Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

jc808

concerned43 wrote: »

Final word - Social housing should be given to those in need and nothing else should come into it. 'Benefits' should not be a qualifying condition nor should those on benefits be treated any differently that those not on benefits as to do so would be discrimination!
The law protects against race/disabilty/creed discrimination but the new discrimination, particularly on this board, is against those unfortunate enough to be on benefits and I find this deeply disturbing.

I dont understand the veracity of your arguement

Are you saying that social housing is discriminatory because it is primarily geared towards benefit claimants? Why? Surely benefit claimants are going to be their most needy...?

brit1234

Are we allowed to mention Dave Wells the dodgy Bournemouth Landlord or will he sue MSE members like other dodgy landlords have tried? He was the star of Landlords from Hell.

This is Dave Wells.



This is a story about his attempts to corrupt the local planning authority.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/elections/local_news/8997545.Dave_Wells_in_election_row_after__vote_Tory__appeal/

This is him with his sons who help run his business.



Below is the link to Dave Wells guide to Dealing with Damp. :rotfl:
http://www.davewells.net/useful-info/useful-info-details/dealing-with-damp.aspx

As Channel 4 showed damp is a real issue in a Dave Wells homes.


This is central heating, you won't get this with Dave Wells homes


This is Sandbanks where the caring landlord Dave Wells lives.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

So you agree you barged the red flag about the RACIAL aspect bought up by the other poster.
This is a discussion about social housing in which racial matters are not a primary point.

As I said.... Already answered. Let's leave it there... huh?

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Your remark here just illustrates you clearly know nothing about Victorian housing or building materials/ techniques.

The simple fact is Victorian housing was built to a high standard with good materials and with large internal space. I speak from experience here. You seem to be muddling 'build quality' with 'condition'

Much of the inner-city Victorian street-house stock is cold, damp, poorly maintained, poorly repaired, cramped, inefficient rubbish built to a low cost. As I say, we are talking about a 21st century slum clearance, not an attack on the leafy suburbs.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jamie11 wrote: »

Victorian housing was the bees knees in it's time. Modern housing does not always show an improvement.
Witness the modern rabbit hutches where you cannot fit a normal 3 piece suite into the living room.

Not all Victorian housing was anything like the Bees knees. Witness the slum clearances of the 60s and 70s which saw so many of the old back to backs raised (thankfully) to the ground. Victorian housing is no different to any other housing. Only the better units will last the test of time.

clutton_2

if only dave wells was as careful in attending to his own repairs as he was in teaching his tenants how to deal with condensation.... in any case since at least one of his houses had no heating at all, its impossible to keep the mould at bay.......

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

if only dave wells was as careful in attending to his own repairs as he was in teaching his tenants how to deal with condensation.... in any case since at least one of his houses had no heating at all, its impossible to keep the mould at bay.......

There are many "Dave Wells" up and down the country. Bulldozing his stock and replacing it with good quality, desirable social housing would be a good place to start!

theartfullodger

On the. basis of what C4 showed, bulldozing Dave Wells into the sea would be a better option... I'm sure sensible private landlords/councils could turn his slums into acceptable homes in many cases...

If he's as portrayed, I'd like to see him deported: And the rest of his ilk...

Bad landlords/Landlords-from-hell are bad for Britain, bad for housing, bad for councils, bad for tenants and bad for decent landlords.. We don't want them here, they ain't demonstrating those core British traditions of tolerance, decency & fair-play.

Could some other recently prolific posters perhaps consider those core British traditions of tolerance, decency & fair-play.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Much of the inner-city Victorian street-house stock is cold, damp, poorly maintained, poorly repaired, cramped, inefficient rubbish built to a low cost. As I say, we are talking about a 21st century slum clearance, not an attack on the leafy suburbs.

Nonsense.
Again to correct your misconceptions:

Cold - Can be insulated and heated CHEAPLY
Damp - Remediable
Poorly maintained - A maintenance issue
Cramped - no
Inefficient - In what regard? Clarify

21st century slum clearance - OK what happened after the last slum clearances? Thats right lots of cheap Fairey/ NSC houses (If you were LUCKY) or blocks of faceless highrise FLATS were built.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think demolition and rebuild is the best option for all older, less up to date social housing stock.

You are getting matters of Building MAINTENANCE and DISREPAIR mixed up with Build QUALITY.

You still havent answered my questions asking how you intend to do this 21st century slum clearance (In respect of logistics and cost) why is this?

Maybe because its a stupid !!!!ing idea. Prove me wrong.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Nonsense.
Again to correct your misconceptions:

Cold - Can be insulated and heated CHEAPLY
Damp - Remediable
Poorly maintained - A maintenance issue
Cramped - no
Inefficient - In what regard? Clarify

21st century slum clearance - OK what happened after the last slum clearances? Thats right lots of cheap Fairey/ NSC houses (If you were LUCKY) or blocks of faceless highrise FLATS were built.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think demolition and rebuild is the best option for all older, less up to date social housing stock.

You are getting matters of Building MAINTENANCE and DISREPAIR mixed up with Build QUALITY.

You still havent answered my questions asking how you intend to do this 21st century slum clearance (In respect of logistics and cost) why is this?

Maybe because its a stupid !!!!ing idea. Prove me wrong.

If they were as warm and spacious as you seem to think, it must make you wonder why they are so unpopular and, as a result, cheap. Being so cheap, they aren't cost effective to maintain or improve. Lack of maintenance and improvement leads to neglect and disrepair.

You need to broaden your mind and look at the wider picture.