Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

Ulfar

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.

Please provide proof of your assertions, the latest episode of the program shows you are wrong.

Victorian properties do have large rooms, want proof check right move or any other property site and look at the room measurements for old and new properties. I don't know of many victorian houses that had a bedroom that you would struggle to get a single bed into. Insulating them also isn't that hard.

The only reason most of these properties need so much work is because they haven't been maintained. When you look at the rows of terrace houses left empty in the show they are all built of brick, something that is actually quite rare for most new builds. Given the choice I would take one of these brick houses rather than a new build.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Ulfar wrote: »

Please provide proof of your assertions, the latest episode of the program shows you are wrong.

Victorian properties do have large rooms, want proof check right move or any other property site and look at the room measurements for old and new properties. I don't know of many victorian houses that had a bedroom that you would struggle to get a single bed into. Insulating them also isn't that hard.

The only reason most of these properties need so much work is because they haven't been maintained. When you look at the rows of terrace houses left empty in the show they are all built of brick, something that is actually quite rare for most new builds. Given the choice I would take one of these brick houses rather than a new build.

And few would join you in that choice. Look north, dear boy, at the prices being charged. Bottom of the pile is almost always Victorian terraces. Why? Because no-one wants them.

clutton_2

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/report-an-empty/

at least lets get something positive from this programme... the above link will alert local councils to empties.....

Dave Wells blatantly lied through his teeth on the programme... Snow was talking about a property of his which Snow had visited 2 days earlier, and Wells junior denied any problems.... claiming that tenants invented stories - or did i just make that up ? i am a LL after all and prone to lying !!!!

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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.

OK

So you propose to effectively de-privatise social housing (or rather the social housing stock that is outsourced to the private sector)
Buying this stock is fine (You could argue the costs would be offset by not having to pay rent+ margin to private landlords)

But how would you pay the demolition/planning/build costs of property deemed substandard (Anything built before the 90s I gather by your criteria) :

So I ask again:

How do you propose this is paid for?

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And few would join you in that choice. Look north, dear boy, at the prices being charged. Bottom of the pile is almost always Victorian terraces. Why? Because no-one wants them.

Its the same in Kent, but you will notice maintained properties fetch higher. It is a matter of lack of maintenance. Not inherent build quality.

What is a house when you strip it for renovation?

4 walls with openings for windows, doors etc, floors and a roof. Inside you will have stud partitions and walls.

The exact same thing you have when you first fix build a new house. Theres no difference (Except a new house will have a cavity wall)

So why not fix what we have and add value to the social housibng stock?

(PS im not suggesting you gut back to brick all Victorian housing, thats expensive just do whats needed)

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

OK

So you propose to effectively de-privatise social housing (or rather the social housing stock that is outsourced to the private sector)
Buying this stock is fine (You could argue the costs would be offset by not having to pay rent+ margin to private landlords)

But how would you pay the demolition/planning/build costs of property deemed substandard (Anything built before the 90s I gather by your criteria) :

So I ask again:

How do you propose this is paid for?

The social sector is running with a nice surplus, which it already uses for development. Hardly a leap of faith, is it?

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Its the same in Kent, but you will notice maintained properties fetch higher. It is a matter of lack of maintenance. Not inherent build quality.

What is a house when you strip it for renovation?

4 walls with openings for windows, doors etc, floors and a roof. Inside you will have stud partitions and walls.

The exact same thing you have when you first fix build a new house. Theres no difference (Except a new house will have a cavity wall)

So why not fix what we have and add value to the social housibng stock?

(PS im not suggesting you gut back to brick all Victorian housing, thats expensive just do whats needed)

You mean "make do and mend". Isn't that what got us here in the first place? You can't just fix a garden onto a property, or take it away from the road, or integrate the 60s bathroom extension into the original fabric of the property. What you are talking about is just expensive patching up, which won't last and wont be cost effective in the longer run.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The social sector is running with a nice surplus, which it already uses for development. Hardly a leap of faith, is it?

What surplus in terms of money or housing stock, please clarify?

I thought public budgets had been slashed, can you back up your above assertions? I think your wrong

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

What surplus in terms of money or housing stock, please clarify?

I thought public budgets had been slashed, can you back up your above assertions? I think your wrong

I mean money. Plenty of Social Landlords out there publishing their accounts each year. I'll let you look a few of your own choosing.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

You mean "make do and mend". Isn't that what got us here in the first place? You can't just fix a garden onto a property, or take it away from the road, or integrate the 60s bathroom extension into the original fabric of the property. What you are talking about is just expensive patching up, which won't last and wont be cost effective in the longer run.

Not at all, your not digesting what im saying:

- Gardens and proximity to road: Cant do anything about this I agree, but its not essential
- Dont understand why a 60s bathroom extension needs to be 'integrated' - its either there or it isnt.

You seem to have this ideal that there needs to be a new program of social housing built
But you evade all queries as to how this is to be realistically achieved...

Pie in the sky...