Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I live in Ashford and have been forced into rented accomodation by these people. I also know at least 700 other people who have, mainly my friends, family, aquaintances and total strangers.

These people are a menace!!! :mad:

it's funny that you feel that way... you were defending them a few weeks ago

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Neither, I just agree that if tenants cause damage then they should pay for it. If the couple could have replaced it with a new lid that matched then I'm sure everything would have been OK, they couldn't and so the landlord is left with an ill matching bathroom.

This isn't normal 'wear and tear', the tenants admit they smashed it (and if I recall correctly, they didn't report it to the LL either, they left hoping it wouldn't be discovered) and so they should make good the breakage. Putting a white lid on a peach suite just doesnt cut it.

Why should the LL have to claim on his insurance when the tenant has clearly caused the damage, has admitted to said damage?

I think a lot of people on here are influenced by a hatred of the Wilsons in particular and a hatred of BTL landlords in general. I have no animosity towards either, so can step back and think how I would feel if my bathroom was damaged by a tenant, who then left hoping I didn't see it and then tried to fob me off with an ill-fitting and ill-matched replacement that was detrimental to the look of my bathroom. I doubt very much that you'd all be so forgiving if it were your bathroom either.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23897095&postcount=43

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

it's funny that you feel that way... you were defending them a few weeks ago

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23897095&postcount=43

I was wishing them good luck just on the previous page, you could have saved yourself the trawl.

Irony just isn't your forte is it chuckster?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

how many people in Ashford do you know personally (not what people talk about on the these forums) that have been forced into rented homes because of the Wilsons?

Personally, none.

I would guess around 600 that would have alternatively bought if they were allowed to do so, but the wilsons could also generate HPI to an extent, and control the rental payments for that whole area, aswell as gain the funds with ease.

I don't see how this is really an argument, it's quite clear many families have no option but to rent from them because they have lapped up all the homes.

ninky_2

mr wilson wants to take part in tv property programmes to mentor buyers.:eek: i thought i had escaped the possibility of the worst gig tv has to offer when gillian mckeith shipped out to canada. a fate worst than unemployment.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't agree, I'm sorry.

As on the flip side of the coin, Tesco's gives millions of pounds to councils each year and also helps charities out with millions of pounds each year.

They give 100's of families jobs in the areas that they are in.

They are not eroding away the small shops, WE are. WE choose to shop there, tesco's do not force us to shop there etc. They do not buy up all the small shops to provide us with no choice.

Whereas the wilsons are forcing people to rent homes if they want to live in Ashford as they ARE eroding all the homes by buying all the FTB properties up before anyone else gets a chance.

Blimey Graham, I'm sure you'd argue black was white if given the oportunity. Let my try and paint an accurate picture and see if you agree or disagree.

There's a small town somewhere in the UK with around 20,000 people living there. A healthy mix of small businesses, shops and services alongside some of the bigger supermarket chains. There's a couple of other similar towns and villages in the ten or tenty mile radius too. No Tesco in the area though. Tesco decide that they want to dominate the market in that area. Note that their secondary aims will be to provide good service, decent products, variety, enhance the community etc. etc. Make no mistake that their main aim is dominate the area and force other people out of business, that's clearly there in their business plans. When a genuine retailer sets out to sell, for example, carpets they would presumably set out to sell the best carpets they could, at the cheapest price and with the best service so as to get customers from other stores. Which is healthly competition, or business vs business, as you put it. Tesco don't operate like that: they will want to desimate all other business in and around that small town to succeed. Same as the Wilsons.

Tesco, rather than concentrate on being the best, will simply try to dominate. Just like the Wilsons did in their market. Tesco will buy land simply to leave dormant and stop other businesses using it. They will actively seek to purchase suppliers and distribution centres in local areas with the sole purpose of shutting them down or taking them over so that supply to local businesses is reduced or even stopped. They will attempt to buy whole farms and bully farmers to produce only one crop on a massive scale so that Tesco have full control over them (provide a variety of fruit and veg for a dozen or so customers and you have a healthy marketplace for the supplier and customer, produce 6 million carrots a year for just one customer in Tescos and you soon find that it is Tesco that call the shots as they can put you out of business with just a click of their fungers). On a wider scale there is obviously accusations of child labour, tax avoidance, awful working conditions, yada yada yada, but you know all that.

Tescos business plan is, in many ways highly similar to the Wilsons. Quality, service and pride in product are all secondary to dominating the market and a drive for profit above all else. They both seem to have a contempt and lack of respect for their local communities and both will argue that people have a 'choice' (as you've argued for Tesco) whilst nothing is further from the truth.

Have a think about about it Graham. You really think that the Wilson's business plan and ethical / moral stance is any different to that of Tesco, Barclays or hundreds of other large corporations?

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Blimey Graham, I'm sure you'd argue black was white if given the oportunity. Let my try and paint an accurate picture and see if you agree or disagree.

I'm not arguing. You asked me a question, I have answered it with a reason why i disagree with you, politely.

Don't see much point in debating the rest of your post with you now, as I feel unless I agree with you, you'll just say I'm arguing.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not arguing. You asked me a question, I have answered it with a reason why i disagree with you, politely.

You didn't really though Graham. You said that the Wilson's dominate their market place and don't give their customers choice and that Tesco (and other businesses) don't operate in this way. I said that's clear that they do and gave you examples. You disagree with these examples then, is that what you're saying?

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I was wishing them good luck just on the previous page, you could have saved yourself the trawl.

Irony just isn't your forte is it chuckster?

maybe not but can you put your next ironic posts in these please <irony>Harry must Insert irony here<irony> or why not even use this

namespace SapRfcClientCM
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//create a binding
SAPBinding binding = new SAPBinding();

//set up an endpoint address.
EndpointAddress endpointAddress = new EndpointAddress("sap://Client=800;lang=EN@A/YourSAPHost/00");

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally, none.

I would guess around 600 that would have alternatively bought if they were allowed to do so, but the wilsons could also generate HPI to an extent, and control the rental payments for that whole area, aswell as gain the funds with ease.

I don't see how this is really an argument, it's quite clear many families have no option but to rent from them because they have lapped up all the homes.

it wasn't an argument against what you've said.
you're probably right to be fair.

i just don't understand how these people have become so popular (or unpopular) and everyone is an expert on their business model, their equity left in property etc

Graham_Devon

What type of land do Tesco's buy up? It is industrial land, of pretty much no use to anyone apart from morrisons, sainsburys etc.

The examples you are using are completely different between the Wilsons and Tesco's.

Tescos fights business.

The wilsons fight families.

I don't want to go any further with this to be honest, I simply do not agree with your examples of the wilsons and tesco's being the same kind of business strategy.