
My life in London's houseboat slums - timw6n
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge
======
drcross
Here's my personal story, some may find interesting- I was finishing my
masters in the UK and split up with my ex girlfriend, this meant I had to get
a job quickly to sustain myself because I had nowhere to live and no money. I
visited some different groups of friends who were kind enough to let me stay
for a few days on their couch but I couldn't risk outstaying my welcome.

At the same time the Occupy protests were happening in St Pauls. I secured a
short term contract in an investment bank, and stayed in a tent with the
protestors while saving for a deposit to rent a room. I had to put on my suit
and dash away from the camp in the morning before I was spotted, I'd then
change before coming back in the evening. I washed in the local swimming
pools.

Looking back on it, it was nuts that I was able to finish my thesis. So yeah,
rents are high, you need to know someone to make it in London.

~~~
theorique
_dash away from the camp in the morning before I was spotted_

Just to clarify: you mean they wouldn't have liked it if they had known that
you were a banker?

~~~
rachbelaid
Just to explain, it was protest and demonstration against economic inequality
that took place in London, precisly St Paul.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_London)

~~~
theorique
Makes sense.

If it's anything similar to Occupy Wall Street, wearing a suit would be taken
to mean that a person is some sort of terrible exploiter of the proletariat.

------
beloch
I really don't understand several things about this story.

1\. Why move to London if you're an unskilled worker? Are opportunities
elsewhere even bleaker?

2\. London has a huge problem with absentee property owners because London
real estate is currently a hot investment. It's a feedback loop. The more
rapidly London properties appreciate, the more absentee owners there will be,
and the more demand will rise. Why haven't bylaws been passed to curb this?
For example, why aren't residences that are unoccupied by their owner for a
significant portion of the year taxed at _much_ higher rates? It would
probably be necessary to offer a renter rebate to compensate for increased
rents, but this would discourage the practice of leaving residences vacant. If
this doesn't actually drive prices down, at least it would prevent them from
continuing to rise.

3\. Why aren't the barge-lords being treated like slum-lords when the barges
they run are overcrowded, full of mould, etc.? I understand it's hard to
legally enforce a tenant-landlord relationship when it's all under the table,
but there must be something the police can do to hassle these guys until they
improve conditions.

4\. Where are the government programs, volunteers, etc. that you usually see
in other cities building low-cost housing? e.g. Why isn't anyone building
legal barges with decent living conditions to compete with the barge-lords?

~~~
DanBC
1) You were born there. Your spouse lives there. Etc

2)!london is not monolithic; it has several local councils all with differing
rules. They'd all need to agree and coordinate. I don't know why it isn't done
better.

3) people living in slums ether don't know their rights; or how to enforce
those rights. Sometimes their own legal status is dubious and they risk
deportation. Even if they do know their rights, and how to enforce their
right, and they can get the regulator to take action, and they're totally
legal and above board, they may just end up without a home.

Housing in the UK is weird and broken and at the low end there are some strong
weirdnesses built into the system.

~~~
pjc50
2) Council tax has all sorts of central govt limits on it, including the
banding system. They can't fix the problem of empty property on their own.

3) A houseboat is not a _building_ , and is therefore exempt from all the laws
about building minimum standards that were instituted the previous times
London had a slum problem. I'm not sure if there even _are_ any standards
about living on a boat, only standards about in relation to the river and
other water users.

Housing in the UK is weird and broken. This is about 50% due to Right To Buy
and the slow abolition of the council house.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I don't fundamentally disagree with the existence of Right to Buy, but it
really required a comprehensive house-building program to back it up. Now
we're fucked.

~~~
twelvechairs
The requirement for all new development over a certain number of units (12?
iirc) to provide a perecentage as affordable was supposed to deal with this
but the govt has redefined affordable too. Some of my professional colleagues
in their 30s not only qualified for these but struggled to afford them. this
is where the system really failed IMHO.

~~~
DanBC
> Some of my professional colleagues in their 30s not only qualified for these
> but struggled to afford them. this is where the system really failed IMHO.

That is bonkers. It's just really weird.

The Tower Hamlets evidence pack has some eye-popping statistics. (Tower
Hamlets are building more social housing than anywhere else in the UK)

They have 23,500 households on the waiting list for social housing.

48% of those are in category 1 or 2 which means they have medical need, or are
homeless or overcrowded.

9500 households are over crowded. 1228 households are under occupied with 271
having 2 or more bedrooms than they need. (I think a bedroom is anyroom that
can fit a bed in it.)

------
d0
That article is crazy:

1\. I lived in a car in London for 6 months. It was pretty fine. McDonalds was
my washroom.

2\. These boats are rare. I mean really rare. This is not the norm. The boats
and the moorings are damn expensive so this doesn't make sense even for the
landlords. Even crappy moorings cost.

3\. You can go to the council and get a bedsit if you're in this situation.
Literally the next day. Might have to share with a crackhead for a week but
that's life.

4\. There are plenty of other places to go in the UK where the salary/housing
cost ratio isn't crazy. I lived in Nottingham for a bit and had a 5 bedroom
detached house in a nice bit for £500/month. £230/month will get you a 2 bed
flat better than this.

This is a sob story - nothing more.

~~~
theknown99
It's the Guardian. Its heavily biased reporting, warped to fit in with their
agenda.

~~~
kjjw
Their agenda here is completely reasonable. Successive UK governments have
failed to address a crisis in housing.

Yes, a crisis.

~~~
theknown99
There is only a 'crisis' if you don't believe in a free market.

It's like saying there's a crisis when it comes to affordable supercars.

~~~
collyw
Free market! London housing!? The politicians are all getting second homes
funded by the taxpayer. The banks went bust but got bailed out by the
taxpayer. "Emergency" low interest rates for the last 5 years.

The UK / London housing market is anything BUT a free market.

~~~
theknown99
Not sure you understand quite what free market means.

~~~
collyw
I know that many of the banks would not be around if we had true free market
conditions.

~~~
theknown99
I agree, and the banks should have been allowed to fail. There should not have
been any bail out. But that's a completely different argument to the one of
"is there cheap enough housing".

------
lukasm
I really don't understand why people are looking at the wrong problem the
whole time. Housing is not a problem, transport is. Commuting from outside
London costs more than 500 pounds. UK transport (trains, tube) got the worst
price to quality ratio in the world. You can rent a whole house for 1000
outside London, but the cost of transport is equivalent to nice flat in London
(plus painful commuting[1]). Many agencies won't let you a flat if you make
less than 36k, but that's below average and way below median.

Any regulation or tax will we bypassed. Government should do the opposite,
deregulate to reduce the cost of building new houses.

Startup idea: Cheap, sustainable and safe transport for London. Investors are
reluctant to buy properties outside London, cause of poor liquidity, hence
cheaper and faster transport would solve that problem. Elon! help!

[1] It's not only the time, but trains are so unreliable. 1mm of snow and
everything stops. I can't image what would happen if there would be proper
winter.

~~~
eru
You could also just build higher in London, instead of building more around
it.

~~~
neverminder
I agree. I don't understand this reluctance to do so. I think it has a lot to
do with good old british resistance to change and sticking blindly to some
ridiculous traditions (2 taps in the sink I'm looking at you)

~~~
lukasm
Sure, but the problem is with tube. It already works on its limits and higher
destiny would require better city transport.

~~~
eru
Higher residential density wouldn't add that much strain---the destinations
(ie workplaces) still have the same density, it's just that commuters don't
travel as far on the tube.

So you could make the system more intense, and less extense; concentrate the
investments in tube upgrades on the centres.

------
theorique
So for £230 per month in London, you get an unpleasant, unsafe, tiny, and
marginal place to live.

Given that it's one of the most expensive cities in the world to live
("typical" 2BR apartments in nice areas are more like £400-600 per WEEK), I
can't say I'm surprised.

The ways people are willing to trade off comfort to live in the center of
things sometimes surprises me, but not that much.

~~~
barrkel
You can get a 3-room house with garden and parking for less than £300 per
week. I know because that's what I have; 10 minutes by motorbike to Old
Street, or 40 minutes by public transport.

The wildcard is your qualification of "nice area". There's a very wide scale,
and what would qualify as "nice" somewhere else will be a lot more expensive
here. I've never felt physically in danger, though I have had motorcycles
stolen.

~~~
theorique
As an admitted tourist, my most tangible reference point was my friend's place
in Marylebone, for which I believe he was paying about £500 pw. It was a 2 BR
in a quiet, clean building but not over-the-top luxurious. I suspect the price
came from the central location in City of Westminster.

Similar to NYC / SF prices if you do the conversion.

------
ansimionescu
Add '/print' at the end of the link for a less shitty reading experience.

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-
houseb...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-
slum-rents-barge/print)

------
Matsta
I remember my friend moved to London a couple years ago. He said that tube
tickets were taking up a large chunk of his income and barely had enough to
pay for rent in his flat. He eventually moved back home to NZ 6 months later
cause he was sick of being broke.

I know a few other of my friends have moved to London with great success, but
I think the trick is to lock-in a well paying job before you move over there.

~~~
brc
No..the trick is to find _some_ sort of network of friends before you go.

I went to London with about 500 pounds of cash and no concrete job, on a one-
way ticket.

For a start - renting is out - you have to find someone who is willing to lend
a couch. Living the highlife is out - no pubs for you. Your only status is to
(1) clean the flat for the people who let you stay there and (2) look for
jobs. This should be a full-time occupation until you find a job - any job.
Your ability to continue to sponge off someone else is tied to how they feel
when they get home tired and find you sitting on their couch, coupled with how
quickly you can find employment and vacate said couch.

Locking in a well-paying job before you get there is like saying you should
find a good looking girlfriend before you start university. It's not going to
happen unless you are very established somewhere already and get a transfer,
or are internet famous for something. Or you are going to get sold a pup and
end up locked into a crappy job in a crappy part of town.

I found my first job within 10 days of landing, worked that for a couple of
months, asked to be paid after 1 week and then spent the entire cash amount on
a deposit for a short-term one-room flat, which took all my money so I ate
pot-noodles for a week. Stayed there for 4 weeks until I amassed enough cash
for a proper flat. By that time I found two other people who wanted to share
and the three of us rented a decent place for a decent price. After that it
was better jobs, more fun and a great time. I passed it on by helping other
people out with time on the couch, coupled with strict rules on what goes on.

In case you think that was a fluke, I repeated the same thing about 4 years
later, only this time it took 8 weeks to find a job because the economy was
more strained. I had (marginally) more savings this time but it was more
tense.

The hack for housing in London is finding a borough with low council taxes
with the lowest transport zone you can afford, and if you have an established
job, one which offers a short commute. And don't blow all your weeks surplus
on a big friday night out including an expensive cab ride home.

The only trick is being hungry for success in a city that doesn't seem to want
to give it to you unless you fight for it.

~~~
eru
That's very start-up-y of you. But honestly, just interviewing at a few banks
will get you a decent paying job before you move to town. (If you can bear
that kind of work.)

------
muyuu
I can't imagine why so many people making under 2000 GBP after tax move to
London. Especially younger people with no roots anywhere, why on Earth moving
here under these conditions?

Part of the problem is the influx of recent young immigrants from other EU
countries where they have it even worse and they seem to default to London
when many cities in the UK would be much better at least as a starting point.

~~~
falsedan
Do you mean, making under £20k after tax?

~~~
lmm
Might mean 2000/month?

~~~
muyuu
Yep, I didn't realise I didn't mention it was per month.

------
digita88
I was in a similar situation but I was not living in a houseboat slum but was
technically squatting for a short while. The reasons people do this is varied
- they could be saving up to be able to pay down a deposit to live (and trying
to find a decent place here is bad enough!), they could prefer to live 'in'
London instead of outside due to the cost of transport and also more
opportunities in London and so on. There are other factors as well - for
example you had to have a NI and have a bank account to get paid, and to get
an NI/bank account you needed a place to stay.

The thing here is that unless you are in the upper-middle income bracket then
you are locked in the London rat race. London is good to live in for a few
years but in terms of a lifetime here, it's not good or you find 'strategies'
in evading council tax.

------
lucaspiller
> Comfortable rooms appear on flatshare websites from time to time, at typical
> rents of £600 a month in areas such as Richmond.

Even if you are working at minimum wage* you are earning over £900 after tax.
Assuming you spend £100 a month to get to work, that's still £200 to spend on
food, the pub, whatever else takes your fancy. You could also save more by not
trying to live in one of the most expensive areas of London. When I was there
(ok nearly two years ago now), I was paying under £400 a month for a rather
comfortable (and warm) house share in South Wimbledon. It was zone 3, and took
25 minutes to get to work in central London.

*A 'living wage' of £8.80 has been getting popular over the last few years, I'll use the UK minimum of £6.31 though. Also, yes I understand not everyone can get a full-time job, but bear with me for sake of argument.

~~~
nitrogen
Many US landlords I've seen will require the renter's income to be 3x the
monthly rent. Is that not common in London?

~~~
g_lined
Not in my experience. The requirement of 6 weeks' rent as a deposit is,
however. I wouldn't be surprised if some ask for 8. This is partly what makes
it so difficult to get in to the rental market for some people.

~~~
tomp
They might require as much as 6 moths (i.e. pay your rent in advance) if you
cannot prove you have a (good?) job.

------
personlurking
Best comment I read from the article..

"That middle bit there, as you put it; "....it's depressing how easily you get
used to the slugs, the dampness, the cold and the filth"....... _that 's_ what
is counted on. This separation of living standards, it's manufactured. Yes
there are some random elements mixed in, but by and large everything is
engineered to be this way. Government, banks, housing moguls....they know they
have people over a barrell, they know people just have to get on. They also
know that if they keep it this way for long enough, not so awful as to make
people revolt but awful enough to serve their greed, people will get used to
it. It will become expected. Then people will feel lucky for having the things
that should be standard for everyone, not one person excluded. You are indeed
lucky, good Sir, but you feel that way because of what you've been put
through. They made the System, and the System has made you this way because
that serves a purpose. That purpose is to keep the rich rich, the poor poor
and to make everyone believe that that's precisely the way it should be."

~~~
nailer
That sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory.

How about: someone has a boat, and the government lets them moor cheaply in
central London. They make money renting it, out of natural human self
interest.

~~~
personlurking
I'm just sharing someone else's comment. The idea that the rich like to get
richer and make the poor, poorer is pretty commonly thought.

~~~
nailer
Yes, but being common doesn't make it sensible or worth sharing here.

------
asgard1024
Another interesting related article in The Guardian:
[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-em...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-
properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice)

------
gadders
I think the thing this article fails to mention is the perfectly adequate
Public Transport system there is around London. I would think the number of
jobs where you physically have to live in London would be very small. For
everyone else there is Tube/Train/Bus/Coaches.

Complaining you have no money because you chose to live in Central London is
like complaining you've got no money for food because you spent all your
salary on payments on a Ferrari.

------
mcdowall
This seems a rather odd article, there are many useful sites (particularly in
London) that enable you to search for properties in a much smarter way these
days, check out the tools on www.findproperly.com , find spare rooms on
www.spareroom.com or even act as a property caretaker on
www.guardiansoflondon.com

------
jackgavigan
There's no denying that London's an expensive city but there are plenty of
options available for those on a budget: [http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-
offered/london](http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-offered/london)

~~~
onion2k
The cheapest on the first page is £300/month - about 25% more than the
£230/month mentioned in the article. The second cheapest is £360/month -
almost 50% more. If you're trying to demonstrate that there are alternative
cheap places to rent, I'd say you failed.

And all of those rentals will require at least a month's rent up front, which
is the main point that the article was addressing - _starting_ out renting is
beyond the pocket of many people.

~~~
icebraining
Filtering for <£60, there are still a few rooms in that site, some of which
are "no deposit"; e.g. [http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-
short-term-...](http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-
share-rooms-no-deposit/1049970881)

I wouldn't enjoy living there, but it seems better than the boat.

------
shultays
I stayed in a hostel for £5 each day (3-4 years ago) while in London. Wouldn't
that plus a locked container somewhere be cheaper? Surely beats a car or a
boat

~~~
sireat
5 quid sounds unbelievably cheap for a hostel in London. Unless they have some
special rule for not letting people stay longer than few days, they would be
swamped.

------
johnchristopher
This article reads like the background of a William Gibson novel (VL).

Scary the future isn't brighter. Or maybe the interlopes are getting darker ?

------
c4newskate
Anyone know Sam Forbes?! kate.conway@itn.co.uk

------
kimonos
Thanks for sharing! I salute you for having survived this!

------
michaelt
While they're in parliament, MPs can expense mortgage payments on a second
home.

This isn't entirely unreasonable - it means you can be elected even if you're
not already rich enough to own a second home in London as well as your home in
your constituency.

But it does have the unfortunate side-effect that rising London house prices
put cash in MPs pockets.

What we need is to do away with expense payments and instead give MPs a per
diem, based on today's expenses and rising with CPI. That way, keeping a lid
on housing, transport and council tax prices will be in their interests.

~~~
DanBC
MPs get paid over £60,000 per year. If they cannot live on that they need to
think about the nurses, teachers, etc who get paid less.

They don't need a second house in London. They do need London accommodation.
It is bizarre that millionaire MPs get paid public money in the form of
expenses on top of their wages to buy a second home in London.

~~~
michaelt
I can understand expecting MPs to live in their constituency, and also that
they need some London accommodation. If you're proposing it could work like a
university halls of residence, I agree with that. My thinking with a per diem
is any change would need MPs support, and they'd go for a per diem more easily
than a cut in their benefits, however deserved it may be.

The origin of paying MPs was in the Chartist movement [1] - back when MPs were
unpaid, no-one who relied on a salary to feed their family could get into
parliament; only rich landowners who didn't have to work for their income
could afford to be MPs. The intent of paying MPs is to allow working class and
middle class people to stand for election.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism)

