Scapegoating Landlords ?

poppysarah

clutton wrote: »

You never see landlords naming bad tenants in the public domain… and slagging them off in this manner….

Erm you did see the news item about the letting agents who were putting signs up outside tenants homes saying they didn't pay the rent?

<sebb>

clutton wrote: »

You never see landlords naming bad tenants in the public domain… and slagging them off in this manner….

Suzy Butler publicly named her allegedly non paying tenant on GMTV, the BBC, Radio 5, The Argus and the Metro, to name a few. In many of these cases her tenant was labelled as a squatter. The public facebook campaign she subsequently started resulted in many people calling for it to be legal to drag the tenant out of the house by her hair or cut off the electricity supply.

googler

clutton wrote: »

then the deleted story about the Brighton landlady who got GMT involved – many posts on this thread just got utterly hysterical and out of control…… Then the follow-on Tent Thread - which is still ongoing – although the media dropped this story ages ago..

You never see landlords naming bad tenants in the public domain

How long should the tent thread go on, in view of the fact that Ms Butler is campaigning via Parliament to change laws which she seems to have broken?

Never sat 'never' - especially when your (bold) statement early in your post contradicts it.

sequence

The Suzy Butler thread is legitimately still going as Carmen is seeking legal advice so it should still be followed on here.

mustrum_ridcully

Whoa, almost got hit by a flying toy!

This is a consumer website, the consumer in this relationship is the tenant, so of course there is going to be some anti-landlord sentiment.

Look at the grief that lets say supermarkets get here, yet many people will spend a lot less in supermarkets than they do paying their landlord. During my student days I'd spend about £80 pm on food but pay my landlord £140pcm in rent, so I'd expect a better service from my landlord than from Tesco's. I didn't always get that better service though...

Trouble is there are far too many people didn't get that better service, they remember that it took say two weeks for an electrician to come around (on the flat they paid £400pcm for) but now that they own a house realise they can get one in next day. That's why some people enjoy giving landlords a good kicking.

I've no time for bad landlords in the same way I have no time for bad tenants.

BitterAndTwisted

Erm, I thought the intention of keeping the "Retraction" thread bumped up on the first couple of pages here was to ensure that that particular agency's name came up high on any "Google" searches to warn the unwary.

In my opinion the "Tent" thread is just giving that Hove person a taste of their own medicine. She was the one courting publicity and now she's got some.

I believe the reaction to those two particular landlords just shows how odious and unusual their actions were. I don't believe for a moment that they are typical of their profession at all. I believe if they were their actions would receive little comment.

As a mere tenant myself I find the helpful advice given by our professional landlords on here invaluable and very interesting and I'm sure the posters who come here seeking help and guidance appreciate it as well, be they landlords or tenants.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

In recent weeks/months this forum seems to be taking an utter delight in finding prolonging stories (sometimes beyond all reason) about a tiny number of landlords who are behaving badly.

There seems to be almost a sense of gleeful hysteria… “” lets find another one….

Clutton has made many useful supportive posts on here, but does have an unfortunate habit of accusing other posters of hysteria when their posts don't align with her own views.

clutton wrote: »

Lets REALLY have a got at this person - lets Really investigate this person and threaten them with exposure of personal details not only of them but their families also”

I would agree that one particular poster in one thread did seem to go OTT and I said as much in that thread. Some of the posts do appear to have been deleted, possibly by mse admin

clutton wrote: »

So much so that two threads have been pulled/frozen. This is a rare occurrence on MSE.
I think this is becoming like a witch-hunt…. And I think it has got out of hand…..

I think it started with “Retraction” about IRD homes – to which I contributed in the early days.. but that thread is still going on in a relentless “lets not let this thread die every” kind of a way……

Then the Landlord xxxxxxxxxx thread which REALLY brought out the worst in people - landlord and tenant I have to say

Clutton is being disingenuous here - the latter thread which was closed off had had a self promoting LL sock-puppeting his way through the thread ( a misrepresentation/consumer/trading standards issue) and being thoroughly & repeatedly abusive to all other posters who questioned his business practices. Clutton herself seemed to have played along with the sock puppetry when it was pretty clear what was going on, but she says she had signed up with this LLs business. It certainly *did* seem to bring out the worst in some : other posters who disagreed with Clutton and/or the sock puppets were referred to as "hardened Ts" ( assuming that all who opposed were Ts), "ranters", "hysterical" " landlord-bashers", "bullies"

As for IRD homes - a number of their Ts have reported their difficulties on here and then one of them was clearly obliged to issue a retraction. It's pretty obvious why that would create such a response from people who value the opportunity for consumers (ie Ts) to be able to discuss such matters. Unfortunately, other Ts are apparently continuing to have problems with this firm so many would view it as appropriate that other potential Ts are kept aware.

clutton wrote: »

then the deleted story about the Brighton landlady who got GMT involved – many posts on this thread just got utterly hysterical and out of control……

There's that favourite word again - hysterical. There are copies of the original thread which would suggest that the vast majority were far removed from "hysterical"

clutton wrote: »

Then the follow-on Tent Thread - which is still ongoing – although the media dropped this story ages ago..

Ages ago? And since when do we govern what we discuss according to what the media does or doesn't do?

The media *are* still involved and the point is that the amateur LL involved not only seems to see herself as being above the law but wants to change it. There are many points of interest in that case - for example, the LL had in her contract a 15 quid per day late fee and expects to be able to apply that, and included that figure in her very public pronouncements on the T's actual debt. The LLs publicity stunts brought attention from far right forums and vile abuse towards the T. The T has a daughter who is suffering ( as would be expected when the parent has undergone a "trial by media"?)

Given the many strands to this case, and the fact that the "LL's" self promoting campaign is ongoing, many would view it as appropriate that discussion continues, here and elsewhere.

clutton wrote: »

Then the Evict a Rogue Landlord thread

I interpreted Artfuls' purpose in creating that thread to be to highlight Shelter's Campaign on the *minority* of LLs who are indeed "rogue" It is not unreasonable for the thread to develop from there to include information on LLs who have actually been convicted of some pretty serious offences.

"Rogue" LLs may be a minority but many of them own several properties and their capacity to cause utter misery to their Ts needs to be curbed, and be seen to be curbed.

The cases that have been posted up on that thread are ones in which the LLs have been charged in a court of law for failing to meet their obligations/flouting the law, and Ts who are embroiled in a long slog against their own LL need to know that LLs can, and do, get dealt with under the current rules and regs.

Many people call for yet more regulation to be brought in but what these cases show is that the current laws can work well, if there is sufficient funding for cases to be followed through to the bitter end.

It's also useful for new LLs to see that poor "advice" that gets given on here about trying to circumvent laws/regs can cost them dearly.

Decent LLs should have no issue with this - it's in everyone's interest that "poor" LLing becomes a thing of the past, and that those who can't/won't operate under the laws, which are designed to protect Ts, get squeezed out of operation.

clutton wrote: »

You never see landlords naming bad tenants in the public domain… and slagging them off in this manner….

Those cases are already in the public domain and Clutton is quite happy to be signed up to a tenant database run by a LL, which lists & passes around both "good" and "bad" Ts' personal information. (These are not just Ts who have been convicted/been subject to civil action, you understand - it is "LL judgement".)

clutton wrote: »

Perhaps we need to draw breath and stop being so “goaded” into over-the-top comments

I think Clutton is right - she should.:) A recent thread started by a LL (mchale) was pulled for some reason. A paranoid post then appears from Clutton claiming that mchale was a provocative tenant

clutton wrote: »

I have started this thread to ask for some restraint…..

No doubt some will find this post offensive …. That’s forums for you

Not "offensive" Clutton - it's simply one person's viewpoint.:)

As I said before

tbs624 wrote:

You are welcome to your own views ...........just as everyone else is welcome to their views

lynzpower

Then the Evict a Rogue Landlord thread

Not so IMO.

All the cases in that thread are exactly that - legal cases.

It is not us- anonymous typists on a message board who have created these cases out of thin air, it is tenants being treated poorly, environmental health, trading standards, the HSE and courts that have determined that they did have cases and that those landlords (and agents) were liable for what they had neglected to do.

It would be a very sad day when tenants and prospective tenants ( and the general public with a passing interest in LL&T law) cannot discuss or share pertinent cases.

It is only today when you yourself clutton have posted on the thread about the LL who has started decorating and has removed the tenants belongings from the property- you yourself highlighted that this is a breach of the Protection from Eviction act.

clutton_2

Lynz - of course i will always condemn bad landlords... you all know that - and especially barstewards like the one i commented on this morning... but i think that some MSE posters are getting things out of proportion. thats all... Especiallyh if one or two cases are constantly dredged up - the effect on the body of landlords of this country will continue to be negative...

i find it interesting that claims were made that landlords publish bad tenants names.. and only one name has been forthcoming - from the tent thread.

Putting a "rent dodgers" board outside a property is not a tactic i agree with at all, but it does only tell the immediate neighbourhood that a person inside is a non-rent payer but does not give an name... it is not a tactic that is on the web for the whole world to read... unlike some of the comments here on MSE and other boards....

I think putting such a board up tells us more more, (and not in a good way) about the LL - not the tenant

poppysarah

clutton wrote: »

Putting a "rent dodgers" board outside a property is not a tactic i agree with at all, but it does only tell the immediate neighbourhood that a person inside is a non-rent payer but does not give an name... it is not a tactic that is on the web for the whole world to read... unlike some of the comments here on MSE and other boards....

I think putting such a board up tells us more more, (and not in a good way) about the LL - not the tenant

It does say a lot about the LL.
You could argue that it's more damaging when people you live near know you - and that could be as the result of being in the media or having boards outside your house.

I do tend to try and stick to the rule "don't say anything online that you wouldn't say to someone's face".