The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[ScotGG]

Perhaps he said to her that he would handle everything to do with the letting of the house. Is she supposed to not trust him and double check everything he does?

Yes! It's her responsibility.

 

[Yew]

Others have answered this above as well as I could. However the second point remains, she should simply accept responsibility for not being fully diligent.

I'm sorry, but her husband signed a contract with the letting agency, and they said that they would let the property legally, having a legally binding contract seems like due-diligence to me. Should any fines be levied, it is highly likely she could recover them from the letting agency as they have breached their contract.

The whole point of these sorts of contracts is to make it someone else's problem, so you don't have to think about it.

 

[styles]

She wouldn't be able to undo her criminal record if it went to court though.

A contract in this example cannot override her statutory responsibility.

It also depends on the wording. If the agency said they would apply for the permit, that's one thing. If they said they would ensure a permit was in place, that's another. An application can be rejected after all.

Quite surprised how happy some people are to apparently agree to let somebody else take care of their legal responsibilities and not check that they are actually met.

 

[JamesT]

I'm sorry, but her husband signed a contract with the letting agency, and they said that they would let the property legally, having a legally binding contract seems like due-diligence to me. Should any fines be levied, it is highly likely she could recover them from the letting agency as they have breached their contract.

The whole point of these sorts of contracts is to make it someone else's problem, so you don't have to think about it.

It's probably not in the contract. The lettings agent has said this isn't something they normally do, it was offered in an email by a member of staff who then left.

 

[styles]

It's probably not in the contract. The lettings agent has said this isn't something they normally do, it was offered in an email by a member of staff who then left.

Worth noting that that email could be considered a contract in its own right or an addition to the contract being discussed. Contracts don't have to be super formal documents with wet signatures, in fact they don't even have to be written, there just has to be 'mutual assent'.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm sorry, but her husband signed a contract with the letting agency, and they said that they would let the property legally, having a legally binding contract seems like due-diligence to me. Should any fines be levied, it is highly likely she could recover them from the letting agency as they have breached their contract.

The whole point of these sorts of contracts is to make it someone else's problem, so you don't have to think about it.

You sign contracts like these to take away the often lengthy paperwork, but they don't remove your legal responsibility to ensure everything is in order.

 

[43096]

Yes! It's her responsibility.

Surely their responsibility jointly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A better analogy would be to say she uses a car but her husband deals with getting the MOT, VED, and insurance. She can buy all means have somebody else do this, but it doesn't absolve her of her legal responsibility as a driver for ensuring the car has MOT, VED, and insurance. If she's caught driving without one of those, she remains legally liable, and so she should set reminders for when these things are expiring and check that her husband has extended them before getting behind the wheel.

Or that you will still be convicted for driving without insurance if it's the insurance company's fault that you were (though may have no actual punishment meted out if the judge believes you you will still be convicted of the offence). This does come up on stuff like the LBC Legal Hour from time to time, and it nearly happened to me (fortunately it was me that discovered the issue and had it corrected, not a Police Officer - wholly caused by the insurance company's error and unlikely to happen now you can download your certificate immediately, but had I been stopped in the couple of days when the policy I thought existed in fact didn't I certainly would have received a conviction).

It was in the days when you could purchase online but would still be posted a certificate - I only noticed a problem when the certificate didn't arrive. Money wise they had done an authorisation but not collected it, but back then before online banking that was really hard to keep track of until your next credit card statement arrived in the post.

 

[styles]

Or that you will still be convicted for driving without insurance if it's the insurance company's fault that you were (though may have no actual punishment meted out if the judge believes you you will still be convicted of the offence). This does come up on stuff like the LBC Legal Hour from time to time, and it nearly happened to me (fortunately it was me that discovered the issue and had it corrected, not a Police Officer - wholly caused by the insurance company's error and unlikely to happen now you can download your certificate immediately, but had I been stopped in the couple of days when the policy I thought existed in fact didn't I certainly would have received a conviction).

Indeed, same reason I download my insurance certificate and check it as soon as it's issued online (it's been online since I started driving tbf). Apart from checking for errors, also need to double check things like driving other vehicles and what exceptions to that may apply etc.

I nearly had the same issue as you when I got a courtesy car while waiting for the car is bought to be ready. Garage said it was insured on their policy, so I merrily drove it home (in snow which turned into heavy snow, and my first time driving an automatic no less!) Out of sheer curiosity when I got home I checked the MOT, VED, and insurance. It wasn't taxed and had no insurance according to MIB. I had a protracted series of conversations with the dealer where they said they would tax it but not insure it, even though I'd already been told it was insured.

Luckily on the way home I a) wasn't stopped for having no tax/insurance; and b) didn't crash the car.

Since then, I've learnt to check every hire car, courtesy car, or friends/family members' car that I drive to check everything is up to date before I switch the engine on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, same reason I download my insurance certificate and check it as soon as it's issued online (it's been online since I started driving tbf). Apart from checking for errors, also need to double check things like driving other vehicles and what exceptions to that may apply etc.

Yep same. Unfortunately back in 2001 when this happened that wasn't possible, the sales site (think it was Direct Line) just spat out some paperwork in their offices which had to be processed manually, and it was that manual processing that had failed for my policy. I'd be surprised if, had it been the Police that noticed it, I'd received a fine, but the offence was certainly complete even though I had no idea that it was. Back then the only way to be sure was not to drive until the paper certificate had arrived!

I nearly had the same issue as you when I got a courtesy car while waiting for the car is bought to be ready. Garage said it was insured on their policy, so I merrily drove it home (in snow which turned into heavy snow, and my first time driving an automatic no less!) Out of sheer curiosity when I got home I checked the MOT, VED, and insurance. It wasn't taxed and had no insurance according to MIB. I had a protracted series of conversations with the dealer where they said they would tax it but not insure it, even though I'd already been told it was insured.

Luckily on the way home I a) wasn't stopped for having no tax/insurance; and b) didn't crash the car.

Since then, I've learnt to check every hire car, courtesy car, or friends/family members' car that I drive to check everything is up to date before I switch the engine on.

Yes, good idea. The third party extension on most (but not all) car policies for over 25s is often the way courtesy cars are insured (where it doesn't apply to a policy there's often specific provision for one), but almost always these days that clause requires there to be some sort of insurance on the car already so as to deal with the situation where it's parked on the road and the holder of the third party extension isn't in control of it. And of course if there's no policy on it it has to be SORNed anyway.

The MID is a bit of a pain, though, in that a new policy sometimes takes a few days to appear. I did once get stopped because of this (I'd taken the new policy out late the previous evening prior to collecting the car that morning) but it was only brief where they called the insurance company to ask if it was insured and it was, it just hadn't filtered through onto the MID yet. Indeed that is the one and only time I have ever been stopped by police (aside from to be informed about a road closure ahead) in 27 years of driving!

 

[Falcon1200]

she is obviously clear of any moral wrongdoing

Not in my view, so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JamieL]

All this discussion about payment or not of a rental fee is irrelevant really. The real topic is the horrific budget we can expect just 3 weeks today. From the sounds of it, the outcome will be grim. Unable or unwilling to get a grip of public spending, it sounds as if Labour will be coming for anyone with incomes of £46k or more and will renege on their manifesto.

 

[styles]

All this discussion about payment or not of a rental fee is irrelevant really. The real topic is the horrific budget we can expect just 3 weeks today. From the sounds of it, the outcome will be grim. Unable or unwilling to get a grip of public spending, it sounds as if Labour will be coming for anyone with incomes of £46k or more and will renege on their manifesto.

My guess is it will be another squeeze on the middle class and an abject failure to take a different approach to our economy than has been seen for a long time, continuing our sluggish growth since the 2007-2008 financial crash. Throw in some ill thought-out policies aimed at appeasing voters who hold a grudge against energy firms, water companies, landlords, etc, which even level headed thinktanks will suggest will have a backfiring effect.

 

[Bantamzen]

Rachel Reeves is giving a statement this morning at 08:10. I don't think this will be good news.

 

[styles]

Rachel Reeves is giving a statement this morning at 08:10. I don't think this will be good news.

I think she's just preparing the markets for e.g. tax rises against the manifesto pledge.

Part of the problem with Kwarteng's announcements were that they were both absurd but also a shock to the markets, so they panicked and things went south very quickly. This budget is unlikely to be anywhere near as disastrous but if the industry gets a rough idea of what to expect, then an immediate blow can be softened.

 

[Yew]

Labour governments have dug the country out of bigger messes than this before, using sound Keynesian principles of investing in infrastructure. I find it amazing that there seems to be this desire to persist with something that is essentially the failed austerity experiment, that has delivered us such a long period of stagnation.

 

[Falcon1200]

Labour governments have dug the country out of bigger messes than this before

You were clearly not around to experience the mess Labour left the country in in 1979, which resulted in 18 years of Tory Government! I fear they will end up leaving the same, if not worse, mess again.

 

[Yew]

You were clearly not around to experience the mess Labour left the country in in 1979, which resulted in 18 years of Tory Government! I fear they will end up leaving the same, if not worse, mess again.

I was thinking of Atlee, specifically.

An alternative view, is to look at what a mess the Tories left the country in, Labour could be in power for 18 years this time - however with this set of neoliberal economic policies, I fear that is unlikely.

 

[brad465]

My guess is it will be another squeeze on the middle class and an abject failure to take a different approach to our economy than has been seen for a long time, continuing our sluggish growth since the 2007-2008 financial crash. Throw in some ill thought-out policies aimed at appeasing voters who hold a grudge against energy firms, water companies, landlords, etc, which even level headed thinktanks will suggest will have a backfiring effect.

After reading about certain graduate firms sounding concern about minimum wage rising close to a number of starting graduate salaries, the squeeze of the middle class couldn't be more apparent.

This is also the hidden reason why the benefits' bill is budensome: firstly, middle incomes have stagnated, so the tax revenue has fallen in real terms. Second, if proper skilled work is not rewarding enough, it's easy to see why some choose a life on benefits if there's little to gain in work. Then of course in-work benefits also subsidise corporate profits to allow poverty wages to be paid.

There's no single fix, but a significant boost to middle incomes is a good place to start.

 

[oldman]

Then of course in-work benefits also subsidise corporate profits to allow poverty wages to be paid.

I don't believe that low-wage employers would pay more if there were fewer in-work benefits. Without a minimum wage some would happily play less. A lot of in-work benefits go to people who are working part-time, not necessarily on a low hourly rate.

I note you often talk about corporate rather than business profits (corporate=bad). A lot of low-wage employers are small-scale businesses.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I was thinking of Atlee, specifically.

An alternative view, is to look at what a mess the Tories left the country in, Labour could be in power for 18 years this time - however with this set of neoliberal economic policies, I fear that is unlikely.

Atlee was operating in a country very, very different to that of today. There was a strong manufacturing base, and no massive benefits bill for a start.

Which isn't to say I'm a fan of the current government (I think they are useless and their direction of travel will probably make things worse), but the managed decline of a number of decades now, under both parties, may have reached the point where nothing is going to cause any major improvement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite surprised how happy some people are to apparently agree to let somebody else take care of their legal responsibilities and not check that they are actually met.

It's a tough one. I own a house in the UK which is rented out. I pay the letting agent a decent management fee precisely because my agreement with them is that they will ensure everything is sorted with the house, e.g. annual gas safety certificates. I do keep a record to make sure they are doing what they say they are doing, but I possibly wouldn't notice for a while if they didn't do something that they should have done.

The whole point of employing a lettings manager is for them to manage the letting. You don't hire a guard dog then bark yourself.

I don't believe that low-wage employers would pay more if there were fewer in-work benefits.

Of course they wouldn't, but the point is that in-work benefits are a direct but hidden subsidy to the employers who do pay poverty wages.

It's the same way that housing benefit is a direct but hidden subsidy to landlords.

I note you often talk about corporate rather than business profits (corporate=bad). A lot of low-wage employers are small-scale businesses.

My view has long been that if a business cannot afford to pay its staff a decent wage then that business is not financially viable. In-work benefits are essentially a subsidy to these businesses.

Maybe it's a valid subsidy, maybe the jobs wouldn't exist if the subsidy didn't exist. Maybe that's better for the country, at least people are only receiving some of their income from benefits rather than all of their income from benefits. But there needs to be a transparent and honest discussion about this.

The trouble is Rachel Reeves is a 10W light bulb in a 100W fitting and so she doesn't understand any of this. She just witters on and on about scroungers like the Diet Tory that she is.

We see that with her latest pronouncements about Motability. The Motability scheme basically allows you to use your PIP to lease a car. As with commercial lease agreements, you are essentially paying for the depreciation of the vehicle. If the vehicle will depreciate more than the lease payments, the disabled person has to pay an up-front fee. At the end of the lease Motability will sell the cars on the used market.

As with commercial leases, if the depreciation is less than estimated (i.e. they get a better price when they sell the car) then the lessor keeps the surplus. Motability generates a significant surplus each and every year. Motability has reserves of more than £4Bn. Much of the surplus is generated by the leasing activity. It's worth noting that Motability isn't always the cheapest way of leasing a car either. A disabled family member has a commercial lease for her car because the Personal Contract Plan (PCP) payment is cheaper than what Motability was going to charge her.

A sensible Chancellor would be looking at Motability and seeing it as something that generates a decent surplus for the taxpayer. A sensible Chancellor would be looking at how the £4Bn reserves that Motability are sitting on could be used to fund other services for disabled people.

Instead Reeves is simply going to push disabled people out of Motability and in to commercial lease agreements. These people will still need to lease a car and they will still use their PIP money to fund the lease of a car. All that will happen is that the profits from these lease agreements won't go back into Motability, which is a charity and therefore can't make a profit and can't dissipate any reserves generated from its surplus, they'll instead go to funding the dividends paid to the lenders' shareholders. I genuinely don't think she's intelligent enough to understand this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the end of the lease Motability will sell the cars on the used market.

Replied here as it probably deserves a spinoff discussion of its own: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/buying-ex-motability-cars.294320/

 

[TravelDream]

A sensible Chancellor would be looking at Motability and seeing it as something that generates a decent surplus for the taxpayer. A sensible Chancellor would be looking at how the £4Bn reserves that Motability are sitting on could be used to fund other services for disabled people.

Motability is a charity separate from government. The surplus doesn't return to the government, they keep it.
And Motability needs to keep a reserve because it's possible the second-hand car market will deteriorate and they won't recoup enough money on selling vehicles.

Motability has other serious issues in my view.
They don't pay VAT or insurance premium tax which means it's not simply people in receipt of PIP using their benefits to lease a car, but a significant government subsidy of cars leased under the scheme - a subsidy of at least several thousand pounds compared to leasing the same car commercially.
It's clear that this subsidy is totally wrong in most cases. My view is only cars with significant physical adaptions should get it.

One big advantage reducing/ restricting Motability has for the government is it gets the right-wing media off their backs (well... perhaps on their backs for something else).



As an aside, and not particularly picking on the scheme as I know it's paid from PIP, I think Motability is also emblematic of significant structural issues in the UK. Issues where people on low incomes are worse off and enjoy less security in life than those on benefits. No doubt many people on PIP are severely disabled and need financial support to get by, but there are real questions to be asked about how fair it is societally.
It's something which really is not good and tears at the fabric of society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the idea of means testing PIP is unfair. Just like winter fuel payment. Not everyone needs this money so not everyone should get it.

 

[TravelDream]

I don't think the idea of means testing PIP is unfair. Just like winter fuel payment. Not everyone needs this money so not everyone should get it.

Not an unfair point, but it has issues too.
Thresholds are always too low and tapers always too harsh in this country.

It would be like pension credit. The result of which is pensioners with a small private pensions who get a few quid more a month than the pension credit limit are significantly worse off than those who didn't save for retirement who get just the basic state pension other than pension credit.

Or the situation those earning just above £100k have if they have kids needing childcare.



I am sure 99% of people think the rich should and need to pay their fair share of taxes, but I think some people forget the tax system needs to encourage people to improve, develop and get better jobs - i.e. it shouldn't be punitive.

I think we also have a problem in this country defining what rich is. Labour doesn't seem sure what a working person is.
I don't earn £100k a year and think it is certainly a decent chunk of money; but I don't think someone in London, with two young kids and in a single-income household who earns £100k is rich. Whereas, when you read some things online, there are people who believe they are no different to Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk.

And this £45k+ thing not being a working person is nonsense and a bit scary for the economy. There are basic teachers with no leadership responsibilities who earn this. There are nurses with just a few years experience and minor additional responsibilities earning this. There are PAYE electricians and plumbers earning this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Motability has other serious issues in my view.
They don't pay VAT or insurance premium tax which means it's not simply people in receipt of PIP using their benefits to lease a car, but a significant government subsidy of cars leased under the scheme - a subsidy of at least several thousand pounds compared to leasing the same car commercially.

I don’t agree that this is a subsidy. And, even if it is, I don’t see that it is an issue, given that the recipient of the ‘subsidy’ is someone who is disabled.

You are only eligible for a car through Motability if you receive the enhanced rate of the mobility element of PIP. You only get the enhanced rate of the mobility element of PIP if you have serious and significant mobility issues. It’s worth reminding you, and others, that the use of a wheelchair is only a small subset of people who have mobility problems and, of those users, it is only a further small subset who require an adapted vehicle.

don't think the idea of means testing PIP is unfair.

The point of PIP is that it helps you with the additional costs of being disabled. That is why it isn’t means tested. It is assessed according to how your disability affects your ability to move and/or to look after yourself.

No doubt many people on PIP are severely disabled and need financial support to get by, but there are real questions to be asked about how fair it is societally.

It isn’t paid on disability, it is paid on how that disability affects your ability to look after yourself. The additional financial support is provided because the recipients have additional financial needs beyond those of an able-bodied person. You can work and receive PIP.

This government, like the Tories before them, are fundamentally dishonest about how our benefit system operates.

One big advantage reducing/ restricting Motability has for the government is it gets the right-wing media off their backs

That’s the only reason why she’s doing it. And it shows, yet again, that Reeves simply doesn’t have the talent or intelligence required by her role.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think the idea of means testing PIP is unfair.

That sounds like a good way of disincentivising the disabled (who are already under-represented in the labour market) from working. Considering that working is often already used as a weapon by the Department for Work and Pensions to say that they're not entitled to PIP (despite it being an in or out of work benefit), making it so that by taking up work they're also losing out financially via a means test is not going to help the situation.

I would be very very cautious before introducing a means test to PIP. Plus the purpose of it is to help with extra costs of disability. Those costs exist whether your earning minimum wage at Tesco or a merchant banker in Canary Wharf.

It would be like pension credit. The result of which is pensioners with a small private pensions who get a few quid more a month than the pension credit limit are significantly worse off than those who didn't save for retirement who get just the basic state pension other than pension credit.

NB: Worth noting that the sneaky trick that Osborne and Co played was when they introduced the "new" State Pension in April 2016 they set it at a rate just above Pension Credit so even just getting a normal new State Pension would be enough to ensure you're not entitled to Pension Credit. For a single person with no health conditions the current rate of Pension Credit is £227.10 per week, the new State Pension is £230.25 per week. Therefore no entitlement.

People who retired prior to April 2016 however as you say could easily end up missing out depending on exactly what their State Pension looked like and what any private pensions that you may have. But the full basic State Pension is £176.45 per week though that's often increased depending on various factors (were you contracted in/out, did you pay into the Additional State Pension, etc etc).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point of PIP is that it helps you with the additional costs of being disabled. That is why it isn’t means tested. It is assessed according to how your disability affects your ability to move and/or to look after yourself.

I know. But my point is that people who can afford the extra costs don't need that money and therefore shouldn't get it. There are lots of things that can cause people to need to pay a bit more to live than the norm, e.g. if one needs spectacles or is allergic to something so has to pay more for specialist food. They don't get PIP.

When we're in a position of being very tight on money as a country, paying benefits to people who can afford not to have them doesn't make sense.

 

[ainsworth74]

This government, like the Tories before them, are fundamentally dishonest about how our benefit system operates.

Yes once you actually understand the system it is endlessly frustrating and, indeed, infuriating watching politicians and media types get it wrong either wilfully or due to ignorance and making pronouncements on how the system should therefore work based on that ignorance.