own house by the time they are 25 (and maybe they've been working for 3 years). Nobody has the right to own their own property - people should have the right only to shelter. This is a modern problem in the UK. Previously people realised that they couldn't afford a home of their own until they had worked for a while and saved up some money for a deposit - they lived at parents homes for longer or they moved into council homes until they had the required deposit - of course most people didn't see this NEED to have their own property and were happy to live in a council owned house. Sadly towards the end of the last century the government saw a way to miracuslously create money to spend by selling off the council houses. This is the cause of all the problems in the housing market today. They should never have been sold off but kept for people who were unable to get on the housing ladder.

 

However as you say people who want to get a very nice house that they can't afford (and let's not forget there are houses in the North of England at very reasonable prices) are angry at "landlords" who are trying to cover their costs and make a little profit on top for the risk that they are taking. They are unwilling to cut down on their fags and booze and falt screen tvs in order to save moneyto buy a house and their jealousy or envy demonizes landlords.

 

As regards the "professional" landlord who owns many properties they still have to operate within the law - as I've stated above it is well regulated and over priced rents can be fixed by a tribunal, housing repairs carried out and charged to property owners - they should simply be taxed on their profits and this money used by the governments to repurchase the council housing that they so flippantly sold off during the end of the last century.

 

For the few "bad" landlords - think of them like football hooligans, few and far between but seen as more than they are - they need to be prosecuted under the strict laws in place, fined and imprisoned.

 

It saddens me that so many landlords take the risk of letting their properties and helping those who can't afford yet to get on the ladder and yet are villanised and tarred with brushes they shouldn't be. Without the private landlords the UK would be in a hell of a position thanks to greedy governments who sold their souls for quick "invisible" gains and have never replenished the housing stocks for an ever increasing population.

[pSinatra]

I'm sorry that I didn't explain myself very well. I can't remember the name that I'm thinking of. To better explain, any private rented property is let under a tenancy agreement - fixed term or periodic. Most are assured shorthold tenancy agreements. The rent is agreed before moving in and cannot be changed during the term of the tenancy only at the end of the tenancy when a new amount can be agreed. If the tenant does not think the rent is a "market rent" - down to availability and similar property rents - they can apply to a tribunal during the first 6 months - to have a "fair rent " set. A 3 person committee then looks at the rent and similar property rents in the area. The rent can then be set "by law" for the next 2 or 3 years. The 3 people are appointed by the UK government - a lawyer, a qualified member and a lay member.

 

This has nothing to do with the money paid in benefits by the council/government. That is another problem. The benefits have a tiered payment schedule - depending on the property and claimant. My problem there is that the benefits are piad directly to the tenant who isn't punished for not paying them to the landlord. It should be paid directly to the landlord - if there is an excess to pay that will still be down to the tenant obviously.

 

 

A landlord cannot raise the rent in order to evict a tenant. A Landlord cannot raise the rent during a shorthold tenancy. It is really difficult for a landlord to evict a tenant even when they are not paying the rent. If the person was without hot water for over a week he should have gone to the environmental health department of the council. This area of property is well regulated and all landlords have a minimum that is allowed.

 

All sounds very complicated, long-winded & a major major ball ache.  Not to mention spoiling any kind of 'relationship' you may have with your landlord.  As someone who has rented before, it still sounds very much "like it or lump it" to me.

[Guest]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that the capital gains from property over the last couple of decades have been the result of intentional government policies to prop up house values to the detriment of those hard workers who can no longer afford to buy a property. So that's you and other landlords getting something for nothing at the expense of people who do put in a fair days work.

Not only that, but knowing that the housing market is in a terrible state due to intentional government policies, you want to be able to take further advantage and get even more for nothing by having control of payment systems and having the ability to raise the price of what is a basic human right as much as you like.

A "fair days pay" in respect of investment means taking on risk. What you're saying is that the government should make your investments risk free and that the risk of unaffordability and insecurity should be forced into tenants, who are generally at the poor and disadvantaged end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying I disagree necessarily, just as long as you recognise how much champagne you've poured on your socialism.

 

I think you're talking about something you know nothing about AGAIN.

 

I am not a UK Landord - as you state. I sold off my properties after seeing how easily abused the government system for housing and benefits is. When I started to have to pay for people to live in and destroy my houses, leaving me with bills in the tens of thousands of pounds I saw the writing on the wall. There are too many people happy to abuse systems for personal gain which ends up costing everyone.

 

I'm surprised that you are happy to see people getting paid housing benefit which is not used for paying rent. I don't think that socialists would be happy with that let alone a raving right wing looney like yourself.

 

As regards your other comments about what I say are risks you are just making up your own lies and it is a waste of my time to reply to them.

[Guest]

All sounds very complicated, long-winded & a major major ball ache.  Not to mention spoiling any kind of 'relationship' you may have with your landlord.  As someone who has rented before, it still sounds very much "like it or lump it" to me.

 

It is unnecessary. You as a potential tenant say you are happy to pay a rent for a period of time, the landlord cannot increase the rent during that time. You only have to go to a tribunal if you think the rent is unfair - if you do don't agree in the first place. Leicester is full of private rented properties all of similar rent. you see what you want you agree to take it and pay for it. You think it's too expensive you go somewhere else.

 

If you suddenly want a lower rent do you really think your relationship with the owner is going to stay good?

 

It is a major pain in the ass for a landlord and removes the idea of a free market economy from the equation.

[MooseBreath]

People can't get onto the property ladder for a number of reasons. Mostly it's because they limit their choice to a particular location and a property which is beyond their wage level. Too many people think it is their right to have their own house by the time they are 25 (and maybe they've been working for 3 years). Nobody has the right to own their own property - people should have the right only to shelter. This is a modern problem in the UK. Previously people realised that they couldn't afford a home of their own until they had worked for a while and saved up some money for a deposit - they lived at parents homes for longer or they moved into council homes until they had the required deposit - of course most people didn't see this NEED to have their own property and were happy to live in a council owned house. Sadly towards the end of the last century the government saw a way to miracuslously create money to spend by selling off the council houses. This is the cause of all the problems in the housing market today.

Rarely have I ever seen such categorical nonsense. This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. Your attempts at covering your obvious greed are laughable.

People used to be able to afford houses more easily because house prices used to be about twice average earnings. People struggle to afford houses now because house prices are closer to five times earnings. I'll spell it out for you - that means house prices are relatively close to three times as expensive as they used to be. That's why people can't afford them, and that's as a direct consequence of successive government's intentionally strangling supply in order to appease voting home owners.

[GingerrrFox]

If the whole system wasn't placed so heavily in the tenants favour then housing benefit would be paid straight to private landlords rather than going in the claimants back pocket. That way there wouldn't be the issue of people living like shit rent free in a house for months before doing one with the landlord footing the bill for repairs.

[Guest]

Rarely have I ever seen such categorical nonsense. This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. Your attempts at covering your obvious greed are laughable.

People used to be able to afford houses more easily because house prices used to be about twice average earnings. People struggle to afford houses now because house prices are closer to five times earnings. I'll spell it out for you - that means house prices are relatively close to three times as expensive as they used to be. That's why people can't afford them, and that's as a direct consequence of successive government's intentionally strangling supply in order to appease voting home owners.

 

You really don't understand economic fundamentals do you?

 

I'll spell it out for you in 3 words.

 

Supply and Demand.

 

After the war the government constructed houses so that people didn't need private property.

 

The Tories wanting to spend unearned money then decided to sell off public housing without replacing it. The population grew (that wasn't a surprise) and suddenly there wasn't enough public housing for the demand.

 

That demand switched to the private sector. Demand exploded, supply didn't, prices went up.

 

Do you understand?

 

Your Tory heroes caused the price rise and have done nothing to stop it. they spent the privatisation money and still didn't replace the public housing.

 

Government needs to rebuy empty houses and build what is needed keeping it in the public sector - of course that'll increase public spedning and debt but you can thank Maggie for that. 

If the whole system wasn't placed so heavily in the tenants favour then housing benefit would be paid straight to private landlords rather than going in the claimants back pocket. That why there wouldn't be the issue of people living like shit rent free in a house for months before doing one with the landlord footing the bill for repairs.

 

Correct.

[Webbo]

I agree with FIF

So do I actually, I just find it amusing that you can call some people undeserving and greedy until it affects you and then it's unjust.

[lavrentis]

On this general topic, whats happening in London is awful.

 

People from poor backgrounds who have a history of living in London are literally getting wiped out and pushed further and further out. If anyone doesn't have any idea about rent in London it's on a different planet.

[Guest]

So do I actually, I just find it amusing that you can call some people undeserving and greedy until it affects you and then it's unjust.

 

Not quite sure what you mean. I think most people are undeserving and greedy.

 

On this general topic, whats happening in London is awful.

 

People from poor backgrounds who have a history of living in London are literally getting wiped out and pushed further and further out. If anyone doesn't have any idea about rent in London it's on a different planet.

 

Again this is government driven.

 

For many decades they have made London the centre of the UK and ignored or worse driven all other areas into nothingness.

 

The government needs to delocalise the work not centralise it.

 

It's a disgrace what governments have done to the north (and everywhere else) at the expense of the South East. There is accommodation at reasonable prices in other areas of the country - the government needs to get the jobs out there.

[MooseBreath]

You really don't understand economic fundamentals do you?

I'll spell it out for you in 3 words.

Supply and Demand.

After the war the government constructed houses so that people didn't need private property.

The Tories wanting to spend unearned money then decided to sell off public housing without replacing it. The population grew (that wasn't a surprise) and suddenly there wasn't enough public housing for the demand.

That demand switched to the private sector. Demand exploded, supply didn't, prices went up.

Do you understand?

Your Tory heroes caused the price rise and have done nothing to stop it. they spent the privatisation money and still didn't replace the public housing.

Government needs to rebuy empty houses and build what is needed keeping it in the public sector - of course that'll increase public spedning and debt but you can thank Maggie for that.

You said the attitudes of young people, of whom you know none, and who are from a country you don't even live in, are to blame for them not being able to afford houses. That is categorically incorrect, as I have shown.

I agree that supply issues caused by intentional government policies are to blame for house prices becoming unaffordable in reasonable time frames for below average earners. The failure of successive government's to promote the building of enough houses is the main issue. The council house sell off played a minor role.

[Guest]

Our landlord is a gem..

We deal, (always have done), directly with him rather than via a letting agent. In four years here we haven't had a problem with him. Anything that's needed attention has been done swiftly and without quibble. We've not had a single rent increase and he assures us that that will continue to be so! Even offered us a reduced rent when I was off work injured for a while ! 

 

Most Landlords are reasonable friendly people. 

[Webbo]

I do work for a couple of landlords and they are both reasonable, friendly people.

[Crinklyfox]

The number of landlords is going to increase with the pension changes.  Actuarial returns have been horribly poor and it is now more economic for a pensioner to take their pension pot and invest in a property and receive rent than purchase an annuity and probably receive a smaller sum for the same capital.  So a greater number of landlords will be 'ordinary people' rather than corporations or owners of multiple properties.

 

Problem is that this inflates house prices by creating demand making housing stock even less attainable than before.  As my children have found to their cost.

[ADK]

I think people should have choice. 

 

Landlords all had the choice to become landlords and have the choice to stop being landlords.

 

Tenants don't always have the same choice.

 

Most of the people I know would prefer to own property than to be renting. There is no equity in renting, you pay a large chunk of your hard earned money to some baby boomer who was fortunate to be born at a time when the housing supply was less constricted and has amassed some wealth.

 

None of the landlords when I rented ever obeyed the rules, some were just less worse than others. They all let themselves or their tradesmen in uninvited and dragged their heels when things needed fixing. I didn't find it pleasant having to live inside somebodies investment, it all seemed rather dehumanising as to the landlord, the perfect tenant is essentially invisible, save for providing a regular hit of money.

 

I do not like reading ageist nonsense from baby boomers, who want to propagate myths about the young being "entitled" for wanting to live and raise a family in relative liberty. To me it seems more "entitled" to want to have a middle class lifestyle funded by the hard work of the less capitally well off.

 

Yet there will always be a market for renting and I have no problem with "private landlords" (I loathe the term "landlord" though, it gives me visions of the injustices of feudalism and implies a master-slave relationship). I don't think we would need such interventionist policies regarding landlords if there weren't underlying problems with the supply of housing and the distribution of jobs in the UK. Obviously any government should be trying to address those issues .

 

I'm wary of how the Labour party addresses the issues of the people who it draws votes from. I'm suspicious that there is a tendency to try to prolong or perpetuate certain issues while appearing to "do something" as it guarantees a continuing voter base.

 

The Labour party is often authoritarian in policy as oppose to libertarian, likewise the present Conservative party are more authoritarian than libertarian, supposedly the Greens are the most politically libertarian yet my experience of the young greens and skim reading their manifestos, they don't strike me as libertarians.

 

I think people need to understand the difference between being against a social construct and being against an individual. I would describe myself as somewhat anti immigration and I think private landlords have a negative effect on the housing market in some areas, this doesn't mean I think all immigrants and landlords are bad people.

[Guest]

I think people should have choice. 

 

Landlords all had the choice to become landlords and have the choice to stop being landlords.

 

Tenants don't always have the same choice.

 

Most of the people I know would prefer to own property than to be renting. There is no equity in renting, you pay a large chunk of your hard earned money to some baby boomer who was fortunate to be born at a time when the housing supply was less constricted and has amassed some wealth.

 

 

Well that was a jealous whinge wasn't it?

 

1. Do you mean that everyone has the choice to buy a house and risk letting it or that everyone can work hard and buy a house?

I agree with you if it's either of these two.

2. Tenants do have the choice to be tenants. They can choose where they live, they can also live with family or friends if they think they shouldn't be paying so much and they have family and friends. TBH I don't understand your complaint.

3.Seems this is the cause - you're jealous of people who worked hard, bought a house and let it. FYI my parents worked everyday of their lives on production lines, I've worked everyday of my life and many a lot longer than 10 hours a day, never claiming a penny of benefit. Houses cost more but lots of other things cost a lot less for a lot more - work hard and save your money - stop crying about living in "difficult times".

3. If you want a house, work, earn some money and buy one. 3bed house in Co.Durham costs £40K, Glamorgan £35K, Liverpool £40k, Stoke £50K. If you can't afford that then you haven't worked hard enough (either at school or at work).

[RobHawk]

Does it really matter FIF? You live in France FFS!

I know people trying to build careers in London, working hard like you advise, paying £1000 a month plus bills for a room in a shitty flat. Even on a reasonable £25-£30k a year wage, your not going to save very much with those rent prices are you?

If I had the cash I'd consider being a private landlord, but I don't think the suggested legislation is all that bad. Surely it's just best practise to ensure all private landlords play by the same rules. Given it's a pretty unregulated sector and a good little investment if you can afford it, surely this can benefit both landlords and tenants in the long run.

Regarding housing benefit being paid direct to landlords, it used to happen a lot but the current government put on end to it for some reason.

[Rincewind]

They have brought Universal credit in. It is now an individuals responsibility to pay their bills which is fine if they have the mental know how to budget or have a bank account for a DD. Before it was done for them and everyone was happy.

I still have my rent go direct to my HA. UC has not come into force as far as I know in Leicester. I asked about it and they do not even provide a DD alternative.

I understand people saying we should be responsible for our own budgeting but I know people who have said if there is money in their account they will spend it and wont think about it being needed. There should at least be a choice as to which way rent is made even landlords should have the choice. I bet they would prefer being paid direct rather than hoping the tenant has not boozed it away.

[ADK]

Well that was a jealous whinge wasn't it?

 

1. Do you mean that everyone has the choice to buy a house and risk letting it or that everyone can work hard and buy a house?

I agree with you if it's either of these two.

2. Tenants do have the choice to be tenants. They can choose where they live, they can also live with family or friends if they think they shouldn't be paying so much and they have family and friends. TBH I don't understand your complaint.

3.Seems this is the cause - you're jealous of people who worked hard, bought a house and let it. FYI my parents worked everyday of their lives on production lines, I've worked everyday of my life and many a lot longer than 10 hours a day, never claiming a penny of benefit. Houses cost more but lots of other things cost a lot less for a lot more - work hard and save your money - stop crying about living in "difficult times".

3. If you want a house, work, earn some money and buy one. 3bed house in Co.Durham costs £40K, Glamorgan £35K, Liverpool £40k, Stoke £50K. If you can't afford that then you haven't worked hard enough (either at school or at work).

 

 

 

I'm not sure where you are going with your points. Are you accusing me of being jealous of landlords? I'm not jealous of landlords. I don't want myself or others to be forced by circumstance into having to rent privately at extortionate prices. If you genuinely read my post and decided it was a "jealous whinge" then you are really not open minded enough to have a reasoned debate with.

 

You must know why those places listed have low house prices, the fact there is no work to be found there. A problem not under the control of buyers.

 

I'm not sure if you are genuinely ignorant or on the troll.

[Guest]

Does it really matter FIF? You live in France FFS!

I know people trying to build careers in London, working hard like you advise, paying £1000 a month plus bills for a room in a shitty flat. Even on a reasonable £25-£30k a year wage, your not going to save very much with those rent prices are you?

If I had the cash I'd consider being a private landlord, but I don't think the suggested legislation is all that bad. Surely it's just best practise to ensure all private landlords play by the same rules. Given it's a pretty unregulated sector and a good little investment if you can afford it, surely this can benefit both landlords and tenants in the long run.

Regarding housing benefit being paid direct to landlords, it used to happen a lot but the current government put on end to it for some reason.

 

People should try and build careers outside of London!

 

Houses can be purchased and rents are lower. As I said the government is London centric and has killed industry/business everywhere else. If they decentralised business then people would be better able to afford houses. £40k is absolutely nothing for a 3bed house is it?

 

You make it sound like the Landlord just happened to get the cash to buy the house. Most of them worked hard for it. That's what you have to do and then if you let your house you'd find it's not quite the unregulated sector nor easy earner you think it is. But I agree with you private rented accommodation is good for both landlord and tenant.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

And again DSS payments are not made directly to the landlord. They are made to the tenant who then is not punished for NOT paying this to the landlord.

 

More joined up thinking by councils and housing benefits would help everyone concerned.

I totally agree. DSS payments should be made directly to the landlord, and not the tenant, who very often uses it for other purposes. 

 

My older step daughter is a perfect example of this. She and her partner owe hundreds of pounds in rent, while spending the benefits on all sorts of electronic gadgets for themselves. The house is a pig sty, and has been damaged in places.

[Guest]

 

 

I'm not sure where you are going with your points. Are you accusing me of being jealous of landlords? I'm not jealous of landlords. I don't want myself or others to be forced by circumstance into having to rent privately at extortionate prices. If you genuinely read my post and decided it was a "jealous whinge" then you are really not open minded enough to have a reasoned debate with.

 

You must know why those places listed have low house prices, the fact there is no work to be found there. A problem not under the control of buyers.

 

I'm not sure if you are genuinely ignorant or on the troll.

 

 

It appeared that you were jealous of baby boomers - if you're not then it just came over that way. I don't know you at all so only working off what you write as you are with me.

 

It seems you are the one unable to read or trolling.

 

Nobody is entitled to own a house and no-one is entitled to have a job. You have to work, learn, train and work some more. There is nothing to stop you buying a house in Stoke and then finding a job there. There are jobs but maybe not the ones you want. Of course you could just buy a cheap house there and then let it at a very low rent if you are so blinded that you think private landlords are renting at extortionate prices. It seems looking at the market that Rent prices are lower than repayment prices in many cases. How that can be extortionate is beyond me.

 

I'm sure that you are an intelligent, reasonable person but your posts here come across as someone who is jealous of what others have worked for yet unwilling to put in the effort to get to where you want to be.

 

As you said mortgages are more difficult than a few years ago but so many other things are so much easier - you are whinging about the more difficult ones and ignoring the massive advantages you have over every generation that has ever preceeded you. Again you come over as feeling entitled. 

 

Those baby boomers lived through the 70's. the previous generation lived through WW2 and the very difficult times of rationing that continued long after, the generation before that lived through the great depression of the 30's and WW1. You've lived through relatively easy times with the wealthiest childhood ever known in Britain and you have new technologies that allow you to learn anything anywhere as well as work anywhere in the world. Yet you complain that you can't get a mortgage in London or some other expensive hot spot.

 

You should be complaining to your government (local and national) and getting them to do something about it but most of the UK population won't even vote, they'll complain about foreigners coming over here and taking their jobs (probably because they don't feel entitled and are willing to do whatever they need to do to get on the bottom rung of the ladder). Most of the Asains came to Leicester/UK with only the shirts on their backs in the 60's and they worked damn hard and within less than a generation put themselves into the decent position they are now.