Buyers 'priced out' of homes market as wages fail to keep up in Bradford

A young couple view properties through an estate agent's window

A young couple view properties through an estate agent's window

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

SERIOUS concerns over the affordability of housing in Bradford emerged today following the release of research which reveals a widening gap between property prices and earnings in the city.

The TUC's report shows that in 1997 the city's average house cost a fraction less than three times the average wage in the area.

But despite the recession dampening prices, the gap has grown wider with buyers now needing to spend 4.79 times the average annual wage to buy a typical home in the city.

Under the TUC's calculations homes are easily affordable if they cost less than three times average annual earnings.

Because the Bradford figure has shot substantially ahead of that threshold they say affordability will be a serious issue for many residents.

Warnings raised in the TUC survey have already been seen in Bradford's housing market. First time buyers have been hit by a 'Catch 22' of being unable save for a deposit while paying rent, said Richard Bairstow, partner in the city's O'Hearne and Partners estate agency.

"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said.

"We are struggling to get mortgages for first time buyers. Investors don't have a lot of problem getting finance. That has kept the market ticking over."

It was unlikely to improve for prospective buyers unless property price rises paused until wages could catch up, he added.

Bank of England guidelines are now that mortgages should be limited to 4.5 times annual earnings, meaning in average terms a gap already exists between incomes and property prices which buyers will have to bridge with cash deposits.

CHECK SOLD HOUSE PRICES IN YOUR AREA

Bradford Council is aware of the increasing problem of affordability of both ownership and rentals for properties in the city and has been working for some time to create more 'affordable homes' where rental costs and price increases can be controlled.

Gill Payne, director of policy and external affairs at the National Housing Federation, the body which represents housing associations, said: “This analysis shows how it’s not just London that is feeling the crippling effects of the housing crisis with costs spiralling well beyond the reach of local people.

“As our new research out today shows, eight in ten parents are worried about how rising house prices will affect the next generation and don’t believe that the mainstream political parties are effectively dealing with the issue of housing.

"With so many now locked out of home ownership and struggling with rents, we need action to be taken to end the housing crisis within a generation to ensure the situation doesn’t continue to worsen leaving our children to deal with the consequences.”

TUC regional secretary Bill Adams said: “Yorkshire has always had its blackspots in terms of housing affordability, but by and large houses and flats in most parts of the region were within reach of local people.

“Over the last 16 years, house price rises have outstripped peoples’ pay packets and left huge swathes of the region unaffordable.

“We need to build more homes to get house prices back under control. With interest rates low, now is the perfect time for an ambitious programme of home-building, which would also help tackle local unemployment problems."

He also called for a better deal to protect renters.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:55am Mon 1 Sep 14

micela22 says...

How about employers, expecially the large companies, paying realistic `living` wages to their employees? instead of paying the minimum to maximise their profits and having working people reliant on `benefits` to top their wages up - would improve living standards, make work more attractive & raise morale
How about employers, expecially the large companies, paying realistic `living` wages to their employees? instead of paying the minimum to maximise their profits and having working people reliant on `benefits` to top their wages up - would improve living standards, make work more attractive & raise morale micela22
  • Score: 24

8:21am Mon 1 Sep 14

llos25 says...

You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.
You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance. llos25
  • Score: 22

9:56am Mon 1 Sep 14

bachtothefuture says...

What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits.

In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take.

Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.
What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits. In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take. Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers. bachtothefuture
  • Score: 26

10:49am Mon 1 Sep 14

Albion. says...

If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder. Albion.
  • Score: -5

10:54am Mon 1 Sep 14

Joedavid says...

Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

10:57am Mon 1 Sep 14

pcmanners says...

The TUC should not seek to interfere with the Market. Both employers and house builders have a duty to maximise their profits. This is something our Conservative Government understands very well. Left to itself the market will find a solution to all shortages.
The TUC should not seek to interfere with the Market. Both employers and house builders have a duty to maximise their profits. This is something our Conservative Government understands very well. Left to itself the market will find a solution to all shortages. pcmanners
  • Score: 9

11:04am Mon 1 Sep 14

SurprisedByJoyce says...

Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage. SurprisedByJoyce
  • Score: 23

11:06am Mon 1 Sep 14

rosesrwhite says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits.

In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take.

Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.
Well said. Bradford Council continue to force through housing developments without any thought for how the communitic
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits. In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take. Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.[/p][/quote]Well said. Bradford Council continue to force through housing developments without any thought for how the communitic rosesrwhite
  • Score: 15

11:09am Mon 1 Sep 14

rosesrwhite says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits.

In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take.

Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.
Well said. Absolutely agree with this. Bradford Council have no thought for communities, especially the ones who don't vote Labour.
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits. In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take. Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.[/p][/quote]Well said. Absolutely agree with this. Bradford Council have no thought for communities, especially the ones who don't vote Labour. rosesrwhite
  • Score: 19

11:13am Mon 1 Sep 14

piltdownman says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits.

In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take.

Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.
For a so-called socialist Cllr Hinchcliffe is a disgrace. As we have seen at Buck Lane and as recently as last week at Thackley she and her officials are prepared to do anything to manipulate the democratic process so that Council Tax and Business Rates are maximised.

As far as 'affordable' housing is concerned Cllr Hinchliffe goes in for the most perfunctory of tokenistic gestures. If she really cared about her constituency, the working class, she would be building Council houses as fast as possible. She really does need to step down.
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits. In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take. Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.[/p][/quote]For a so-called socialist Cllr Hinchcliffe is a disgrace. As we have seen at Buck Lane and as recently as last week at Thackley she and her officials are prepared to do anything to manipulate the democratic process so that Council Tax and Business Rates are maximised. As far as 'affordable' housing is concerned Cllr Hinchliffe goes in for the most perfunctory of tokenistic gestures. If she really cared about her constituency, the working class, she would be building Council houses as fast as possible. She really does need to step down. piltdownman
  • Score: 16

11:24am Mon 1 Sep 14

baildongreen says...

Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high.

To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.
Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high. To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary. baildongreen
  • Score: 27

11:29am Mon 1 Sep 14

FinlandStation says...

baildongreen wrote:
Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high.

To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.
You mean like the Vikings?
[quote][p][bold]baildongreen[/bold] wrote: Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high. To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.[/p][/quote]You mean like the Vikings? FinlandStation
  • Score: 8

11:44am Mon 1 Sep 14

Grumpygirl says...

llos25 wrote:
You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.
The point about wages is a good one.

Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective.

This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them.
[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.[/p][/quote]The point about wages is a good one. Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective. This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 8

11:45am Mon 1 Sep 14

Albion. says...

SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
[quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses. Albion.
  • Score: 13

11:57am Mon 1 Sep 14

bluebluerobin says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
llos25 wrote:
You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.
The point about wages is a good one.

Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective.

This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them.
Why do you keep blaming the Conservatives for everything?

If there are any degenerates manipulating democracy around here, then Cllr. Hinchcliffe and her friends on the ruling Labour Group certainly qualify. And unlike Mrs. Thatcher who was acting from deeply held convictions, Cllr. Hinchcliffe has betrayed her socialist principles and aids greedy developers build unaffordable homes simply because she wants to maximise City Hall revenue. This is a simpler and lazier course of action than doing her job and rooting out waste, inefficiency and pet projects.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.[/p][/quote]The point about wages is a good one. Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective. This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them.[/p][/quote]Why do you keep blaming the Conservatives for everything? If there are any degenerates manipulating democracy around here, then Cllr. Hinchcliffe and her friends on the ruling Labour Group certainly qualify. And unlike Mrs. Thatcher who was acting from deeply held convictions, Cllr. Hinchcliffe has betrayed her socialist principles and aids greedy developers build unaffordable homes simply because she wants to maximise City Hall revenue. This is a simpler and lazier course of action than doing her job and rooting out waste, inefficiency and pet projects. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 21

12:11pm Mon 1 Sep 14

piltdownman says...

Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Well said Albion. Buying houses and renting them out is certainly easier that having to go around all the fixed odds betting machines in the local bookies.

Unaffordable housing is just another way the Community drags this city down.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Well said Albion. Buying houses and renting them out is certainly easier that having to go around all the fixed odds betting machines in the local bookies. Unaffordable housing is just another way the Community drags this city down. piltdownman
  • Score: 14

12:43pm Mon 1 Sep 14

sorrow&anger says...

The shortage of affordable and social housing in Bradford is nothing new. City Hall has been producing reports highlighting this issue for years and, correctly, noting that without a suitable range of housing the city will struggle to regenerate.

However, as usual, apart from writing the reports they have done nothing about it. In particular the high priestess of regeneration, Councillor Hinchcliffe seems to spend her time manipulating the system to promote greenfield developments of up-market houses. Why would any company wish to relocate to her “Producer City of Bradford” if there is nowhere decent and affordable to house its workers?

Surely it is about time City Hall filled the vacant Director of Regeneration post with somebody with vision who knows what they are doing and can control meddling amateurs like Councillor Hinchcliffe before she does any more serious damage.
The shortage of affordable and social housing in Bradford is nothing new. City Hall has been producing reports highlighting this issue for years and, correctly, noting that without a suitable range of housing the city will struggle to regenerate. However, as usual, apart from writing the reports they have done nothing about it. In particular the high priestess of regeneration, Councillor Hinchcliffe seems to spend her time manipulating the system to promote greenfield developments of up-market houses. Why would any company wish to relocate to her “Producer City of Bradford” if there is nowhere decent and affordable to house its workers? Surely it is about time City Hall filled the vacant Director of Regeneration post with somebody with vision who knows what they are doing and can control meddling amateurs like Councillor Hinchcliffe before she does any more serious damage. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 9

12:53pm Mon 1 Sep 14

sunnysidedown says...

sorrow&anger wrote:
The shortage of affordable and social housing in Bradford is nothing new. City Hall has been producing reports highlighting this issue for years and, correctly, noting that without a suitable range of housing the city will struggle to regenerate.

However, as usual, apart from writing the reports they have done nothing about it. In particular the high priestess of regeneration, Councillor Hinchcliffe seems to spend her time manipulating the system to promote greenfield developments of up-market houses. Why would any company wish to relocate to her “Producer City of Bradford” if there is nowhere decent and affordable to house its workers?

Surely it is about time City Hall filled the vacant Director of Regeneration post with somebody with vision who knows what they are doing and can control meddling amateurs like Councillor Hinchcliffe before she does any more serious damage.
Well said. As Thackley and Buck Lane clearly demonstrate Councillor Hinchcliffe and her Planning Department don’t have the best interests of Bradford at heart. They ignore democracy and use the system to make sure developers get their own way and reward City Hall with S106 windfalls and lots of nice Council Tax revenue. Heaven knows what they spend it on.

Coun Hinchcliffe should have the Regeneration portfolio taken from her. She can then concentrate all her talents on tourism. Since nobody wants to visit Bradford anyway she can’t really inflict any more damage than she has already.
[quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: The shortage of affordable and social housing in Bradford is nothing new. City Hall has been producing reports highlighting this issue for years and, correctly, noting that without a suitable range of housing the city will struggle to regenerate. However, as usual, apart from writing the reports they have done nothing about it. In particular the high priestess of regeneration, Councillor Hinchcliffe seems to spend her time manipulating the system to promote greenfield developments of up-market houses. Why would any company wish to relocate to her “Producer City of Bradford” if there is nowhere decent and affordable to house its workers? Surely it is about time City Hall filled the vacant Director of Regeneration post with somebody with vision who knows what they are doing and can control meddling amateurs like Councillor Hinchcliffe before she does any more serious damage.[/p][/quote]Well said. As Thackley and Buck Lane clearly demonstrate Councillor Hinchcliffe and her Planning Department don’t have the best interests of Bradford at heart. They ignore democracy and use the system to make sure developers get their own way and reward City Hall with S106 windfalls and lots of nice Council Tax revenue. Heaven knows what they spend it on. Coun Hinchcliffe should have the Regeneration portfolio taken from her. She can then concentrate all her talents on tourism. Since nobody wants to visit Bradford anyway she can’t really inflict any more damage than she has already. sunnysidedown
  • Score: 6

1:05pm Mon 1 Sep 14

BierleyBoy says...

House prices in Bradford are on a constant downward trend. The gap with wages is alleviated by this. Average prices are way below regional & national averages.

There are plenty of properties in the 100k to 120k price band available, new build & existing.

Nothing in this TUC story.
House prices in Bradford are on a constant downward trend. The gap with wages is alleviated by this. Average prices are way below regional & national averages. There are plenty of properties in the 100k to 120k price band available, new build & existing. Nothing in this TUC story. BierleyBoy
  • Score: 4

1:09pm Mon 1 Sep 14

justjustice says...

Just remember the Minimum Wage IS NOT a Living Wage!
Just remember the Minimum Wage IS NOT a Living Wage! justjustice
  • Score: 4

1:39pm Mon 1 Sep 14

northern pig says...

The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term.
The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term. northern pig
  • Score: 6

2:29pm Mon 1 Sep 14

fabricator666 says...

BierleyBoy wrote:
House prices in Bradford are on a constant downward trend. The gap with wages is alleviated by this. Average prices are way below regional & national averages.

There are plenty of properties in the 100k to 120k price band available, new build & existing.

Nothing in this TUC story.
Well said. There are plenty of first time buyers properties in Bradford for less than £60k. I think the article is mainly focussing on new builds. The pressure on prices is still downwards as most of the population are trying to escape, so are prepared to bite the bullet so to speak. Labour politicians blame everything on somebody else, even when they've had 13 years to put their ideas into action like rubbing our noses in diversity or bankrupting the country. They did a fine job of that didn't they?
[quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: House prices in Bradford are on a constant downward trend. The gap with wages is alleviated by this. Average prices are way below regional & national averages. There are plenty of properties in the 100k to 120k price band available, new build & existing. Nothing in this TUC story.[/p][/quote]Well said. There are plenty of first time buyers properties in Bradford for less than £60k. I think the article is mainly focussing on new builds. The pressure on prices is still downwards as most of the population are trying to escape, so are prepared to bite the bullet so to speak. Labour politicians blame everything on somebody else, even when they've had 13 years to put their ideas into action like rubbing our noses in diversity or bankrupting the country. They did a fine job of that didn't they? fabricator666
  • Score: 9

2:42pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Freddy Elliot says...

The high level of immigrants we have in Bradford can't help with the low wages either. A delivery driver came to our premises yesterday. He is on minimum wage. He was a bricklayer by trade but says Polish brickies outpriced him as he cannot afford to work for £40 a day.
The high level of immigrants we have in Bradford can't help with the low wages either. A delivery driver came to our premises yesterday. He is on minimum wage. He was a bricklayer by trade but says Polish brickies outpriced him as he cannot afford to work for £40 a day. Freddy Elliot
  • Score: 16

3:04pm Mon 1 Sep 14

izzystillbreathing says...

northern pig wrote:
The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term.
Quite so. And that is the reason that Bradford won’t, can’t, regenerate easily. You can forget City Hall’s Producer City nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.

The only companies that will relocate to Bradford are those looking for cheap unskilled labour or existing, more or less local ones, bringing their skilled employees with them. The Council’s attempt to create a science park at Buck Lane full of hi-tech start-ups failed for precisely this reason. City Hall and Councillor Hinchcliffe should have known better, and not squandered a greenfield on a venture that was bound to fail. However the Council never subjects its pet projects to critical review.
[quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term.[/p][/quote]Quite so. And that is the reason that Bradford won’t, can’t, regenerate easily. You can forget City Hall’s Producer City nonsense. It isn’t going to happen. The only companies that will relocate to Bradford are those looking for cheap unskilled labour or existing, more or less local ones, bringing their skilled employees with them. The Council’s attempt to create a science park at Buck Lane full of hi-tech start-ups failed for precisely this reason. City Hall and Councillor Hinchcliffe should have known better, and not squandered a greenfield on a venture that was bound to fail. However the Council never subjects its pet projects to critical review. izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 9

3:18pm Mon 1 Sep 14

ChanningCross says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits.

In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take.

Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.
You are not being fair to Councillor Hinchcliffe.

The changes the Tory Government made to the planning laws mean that developers will always get their way. If Councillor Hinchcliffe opposes the developers they would simply appeal to the Government Planning Inspectors and win. The Council will then have to pay all the legal costs from our taxes. In the end it is simpler and cheaper for Councillor Hinchcliffe and her planning department to support the developers and give them everything they want. The end result will be the same whatever they do.

The situation isn’t fair, but the Council are doing their very best in an impossible situation created by the Government.
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: What do you expect when the Council constantly gives in to greedy developers who only want to build posh houses on our greenfields to maximise their profits. In turn City Hall policy is to turn Bradford's green periphery into a dormitory for the well-heeled in Leeds because this maximises the Council Tax take. Anybody needing affordable housing is caught between a brick and a hard place. The fault lies with Cllrs. Hinchcliffe and Slater who are cynically manipulating the housing shortage to provide the cash flow to pay the bloated salaries of the chief officers.[/p][/quote]You are not being fair to Councillor Hinchcliffe. The changes the Tory Government made to the planning laws mean that developers will always get their way. If Councillor Hinchcliffe opposes the developers they would simply appeal to the Government Planning Inspectors and win. The Council will then have to pay all the legal costs from our taxes. In the end it is simpler and cheaper for Councillor Hinchcliffe and her planning department to support the developers and give them everything they want. The end result will be the same whatever they do. The situation isn’t fair, but the Council are doing their very best in an impossible situation created by the Government. ChanningCross
  • Score: -6

3:44pm Mon 1 Sep 14

llos25 says...

A little bit simplistic the council and can do a lot if they were bothered but I suspect many brown envelopes are passed for an easy passage.
A little bit simplistic the council and can do a lot if they were bothered but I suspect many brown envelopes are passed for an easy passage. llos25
  • Score: 2

3:55pm Mon 1 Sep 14

bd12red says...

bluebluerobin wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
llos25 wrote:
You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.
The point about wages is a good one.

Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective.

This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them.
Why do you keep blaming the Conservatives for everything?

If there are any degenerates manipulating democracy around here, then Cllr. Hinchcliffe and her friends on the ruling Labour Group certainly qualify. And unlike Mrs. Thatcher who was acting from deeply held convictions, Cllr. Hinchcliffe has betrayed her socialist principles and aids greedy developers build unaffordable homes simply because she wants to maximise City Hall revenue. This is a simpler and lazier course of action than doing her job and rooting out waste, inefficiency and pet projects.
Surprised she hasn't blamed the conservatives for the ebola virus yet, she'll probably get round to it eventually.
[quote][p][bold]bluebluerobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: You do not thing employers are going to give decent wages when they can get way with paying a pittance.[/p][/quote]The point about wages is a good one. Historically Council Housing acted as an effective subsidy to industry by keeping the pressure on wages down and thereby helping the country by making our exports more effective. This virtuous circle was broken by the degenerate Thatcher, not because she decided to sell Council Houses, but because she decided to go in for Tory social engineering by not allowing local government to use the proceeds to build more houses. Poor people people had to be put at the mercy of the market, it was, apparently, good for them. Instead, the receipts went on tax breaks for the rich and dressing up the balance sheets of nationalised industries so she could make her rich friends richer by privatising them.[/p][/quote]Why do you keep blaming the Conservatives for everything? If there are any degenerates manipulating democracy around here, then Cllr. Hinchcliffe and her friends on the ruling Labour Group certainly qualify. And unlike Mrs. Thatcher who was acting from deeply held convictions, Cllr. Hinchcliffe has betrayed her socialist principles and aids greedy developers build unaffordable homes simply because she wants to maximise City Hall revenue. This is a simpler and lazier course of action than doing her job and rooting out waste, inefficiency and pet projects.[/p][/quote]Surprised she hasn't blamed the conservatives for the ebola virus yet, she'll probably get round to it eventually. bd12red
  • Score: 11

4:53pm Mon 1 Sep 14

otleygent says...

pcmanners wrote:
The TUC should not seek to interfere with the Market. Both employers and house builders have a duty to maximise their profits. This is something our Conservative Government understands very well. Left to itself the market will find a solution to all shortages.
Are you for real?
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: The TUC should not seek to interfere with the Market. Both employers and house builders have a duty to maximise their profits. This is something our Conservative Government understands very well. Left to itself the market will find a solution to all shortages.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? otleygent
  • Score: 7

5:05pm Mon 1 Sep 14

linebacker2 says...

Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub? linebacker2
  • Score: -5

5:09pm Mon 1 Sep 14

linebacker2 says...

northern pig wrote:
The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term.
But then when BT and the Uni announced the new research place in Bradford, the moaners were saying the city needs low skilled jobs!
[quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: The root cause of housing being affordable to a large proportion of the Bradford residents, was highlighted in the first two posts on this forum. Bradford is in the main, a low skilled,low wage economy .It therefore does not attract the kind of employers who pay a decent salary. It's not going to get any better until the workforce embrace further education and training, to give them the skills to entice better employers to this city. It is the only way to solve the housing problem in the long term.[/p][/quote]But then when BT and the Uni announced the new research place in Bradford, the moaners were saying the city needs low skilled jobs! linebacker2
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Albion. says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?[/p][/quote]I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go. Albion.
  • Score: 6

7:39pm Mon 1 Sep 14

wrongsideofthetracks says...

Scrap housing benefit and pull the rug from under the greedy grasping landlords.

They will soon offload their properties when they cannot get tenants and this will result in a flood of cheap properties coming onto the market - unfortunately as it is Bradford the area will not be too salubrious.

Posters moaning about the Tories soon seem to have forgotten that Poo Labour were in power for 13 years without amending any of the previous governments policies.

The Labour Party was founded to improve the conditions of working people. All the last Labour government did was to improve the lot of the feckless and workshy.
Scrap housing benefit and pull the rug from under the greedy grasping landlords. They will soon offload their properties when they cannot get tenants and this will result in a flood of cheap properties coming onto the market - unfortunately as it is Bradford the area will not be too salubrious. Posters moaning about the Tories soon seem to have forgotten that Poo Labour were in power for 13 years without amending any of the previous governments policies. The Labour Party was founded to improve the conditions of working people. All the last Labour government did was to improve the lot of the feckless and workshy. wrongsideofthetracks
  • Score: 10

8:24pm Mon 1 Sep 14

wrongsideofthetracks says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
for investor read money launderer.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?[/p][/quote]for investor read money launderer. wrongsideofthetracks
  • Score: 6

8:43pm Mon 1 Sep 14

linebacker2 says...

wrongsideofthetracks wrote:
Scrap housing benefit and pull the rug from under the greedy grasping landlords.

They will soon offload their properties when they cannot get tenants and this will result in a flood of cheap properties coming onto the market - unfortunately as it is Bradford the area will not be too salubrious.

Posters moaning about the Tories soon seem to have forgotten that Poo Labour were in power for 13 years without amending any of the previous governments policies.

The Labour Party was founded to improve the conditions of working people. All the last Labour government did was to improve the lot of the feckless and workshy.
So how come most private landlords (even greedy grasping ones) won't touch HB tenants with a barge pole?
[quote][p][bold]wrongsideofthetracks[/bold] wrote: Scrap housing benefit and pull the rug from under the greedy grasping landlords. They will soon offload their properties when they cannot get tenants and this will result in a flood of cheap properties coming onto the market - unfortunately as it is Bradford the area will not be too salubrious. Posters moaning about the Tories soon seem to have forgotten that Poo Labour were in power for 13 years without amending any of the previous governments policies. The Labour Party was founded to improve the conditions of working people. All the last Labour government did was to improve the lot of the feckless and workshy.[/p][/quote]So how come most private landlords (even greedy grasping ones) won't touch HB tenants with a barge pole? linebacker2
  • Score: 1

8:44pm Mon 1 Sep 14

linebacker2 says...

Albion. wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.
Ever tried buying a house with cash?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?[/p][/quote]I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.[/p][/quote]Ever tried buying a house with cash? linebacker2
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Albion. says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.
Ever tried buying a house with cash?
They use bank accounts. A man once asked me to buy shares in my name but using his money, it was a large amount of money and I of course declined. I believe that the shares would have been sold and the money moved into something else (all for a fee of course).
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?[/p][/quote]I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.[/p][/quote]Ever tried buying a house with cash?[/p][/quote]They use bank accounts. A man once asked me to buy shares in my name but using his money, it was a large amount of money and I of course declined. I believe that the shares would have been sold and the money moved into something else (all for a fee of course). Albion.
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Mon 1 Sep 14

brad1959 says...

micela22 wrote:
How about employers, expecially the large companies, paying realistic `living` wages to their employees? instead of paying the minimum to maximise their profits and having working people reliant on `benefits` to top their wages up - would improve living standards, make work more attractive & raise morale
So Bradford Council "is aware of the increasing problem of affordability" And so it should be as an employer who once again is not giving its employees a pay rise. Their employees have had only 1 pay rise of 1% in the last 4 years. Bet them at the top still got their bonuses though.
[quote][p][bold]micela22[/bold] wrote: How about employers, expecially the large companies, paying realistic `living` wages to their employees? instead of paying the minimum to maximise their profits and having working people reliant on `benefits` to top their wages up - would improve living standards, make work more attractive & raise morale[/p][/quote]So Bradford Council "is aware of the increasing problem of affordability" And so it should be as an employer who once again is not giving its employees a pay rise. Their employees have had only 1 pay rise of 1% in the last 4 years. Bet them at the top still got their bonuses though. brad1959
  • Score: -1

10:40pm Mon 1 Sep 14

linebacker2 says...

Albion. wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
SurprisedByJoyce wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
Albion. wrote:
If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.
Good point.
This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.
"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said."

The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.
Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?
I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.
Ever tried buying a house with cash?
They use bank accounts. A man once asked me to buy shares in my name but using his money, it was a large amount of money and I of course declined. I believe that the shares would have been sold and the money moved into something else (all for a fee of course).
that sounds more like asset protection than money laundering ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SurprisedByJoyce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: If they couldn't see them they wouldn't build them, in many cases it frees up cheaper houses as people move up the ladder.[/p][/quote]Good point.[/p][/quote]This is just an excuse to avoid facing the issue. If the houses that are being freed up were affordable then we wouldn't be in this crisis. The point being made is that basically all housing has become unaffordable to people trying to live on a typical working man's wage.[/p][/quote]"Almost everything we used to sell to first time buyers over five or six years has been sold to investors," he said." The money launderers are responsible for reducing the availability of affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Any proof of that or just something you heard from a bloke in a pub?[/p][/quote]I don't go in pubs and obviously I can't supply proof of illegal activities but the report does mention that houses are being bought up by speculators at a time when buy to let hasn't been that popular a business. If you aren't that bothered about a good return on your investment and just need to shift cash, that is one way to go.[/p][/quote]Ever tried buying a house with cash?[/p][/quote]They use bank accounts. A man once asked me to buy shares in my name but using his money, it was a large amount of money and I of course declined. I believe that the shares would have been sold and the money moved into something else (all for a fee of course).[/p][/quote]that sounds more like asset protection than money laundering ;-) linebacker2
  • Score: 1

11:31pm Mon 1 Sep 14

basil fawlty says...

Everybody knows there is a massive national housing shortage so its hardly surprising that house price rises have outstripped wage rises in Bradford and everywhere else. The article rightly highlights that the losers are the poorest and Bradford has more than its share of poor and simply needs to increase its new build percentage of affordable housing.
Everybody knows there is a massive national housing shortage so its hardly surprising that house price rises have outstripped wage rises in Bradford and everywhere else. The article rightly highlights that the losers are the poorest and Bradford has more than its share of poor and simply needs to increase its new build percentage of affordable housing. basil fawlty
  • Score: -1

7:03am Tue 2 Sep 14

theoutsider says...

Posterd here are right that incomes are too low in this area. Mix of low skills, education and employers exploitation by employers! and you can include the Local Authority and some major retail businesses in this toxic mix!!!.
Add in the lousy banking industry that brought an economy to its knees! who now dont want to lend and you can see the problem in places like Bradford. There is property to buy though; for the past two years I have had a cottage in a tranquil village location overlooking a heritage site for sale - £80k! a steal for a ftbuyer yet no takers that would require maybe a 85% mtge so whats that on multiplier say 16k. Yet I bet thats way beyond the reach of most young people/ftbuyers in the area!. But for sure incomes need to go up across the board. I would say 10% . The money is there in most businesses and in government dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
Posterd here are right that incomes are too low in this area. Mix of low skills, education and employers exploitation by employers! and you can include the Local Authority and some major retail businesses in this toxic mix!!!. Add in the lousy banking industry that brought an economy to its knees! who now dont want to lend and you can see the problem in places like Bradford. There is property to buy though; for the past two years I have had a cottage in a tranquil village location overlooking a heritage site for sale - £80k! a steal for a ftbuyer yet no takers that would require maybe a 85% mtge so whats that on multiplier say 16k. Yet I bet thats way beyond the reach of most young people/ftbuyers in the area!. But for sure incomes need to go up across the board. I would say 10% . The money is there in most businesses and in government dont let anyone tell you otherwise. theoutsider
  • Score: -2

8:07am Tue 2 Sep 14

llos25 says...

Just about all houses in certain parts of the city when sold are bought by a by to let firm these could be legitimate firms or not .When I worked for the council whole swathes of houses were sold by the council to certain parties at knock down prices then they received grants for these houses one assumes only to pocket the money as no work seemed be done.
You have a problem in Bradford as white people want to move out of the city and they are now having to go further,people on low incomes cannot buy or rent a property,an increase in birthrate and immigration plus a falling educational standard.You will never combat all these problems in a month of sundays, a visit to Pakistan shows the future of Bradford.
Just about all houses in certain parts of the city when sold are bought by a by to let firm these could be legitimate firms or not .When I worked for the council whole swathes of houses were sold by the council to certain parties at knock down prices then they received grants for these houses one assumes only to pocket the money as no work seemed be done. You have a problem in Bradford as white people want to move out of the city and they are now having to go further,people on low incomes cannot buy or rent a property,an increase in birthrate and immigration plus a falling educational standard.You will never combat all these problems in a month of sundays, a visit to Pakistan shows the future of Bradford. llos25
  • Score: 6

8:39am Tue 2 Sep 14

clayton_lad says...

This doesn't even ring true to me. House prices in Bradford are very very low compared with most areas of the country.

I had to rent my old house out when I moved as there was no interest even at a knock-down rate excepting stupid offers from some parts of the community.

However, the rental fees are far higher than I would get interest on cash from the sale.

It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages
This doesn't even ring true to me. House prices in Bradford are very very low compared with most areas of the country. I had to rent my old house out when I moved as there was no interest even at a knock-down rate excepting stupid offers from some parts of the community. However, the rental fees are far higher than I would get interest on cash from the sale. It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages clayton_lad
  • Score: 3

9:56am Tue 2 Sep 14

llos25 says...

It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages.

You live in a dream world where everybody has a minimum of 1k a week and chooses not save up fnor a house the reality is most people do not earn enough to save for the deposit never mind run the place if they do .I sold a house at the asking price within a few days this year and this was on the edge of a so called sink estate so your house is either in the wrong area or you are asking to much for it.
It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages. You live in a dream world where everybody has a minimum of 1k a week and chooses not save up fnor a house the reality is most people do not earn enough to save for the deposit never mind run the place if they do .I sold a house at the asking price within a few days this year and this was on the edge of a so called sink estate so your house is either in the wrong area or you are asking to much for it. llos25
  • Score: 4

11:58am Tue 2 Sep 14

Out of site says...

baildongreen wrote:
Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high.

To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.
Go on then what's the solution?
[quote][p][bold]baildongreen[/bold] wrote: Why is the lack of affordable housing always presented as a supply side issue? It isn't. House prices have gone up because there aren't enough of them. There aren't enough of them because immigration and the subsequent immigrant birth rate are both sky high. To me the solution is obvious. Especially since here in Bradford a lot of these immigrants are anti-British with dubious legal, religious, and social mores that they want to force on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.[/p][/quote]Go on then what's the solution? Out of site
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Tue 2 Sep 14

fabricator666 says...

llos25 wrote:
It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages.

You live in a dream world where everybody has a minimum of 1k a week and chooses not save up fnor a house the reality is most people do not earn enough to save for the deposit never mind run the place if they do .I sold a house at the asking price within a few days this year and this was on the edge of a so called sink estate so your house is either in the wrong area or you are asking to much for it.
****
[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: It's not a matter of income to my mind it is the failure of today's youth to be bothered to save for a deposit coupled with the end of 100% mortgages. You live in a dream world where everybody has a minimum of 1k a week and chooses not save up fnor a house the reality is most people do not earn enough to save for the deposit never mind run the place if they do .I sold a house at the asking price within a few days this year and this was on the edge of a so called sink estate so your house is either in the wrong area or you are asking to much for it.[/p][/quote]**** fabricator666
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree