My closest friends will know that I am an impatient man. Once I have decided to do something, then implementation needs to be swift. No hanging about. What's the point of waiting, or doing something slowly?
So the frustrating, longwinded, and excruciating process of selling and buying property in this country appears to have been set up just to test me. And yes, through this summer I have been truly tested.
Selling a property listed on HS2's "Schedule A" was not a great start to the year. Although there was only the slimmest chance of a compulsory purchase once the works to be undertaken were properly investigated, that scared off a number of potential buyers.
Having an official church with a disputed planning permission on the ground floor of my building also put off some others, but eventually my friends at Foxtons found a commercial buyer who could see the benefits of buying a flat with an extended lease in a prime location in Kilburn.
On the buying side, our preferred house in Harrow appeared to have slipped through our fingers. We were compromising and ready to buy a second choice, but a stroke of luck and another resourceful estate agent from the Foxtons' family contacted me mid-morning two months ago to say that our preferred property was back on the market, and was I still interested? Within three hours my fresh bid was accepted and it was taken off the market.
Progress at last?
Well not immediately, because the Bank of England decided to bring in tougher procedures for mortgage providers. I had to reveal my gym membership, travel spending and outside interests (yes supporting Coventry City on my days off, but I think they took pity on that), and my accountant had to confirm my earnings from my business.
Meanwhile my mortgage provider had its own rules and would not accept my wife's earnings as part of the household income because "she has not lived in the UK for three years" even though she has indefinite leave to remain. Another case of institutional racism, but I won't reveal which provider it is because they eventually offered me a mortgage, and the deal is not yet complete.
Then we find that Camden Council has long delays on searches. In steps a councillor of my acquaintance and we reduced the expected delay from 7 weeks to 18 working days...
Then it transpires that the solicitor instructed by the vendor of the house I am buying has taken several weeks to issue a draft contract.
The latest conversation with my solicitor suggests I will not likely be moving before the end of the school holidays, which is annoying to say the least.
Can we do things differently in this country? Yes we can and should.
Although I find Kirsty Allsop's TV programmes immensely interesting, I think her campaign to stop the Government introducing a compulsory vendor's pack to quicken the conveyancing process was misguided. So much of the paperwork could be done in advance of a sale and could make sure the time between the acceptance of a bid and moving day could be foreshortened to about 2 weeks.
Unfortunately other issues will dominate the manifestos of the parties next year and the consequential legislative programme in the next parliament. So I doubt if any significant progress will be made on this issue. Which is why I have declared that the next house will be our home for at least 10 years. By then the anger and frustration of selling and buying should have subsided a bit....
Me at Work!
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Thursday, 17 July 2014
Not so much scorching but melting.
My current office in Wembley is very hot today. Even with the fan on, my desktop thermometer says it's 29 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately my office is situated in a secondary school and the dress code is such that I must wear long trousers to work rather than shorts, which would be my more preferred attire on days like these. My ambition to return to working from home is now a probability for later in the summer, but not until heat waves are likely to be a happy memory for most of us. So I will continue to melt in front of my keyboard.
As a natural Liberal I prefer to exercise choice on all aspects of my life which is partly why I describe myself on my Twitter page as a spirited contrarian. I am happy to be the odd one out, to take a minority view, to wear clothes which are either out of fashion or never were in fashion in the first place. Nearly all my interests are what could be described as minority ones.
As a paid up Liberal Democrat member and former councillor, I continue to be a Coventry City supporter, and enjoy regular visits to the fringe and pub theatres of London. I am married to a young Ghanaian woman and enjoy family weekends on the Isle of Wight. Each of the above characteristics is not on its own totally bizarre, but as a combination I think they make me a pretty unique individual.
So it was was with some incredulity that I opened the door to a plumber on Monday morning. I had a problem with my toilet cistern that needed fixing and I needed an expert to fix it. As he came in the door he asked, "aren't you a councillor?". "Yes, I used to be" I said. Whereupon he started a long conversation, while sorting out my cistern, on his current thoughts about the political situation. Remarkably this was not anywhere close to the archetypal taxi-driver diatribe about immigration, but a reasoned acknowledgement that the Lib Dems had stopped the Tories doing some pretty unpleasant things in government.
As I warmed to my companion I realised that his accent was familiar. This man was from Coventry! I introduced him to the delights of the Coventry City London Supporters Club, and he promised he would see me at the MK Dons away game.
As I was saying, I think I am a unique individual, but occasionally I come across someone who thinks on my wavelength and enjoys similar minority interests. So being a Coventry born Liberal Democrat fringe theatre goer with a Ghanaian wife is not such a lonely state to be in after all.
But I still wish I could wear some shorts in my office today. Perhaps I should start breaking some rules tomorrow?
As a natural Liberal I prefer to exercise choice on all aspects of my life which is partly why I describe myself on my Twitter page as a spirited contrarian. I am happy to be the odd one out, to take a minority view, to wear clothes which are either out of fashion or never were in fashion in the first place. Nearly all my interests are what could be described as minority ones.
As a paid up Liberal Democrat member and former councillor, I continue to be a Coventry City supporter, and enjoy regular visits to the fringe and pub theatres of London. I am married to a young Ghanaian woman and enjoy family weekends on the Isle of Wight. Each of the above characteristics is not on its own totally bizarre, but as a combination I think they make me a pretty unique individual.
So it was was with some incredulity that I opened the door to a plumber on Monday morning. I had a problem with my toilet cistern that needed fixing and I needed an expert to fix it. As he came in the door he asked, "aren't you a councillor?". "Yes, I used to be" I said. Whereupon he started a long conversation, while sorting out my cistern, on his current thoughts about the political situation. Remarkably this was not anywhere close to the archetypal taxi-driver diatribe about immigration, but a reasoned acknowledgement that the Lib Dems had stopped the Tories doing some pretty unpleasant things in government.
As I warmed to my companion I realised that his accent was familiar. This man was from Coventry! I introduced him to the delights of the Coventry City London Supporters Club, and he promised he would see me at the MK Dons away game.
As I was saying, I think I am a unique individual, but occasionally I come across someone who thinks on my wavelength and enjoys similar minority interests. So being a Coventry born Liberal Democrat fringe theatre goer with a Ghanaian wife is not such a lonely state to be in after all.
But I still wish I could wear some shorts in my office today. Perhaps I should start breaking some rules tomorrow?
Monday, 23 June 2014
Friday, 16 May 2014
Labour's Shame
This is the letter that was printed in a prime position in the Ham & High recently but was turned down for publication by the CNJ.
Dear Ham & High
Camden's Labour councillors have regularly blamed the Coalition Government for any shortfall in the Council's performance. "The Government cuts are to blame" is the regular mantra your readers have learnt to expect.
But the true nature of the Council's finances was revealed in a written answer to my question to the Cabinet Member for Finance at the last Council meeting before the elections.
In the last four years the Council has underspent its set budgets every year. The total underspend over that time is £19.2 millions. Most of that money was transferred into "earmarked reserves" but mysteriously most of these reserves have simply grown over time and have not been spent.
During that same time Camden has closed libraries, cut spending on street sweeping and refuse collections, and cut the grants to the voluntary sector groups that do so much to maintain the social fabric of our borough.
In total the Council is sitting on reserves and balances that have now reached over £100 millions. Some of this is rightly set aside for capital programme schemes like investment in our schools.
But most of the money is not saved for such items. For example there is enough cash to restore spending on the street sweeping to its former levels, (a source of regular complaints in West Hampstead), and we could better fund voluntary sector groups, plus a lot more besides.
So the next time you hear Labour's excuse - "it's the Government's fault" - don't you believe them! As my colleague Cllr Matt Sanders tweeted at the Council meeting - "Cllr John Bryant uncovers a £19m underspend. Labour slash services and blame government, while hoarding taxpayers money."
That really does say it all.
Cllr John Bryant
West Hampstead ward
LB Camden
Dear Ham & High
Camden's Labour councillors have regularly blamed the Coalition Government for any shortfall in the Council's performance. "The Government cuts are to blame" is the regular mantra your readers have learnt to expect.
But the true nature of the Council's finances was revealed in a written answer to my question to the Cabinet Member for Finance at the last Council meeting before the elections.
In the last four years the Council has underspent its set budgets every year. The total underspend over that time is £19.2 millions. Most of that money was transferred into "earmarked reserves" but mysteriously most of these reserves have simply grown over time and have not been spent.
During that same time Camden has closed libraries, cut spending on street sweeping and refuse collections, and cut the grants to the voluntary sector groups that do so much to maintain the social fabric of our borough.
In total the Council is sitting on reserves and balances that have now reached over £100 millions. Some of this is rightly set aside for capital programme schemes like investment in our schools.
But most of the money is not saved for such items. For example there is enough cash to restore spending on the street sweeping to its former levels, (a source of regular complaints in West Hampstead), and we could better fund voluntary sector groups, plus a lot more besides.
So the next time you hear Labour's excuse - "it's the Government's fault" - don't you believe them! As my colleague Cllr Matt Sanders tweeted at the Council meeting - "Cllr John Bryant uncovers a £19m underspend. Labour slash services and blame government, while hoarding taxpayers money."
That really does say it all.
Cllr John Bryant
West Hampstead ward
LB Camden
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Labour gets it wrong...AGAIN
On Tuesday 21st January Camden Labour abused the scrutiny system to push through an ideological policy to extend Kingsgate School against overwhelming evidence that the case was flawed.
Labour members ignored the fact that the decision to extend the school by placing an infant and nursery building half a mile away on an industrial estate would put children and parents at risk when travelling to school on West End Lane. They ignored the fact that adding a further transition to pupils' lives when switching from Infants to juniors could impact on their progress.
Labour also relished the fact that the site would have to be cleared of the current local businesses occupying the site, shipping out well over a hundred jobs from the area. They also ignored the fact that the housing scheme designed to pay for the scheme allowed for no affordable housing, breaking the Council's own planning policy.
And the final insult to the West Hampstead community was the realisation that although the school could now be paid for by £6.7m funding allocated by the Coalition Government, the current proposals proceeded, unchanged by the scrutiny committee, to make the Council £9.7m profit to spend elsewhere in the borough.
So West Hampstead gets a potentially dysfunctional school, (with some Kilburn parents losing out on places when the admission point moves northwards), an over intensive private housing development, no affordable housing to sweeten the pill, and a decimated industrial estate no longer providing local employment.
The alternative case would be for a stand alone all-age primary school to serve the bulging pupil numbers in West Hampstead, which will grow further on the back of already committed housing developments. The Government money should be earmarked for the school and the rest of the site development could provide for a bigger industrial estate than the one currently proposed.
Why can't Labour consider this alternative? Because they are ideologically opposed to finding an acceptable partner to lead a Free School or Academy on the site, which is why they were not prepared to use the scrutiny committee for its intended purpose.
West Hampstead needs a new primary school that will be in place for at least 100 years, but we should not accept this flawed proposal.
Labour members ignored the fact that the decision to extend the school by placing an infant and nursery building half a mile away on an industrial estate would put children and parents at risk when travelling to school on West End Lane. They ignored the fact that adding a further transition to pupils' lives when switching from Infants to juniors could impact on their progress.
Labour also relished the fact that the site would have to be cleared of the current local businesses occupying the site, shipping out well over a hundred jobs from the area. They also ignored the fact that the housing scheme designed to pay for the scheme allowed for no affordable housing, breaking the Council's own planning policy.
And the final insult to the West Hampstead community was the realisation that although the school could now be paid for by £6.7m funding allocated by the Coalition Government, the current proposals proceeded, unchanged by the scrutiny committee, to make the Council £9.7m profit to spend elsewhere in the borough.
So West Hampstead gets a potentially dysfunctional school, (with some Kilburn parents losing out on places when the admission point moves northwards), an over intensive private housing development, no affordable housing to sweeten the pill, and a decimated industrial estate no longer providing local employment.
The alternative case would be for a stand alone all-age primary school to serve the bulging pupil numbers in West Hampstead, which will grow further on the back of already committed housing developments. The Government money should be earmarked for the school and the rest of the site development could provide for a bigger industrial estate than the one currently proposed.
Why can't Labour consider this alternative? Because they are ideologically opposed to finding an acceptable partner to lead a Free School or Academy on the site, which is why they were not prepared to use the scrutiny committee for its intended purpose.
West Hampstead needs a new primary school that will be in place for at least 100 years, but we should not accept this flawed proposal.
Friday, 10 January 2014
The Co-operative Bank is still getting it wrong
I have been a Co-operative Bank customer since 1975. I opened my first current account with them when at University. Over the years I have opened more and more accounts and I now have a credit card, a joint current account, a mortgage and two business accounts with them.
I have just over three years left on my current mortgage and yesterday asked for a further modest advance to purchase a lease extension. The total outstanding debt would rise to around 15% of the property's recent valuation.
I was turned down because the bank had made a "top-level policy decision" not to extend mortgages like mine that were taken out before 2004. I enquired whether I could apply for a new product to replace my existing mortgage and was told that I had to seek another provider.
So a loyal customer of a bank with an ethical investment policy was being turned down on spurious grounds because of a "top-level policy decision". I am not a high risk to lend money to, and the bank's exposure would be to a modest percentage of a property in a highly desirable part of London.
The decision to withdraw business from me is nothing compared to the "top-level decision" to withdraw banking facilities to a range of local authorities including Camden which has a turnover in excess of a billion a year. Why would a bank want to deliberately reduce its trade with safe customers?
Something is definitely going wrong with the Co-operative Bank.
Next stop for me is the Nationwide, a traditional mutual, which suits my own ethical stance.
I have just over three years left on my current mortgage and yesterday asked for a further modest advance to purchase a lease extension. The total outstanding debt would rise to around 15% of the property's recent valuation.
I was turned down because the bank had made a "top-level policy decision" not to extend mortgages like mine that were taken out before 2004. I enquired whether I could apply for a new product to replace my existing mortgage and was told that I had to seek another provider.
So a loyal customer of a bank with an ethical investment policy was being turned down on spurious grounds because of a "top-level policy decision". I am not a high risk to lend money to, and the bank's exposure would be to a modest percentage of a property in a highly desirable part of London.
The decision to withdraw business from me is nothing compared to the "top-level decision" to withdraw banking facilities to a range of local authorities including Camden which has a turnover in excess of a billion a year. Why would a bank want to deliberately reduce its trade with safe customers?
Something is definitely going wrong with the Co-operative Bank.
Next stop for me is the Nationwide, a traditional mutual, which suits my own ethical stance.
Thursday, 12 December 2013
On MPs Pay
All three party leaders should keep out of the debate on IPSA's recommendation to improve MPs' pay in 2015.
Why? Because all three of them earn far more from ministerial salaries (including Miliband who gets a salary as Leader of the Opposition)
The figures for these ministerial salaries were fixed in September 2010 when the Coalition Government cut ministers' pay by 10% and froze the salary levels for the lifetime of the parliament. But they were and still are generous.
If Cameron, Clegg and Miliband want to "cut the cost of politics", then take another cut to ministerial salaries and accept the IPSA recommendations for MPs' pay, which are cost neutral.
Minister's Pay Total (with MPs salary)
Why? Because all three of them earn far more from ministerial salaries (including Miliband who gets a salary as Leader of the Opposition)
The figures for these ministerial salaries were fixed in September 2010 when the Coalition Government cut ministers' pay by 10% and froze the salary levels for the lifetime of the parliament. But they were and still are generous.
If Cameron, Clegg and Miliband want to "cut the cost of politics", then take another cut to ministerial salaries and accept the IPSA recommendations for MPs' pay, which are cost neutral.
Minister's Pay Total (with MPs salary)
|
Prime Minister
|
132,923
|
198,661
|
|
Cabinet Minister
|
79,754
|
145,492
|
|
Lord Chancellor
|
79,754
|
145,492
|
|
Government Chief Whip
|
79,754
|
145,492
|
|
Minister of State
|
41,370
|
107,108
|
|
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
|
31,401
|
97,139
|
|
Solicitor General
|
69,491
|
135,229
|
|
Advocate General
|
69,491
|
135,229
|
|
Government Deputy Chief Whip
|
41,370
|
106,136
|
|
Government Whip
|
26,624
|
92,362
|
|
Assistant Government Whip
|
26,624
|
92,362
|
|
Leader of the Opposition
|
73,617
|
139,355
|
|
Opposition Chief Whip
|
41,370
|
107,108
|
|
Deputy Opposition Chief Whip
|
26,624
|
92,362
|
|
Speaker
|
79,754
|
145,492
|
|
Chairman of Ways and Means (Deputy Speaker)
|
41,370
|
107,108
|
|
First Deputy Chairman of Ways & Means (Deputy Speaker)
|
36,360
|
102,098
|
|
Second Deputy Chairman of Ways & Means (Deputy
Speaker)
|
36,360
|
102,098
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)