Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

clutton_2

i am on the verge of reporting you two .... just stop will you ?

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

i am on the verge of reporting you two .... just stop will you ?

More landlord oppression? What next? You'll send the boys round?

(kidding)

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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.

Who says their 'unpopular'? As that programme demonstrated a lot of such properties have simply been blackballed - again, they wouldnt cost a lot to improve. To repeat myself issues of build quality and disrepair are two seperate issues

Cluttons:
With the greatest of respect, whats your problem?

Yorkie1

jc808, I agree with your posts but why continue to feed the troll?

jc808

Oh and chalice:

You never answered my question as to how you would fund this program, as the pathfinder scheme (Smaller than what youre proposing) has stalled due to lack of funds

Can you actually answer this?

red40

Personally I thought it was a poor program. Showed me bed bugs, cockroaches and didnt really deal with the many housing issues in the private rented sector and landlords from hell, it showed me some damp and small amount of mold growth. Also, excluding the B&B's, possibly a Dave Wells HMO with no heating. If this was meant to shock people and show the worst landlords from hell in the UK, it failed miserably. It didnt really show me what I would call a good rogue landlords, illegal evictions, threatening behaviour, it didnt show landlords with no understanding of english housing/tenancy laws a prime example would have been our Suzy and her GMTV/Media friends, oh and Jeremy of course

Of course dont forget that there are also landlords from hell in the public sector. I have visited a few Housing Association houses that are also in a poor condition.

I will keep the post short as two MSE posters seem to be arguing with each other and will never agree to disagree. :mad:

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Who says their 'unpopular'? As that programme demonstrated a lot of such properties have simply been blackballed - again, they wouldnt cost a lot to improve. To repeat myself issues of build quality and disrepair are two seperate issues

Cluttons:
With the greatest of respect, whats your problem?

Again, step outside the SE and see what's happening in the rest of the country. Families want bigger houses, modern efficient systems, gardens, off street parking etc etc etc. In short, families in the 21st century want houses for the 21st century, not those built for the 19th century with an inside loo glued on an as afterthought.

We are talking about cheap, inner city, entirely unremarkable, bog standard Victorian housing which is no longer fit for purpose.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Again, step outside the SE and see what's happening in the rest of the country. Families want bigger houses, modern efficient systems, gardens, off street parking etc etc etc. In short, families in the 21st century want houses for the 21st century, not those built for the 19th century with an inside loo glued on an as afterthought.

We are talking about cheap, inner city, entirely unremarkable, bog standard Victorian housing which is no longer fit for purpose.

OK

But as per post 106 (and other posts before) :

How do you intend to fund this lavish endeavour?

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Oh and chalice:

You never answered my question as to how you would fund this program, as the pathfinder scheme (Smaller than what youre proposing) has stalled due to lack of funds

Can you actually answer this?

Quite simple. Sell the stock to the social sector and let them develop it. In the long run, it will be far more effective than just patching up end of life stock because some bloke on the telly made it look like a good idea.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Yorkie1 wrote: »

jc808, I agree with your posts but why continue to feed the troll?

Oh. The definition of a troll is someone who you disagree with now? I'm not trolling. I'm suggesting that people don't want to live in modern day slums. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend?