In message , at 17:27:14 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

so if you have a long term job at LHR moving house seems the most
appropriate solution
What are these long term jobs of which you speak? And moving house
to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't a walk in
the park.

If as seems to be the case a lot of people have to rent privately if
working in the London area, then a move is not out of the question as
most leases are for six months at a time. And it's a move to make
travel to work easier rather than have multiple changes on PT.

It's still uprooting the whole family.

but you make that choice when you take the job

suffer the commute or move

if you're not prepared to do either, don't take the job

Speaks a man with considerable compassion and an overoptimistic view of
the DWP's reaction to such a situation.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't
a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to their
original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices, they
will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow Connect/
Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you move, you
can make a like for like move at your price point and still be in a area
with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is 300K
more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

below that price you get a shed - though if you are old enough you *can*
find some nice secure accommodation. It's why I've done it - because I
can't afford 795K to live on the other side of the road. Half a dozen of my
neighbours still go to work each day - but they aren't usable as family
homes.

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:27:14 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

so if you have a long term job at LHR moving house seems the most
appropriate solution
What are these long term jobs of which you speak? And moving house to
be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't a walk in the
park.

If as seems to be the case a lot of people have to rent privately if
working in the London area, then a move is not out of the question as
most leases are for six months at a time. And it's a move to make travel
to work easier rather than have multiple changes on PT.

It's still uprooting the whole family.

but you make that choice when you take the job

suffer the commute or move

if you're not prepared to do either, don't take the job

Speaks a man with considerable compassion

Just being realistic. Life's tough.

and an overoptimistic view of the DWP's reaction to such a situation.

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in Barking
really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just have a list of
"local" jobs

tim

On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no commitments.
Its easy to bounce around if you can fit your worldy goods in a large box
and don't have any attachments.

about compromise though and I don't pretend, unlike some people on the

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job. Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no
commitments.

no they are not

lots of people move house to enable them to take a better job

and many of then own their own house

and many of them have families to move as well

Its easy to bounce around if you can fit your worldy goods in a large box
and don't have any attachments.

about compromise though and I don't pretend, unlike some people on the

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job.

If those are the choices, then why did they take the job in the first place?

Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

well of course

that doesn't mean that people don't so it

tim

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:28:34 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no
commitments.

no they are not

lots of people move house to enable them to take a better job

Yes, lots of young unattached people. When someone is settled with a family
then moving any great distance is something you only do if you really need
if the gain really outweighs the pain. Obviously if you're only moving a few
miles then its not a big deal.

and many of them have families to move as well

Some do, most don't unless they're selfish ****s and #1 always comes first.

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job.

If those are the choices, then why did they take the job in the first place?

Perhaps when they first took it the commute wasn't so bad but now the traffic
or trains are impossible. Or they needed the money so badly they took anything
to pay the mortgage/tent.

Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

well of course

that doesn't mean that people don't so it

Of course not, just the majority don't.

In message , at 12:12:41 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to
their original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices,
they will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

Newbury Park is apparently the cheapest place to live in London
(rental). I don't know what's "wrong" with it for it to be about half
the price of Hounslow.

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow
Connect/ Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you
move, you can make a like for like move at your price point and still
be in a area with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is
300K more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

And you not in West London. Remember - this is abut staff travel to
Heathrow, and the car versus public transport. Many of those driving
will be coming from outside the M25 where houses are cheaper and PT
impractical.

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

Barking looks pretty cheap. In West London, Hatton Cross is
uncomfortably close to Heathrow! Alperton is only a tad over £300k.

below that price you get a shed - though if you are old enough you
*can* find some nice secure accommodation. It's why I've done it -
because I can't afford 795K to live on the other side of the road. Half
a dozen of my neighbours still go to work each day - but they aren't
usable as family homes.

tim


--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:15:30 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in Barking
really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just have a
list of "local" jobs

They don't list jobs much themselves (that was the bricks and mortar
model a generation ago), they police the process whereby people search a
bunch of third party jobsites to look for jobs and then report back once
a fortnight[1]. And get cross if people aren't diligent enough.

Apparently they expect people to commute up to three hours a day (aka
"90 minute rule", if there's an opportunity of employment which will get
them off the register.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/14/made

[1] Still colloquially called "signing on", but it's more of an
opportunity for them to find a reason the sign the jobseeker off!
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 08:05:39 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

Something isn't right there. Oakwood is mainly upmarket middle class houses
semi and detached houses whereas southgate is a mix or properties with quite
a number of council properties, yet southgate prices are higher? Hmm. And
506K for finsbury park? The place is a hole. At a glance I'd say Edgware
looks like a bargain at 421K.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:12:41 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to
their original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices,
they will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

Newbury Park is apparently the cheapest place to live in London (rental).
I don't know what's "wrong" with it for it to be about half the price of
Hounslow.

it's looks about 50K in 300K cheaper (at the bottom of the market) to me.

You can't compare using average prices for an area, they will be skewed by
the type of house available. You have to compare 2 bed terrace with 2 bed
terrace (or whatever).

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

No properties available under 350K

Hounslow had 4 or 5 under 300.


But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow Connect/
Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you move,
you can make a like for like move at your price point and still be in a
area with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is 300K
more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

And you not in West London.

I've lived there in the past. I know what the traffic is like

Remember - this is abut staff travel to Heathrow, and the car versus
public transport. Many of those driving will be coming from outside the
M25 where houses are cheaper and PT impractical.

I've done that as well, and it's an equally awful commute by car

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is
impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

I doubt very much they those are "average" prices. Some of them are barely
above the price of the lowest property available in the area.

Barking looks pretty cheap.

but is equally undesirable

In West London, Hatton Cross is uncomfortably close to Heathrow! Alperton
is only a tad over £300k.

There's very little housing available at Hatton Cross. And you wouldn't
want to live there :-)