Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety. Yet our prime minister has just said ‘we won't take any more refugees’. He thinks that most of us don't care. But 38 Degrees members do care. We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria. So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need. Please sign and share, or start your own petition for your town or city here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/refugees-welcome

Most Leasehold properties are rented by the poorer members of our society; those who can least afford to pay. This charge is placed upon homes that stand on land belonging to THE RICH. It was an ancient charge invented by the Land Barons in Medieval times, as a tax on the poorest of their labourers.

Scotland has the most concentrated land ownership in the developed world. Just 432 people own half of the private land. Land prices are far too high - this is why rents are extortionate, and why young people are leaving when they can't even get a scrap of land for housing. For Scotland to flourish and every community to have a say over their resources and their future, we need a strong land reform bill that really tackles all these issues. We're up against a wealthy landowning lobby who want to water down the Scottish government's proposals - so we must make our voice heard! Tell your MSPs to back the five demands of the #OurLand campaign and make sure we get a bill that can change Scotland for the better. The Our Land Campaign was set up by Common Weal, Women for Independence, the Scottish Land Action Movement and campaigners Andy Wightman and Lesley Riddoch to highlight the way unavailable and unaffordable land blights development in the countryside and cities.

The recent sale of 191-201, Archway Road, London N6 5BN to Investland/ Archway Apartments is threatening the livelihood of a long-standing group of small businesses, entrepreneurs, sole traders and craftsmen, who provide a wide range of services to the local North London community. The proposed development seeks to completely demolish the independent work-units currently used by this diverse collection of small businesses in order to build a new block of luxury flats, also housing a supermarket. The impact of yet another major supermarket would not only destroy the livelihood of the many small independent grocery businesses in the Archway road area, but would also create a major increase in traffic congestion in what is already an overly congested area. A wide range of small independent businesses currently operate from these premises, including highly experienced health and fitness professionals, a media production company, carpenters and joiners, therapists, a painter, and a tailor and clothing designer. Some of these businesses have been providing valuable services to the local Highgate community for decades, and face eviction if these proposals were to go ahead. The proposed new development plans would also mean the eviction of the residential tenants currently living in the block, some of whom have lived here for over thirty years. A report published in 2015 by Sussex Innovation, the business incubation network owned by the University of Sussex, found that two thirds (63%) of small business owners in London and the South East are considering leaving central London due to the lack of affordable business premises in the capital. This is not just a local Highgate issue, but is in fact representative of a growing problem effecting small businesses across the country, where short-sighted and profit-focused property developers are destroying the very heart and soul of local communities in Great Britain. You can watch a short video about the plight of this small business community by clicking the following link: https://vimeo.com/136233275 Please sign this petition and support our cause in defending the livelihood and employment of these small businesses, sole traders and craftsmen working in this building complex, and other small business communities in similar situations throughout the U.K.

UKAR is a company set by the government to get the maximum value from from two banks taken over during the financial crisis. More then 300,000 borrowers have ended up as customers of this company and many of them are in dire financial situation. Few though are as bad off as Rita and Richard Kauffman who are in their late 60's. If they don't repay their 376,000 mortgage UKAR will repossess their home. UKAR is a business without a heart. It has no public share holders and no reputation to protect. Its sole point is to ruthlessly pursue the money it is owed. If that means turning into the street an elderly couple who are the victims of a terrible mis-selling scandal then so be it. In 2006 a financial advisor talked the Kauffmans into a rotten investment. He was part of a group of salesmen who used high pressure tactics and psychological tricks to convince people to take out high risk investments so that he could earn huge commissions. He advised the Kauffmans to take a home loan and invest the money in the high risk deals while they asked for a low risk investment. Bosses at Mortgage Express approved a home loan for the Kauffmans, bringing their total borrowing to £374,925, with hardly a question asked about how this huge sum will be repaid. Bank of Scotland - now a part of Lloyd Banking Group loaned the pensioners a further 194,931 knowing this be used to invest in a package of high risk endowment plans it would also sell them. This sewn together what is now called Frankenstein investment plan has allowed the different businesses involved to wash their hands of any blame because they were just one part of a bigger monster. So although the Financial Ombudsman found in favour of the Kauffmans, none of these businesses have been held to account. Even in 2006, before the financial crash, deals like this were despicable. No bank should ever lend money to allow someone to invest. With compensations awarded by a court following the ombudsman's decision the Kauffmans paid their debt to the Bank of Scotland. However their debt of 376,000 to the now government owned Mortgage Express remains. UKAR has the ability to keep the Kauffmans in their home and ensure they get justice. That would be the best value for the country - not leaving an elderly couple homeless and penniless. UKAR has a net worth of £7 billion!! That is how much they collected for the government. A few thousands will not make a difference to UKAR but mean the roof over the head of two pensioners. Sadly UKAR has shown it doesn't have an ounce of decency. Now it's up to Chancellor George Osborne to show that he does. He is the one man that has the power to keep the Kauffmans in their home. Please sign this petition to urge George Osborne to write- off the Kauffmans' debt and let the Kauffmans keep their home.

The Conservative government have proposed a ‘Right to Buy’ bill which will force Housing Associations to sell off their housing stock at a discount. This policy would decimate the remaining provision of genuinely affordable social housing in the UK, and turn the housing crisis into a catastrophe. Under the current Right to Buy scheme for council housing, only one new house is started for every nine sold. This has resulted in an abject lack of council housing, and forced 100,000s of people onto the private rented sector - sending rents soaring and fuelling the buy-to-let market. Many council tenants who buy their own home are at high risk of losing it due to being unable to afford mortgage repayments. It is estimated that one third of all ex-council homes are now owned by private landlords, who charge rents more than twice the council level. Extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants will make things even worse. In order to recompense Housing Associations for the discounted price at which they are being forced to sell, the government is proposing that councils should be forced to sell off their ‘most expensive’ properties. In a city with inflated house prices such as Brighton and Hove, this could mean that every council house that becomes empty, and every new council house that is built, would be sold off. This would mean the end of all genuinely affordable housing in Brighton and Hove. The Brighton Living Rent campaign call on the city’s MPs to pledge to vote against this catastrophic bill. Please sign below to show your support.

A No Pets policy discriminates against responsible pet owners who are not fortunate enough to own their own homes. It forces tenants to make an impossible choice if they need for whatever reason, to move home. Social Media sites such as Facebook are awash with pets for sale or needing to be rehomed because their owners need to move but are unable to find a home which will allow them to keep their family pets. In many cases, these pets are dogs which have been a member of the family for many years. Pet owners can be tempted to be dishonest when entering into Tenancy Agreements by stating that they do not have pets when in fact, they do. This will render any contract void and puts the tenant at risk of eviction should the landlord or their agent find out that they've lied about pet ownership. In addition to this, there is a human rights issue because the right to a family life and a right to privacy is enshrined in Human Rights Law. If the Right to a Family Life is enough to stop a terrorist from being deported, why should it not prevent landlords from dictating to tenants how they live their lives within reason. After all, the landlord might own the building, but it's the tenant's home.

The A12 is one of London’s most congested and polluted highways. Not only is it a major contributor to ill health among local residents, but it cuts the community of Poplar in half, leaving families and businesses isolated. Cutting the speed limit will allow residents to cross the 6 lane carriageway safely and reduce noise and other pollution.

Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”

In the UK we already have an epidemic of homelessness, if this policy is allowed to go through parliament the numbers of homeless people will increase drastically and child poverty will spiral out of control.

The definition of sheltered housing is that there should be a warden at the facility

The LHA rates are very low, often £200 lower than the the cheapest properties in the area forcing families to downsize their living space in order to find accommodation. At least have the LHA to reflect the cheapest properties... but it doesn't even do that... so a family with 2 children of the same sex entitled to a a 2 bed property are forced into a one bed property. This can't be fair and just considering that it was this Government who introduced the right to buy thus destroying all social housing stock!