Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

lighting_up_the_chalice

Ulfar wrote: »

When it became the place to put people on benefits the council is losing money as it is paying its own rent.

Not quite. Housing Benefit is paid for by central government, not the local council. The local council just administer it.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Isn't that what we do, when cars become old, slow and unsafe? You don't see many Reliant Robins round now, do you?

No but theres a large second hand car market. Houses last longer than cars what with them not being made of metal, and having no moving parts. The fact im having to explain this stuff to you befuddles me

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Why are you so keen to get us back to living in caves. We used to do without central heating, double glazing, inside toilets, hot running water, washing machines, a damp proof course, drinkable tap water, refrigeration, etc etc etc. It's called progress. If it takes a retard to tell you that, just where do you fit into the evolutionary scale?



I think I let you off lightly with just a sigh.

Some facts:

1) It costs c£6000 to put a new plumbing system (Toilet, 2xsinks, shower, boiler, GCH) into a property. It makes no sense to anyone with a brain (Except you, for obvious reasons) to knock a house down because its got no central heating

2) Double glazing - where planning permits its about £2500 to reglaze a house like that. Do you think you could build a new house that people want for that money, smart guy?

3) Outside toilets/ hot water- see the plumbing above

4) A washing machine and refrigerator are the tenants responsibility, unless you think we should knock down victorian social housing because the 19th century builders neglected to put plasma TVs on the wall? !!!!!! get a grip!!!

5) A Damp proof course is usually present on victorian housing, but I wouldnt expect you to know that

6) Drinkable tap water - Ah, I see whats happened here, youre getting 'Victorian 2 up 2 down' mixed up with 'Third World Country' - !!!!!! its the water supply company that provides running water, not the house or housebuilder in question - these properties are connected to mains water and thus have drinking water - please, PLEASE tell me youre not so stupid as not to grasp this. Please.

7) I fit quite well into this 'evolutionary scale' - I know my facts and figures (Seemingly unlike you)

jc808

concerned43 wrote: »

What a disgusting comment - replace 'benefits' with black, jewish or disabled and would you have written the same comment?
Of course not - but you think its perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another minority! People like you make me sick :mad:

Nonsense. Unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing paid accomodation (Eg majorly unfit for habitation, extremely bad area, several cities away from your job etc) you should NOT refuse what your given.

What does this have to do with race?

BigAunty

Ulfar wrote: »

.. The reason for this is single people and couples without children are not a priority and this housing is only issued to priority cases. Unfortunately to be a priority you have to have two kids which these properties are not big enough.

That's not a particularly accurate description of how priority is defined, though it's true that there is often a mismatch between the type of properties that tenants are seeking and those available for let, plus the single and healthy are bound to be lower in priority for social housing compared to those with disabilities, dependents, fleeing DV, etc.

I've always been a bit frustrated that a social housing household has the right to request larger properties when they have more children and the council has a statutory obligation to consider it but there's no requirement for them to downsize as their household shrinks. A bit of a one way street and one big reason why larger families are struggling to be accommodated now due to social housing under occupancy.

Ulfar

concerned43 wrote: »

What a disgusting comment - replace 'benefits' with black, jewish or disabled and would you have written the same comment?
Of course not - but you think its perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another minority! People like you make me sick :mad:

How is it discrimination, people on the housing list are asking for the council to find them accommodation that is fit to live in.

If the council find accommodation and you turn it down why should you stay at the head of the list.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

No but theres a large second hand car market. Houses last longer than cars what with them not being made of metal, and having no moving parts. The fact im having to explain this stuff to you befuddles me

Reliant Robins are largely made of plastic (Reliant were once the largest single consumers of GRP in Europe). The metal chassis was always protected by the oil dripping from the engine. Natural wastage is NOT the reason you hardly see them anymore, they just went out of fashion as better products became available. People aspired to better cars. If they hadn't, you would still be able to buy a new Robin.

jc808 wrote: »

Some facts:

1) It costs c£6000 to put a new plumbing system (Toilet, 2xsinks, shower, boiler, GCH) into a property. It makes no sense to anyone with a brain (Except you, for obvious reasons) to knock a house down because its got no central heating

2) Double glazing - where planning permits its about £2500 to reglaze a house like that. Do you think you could build a new house that people want for that money, smart guy?

3) Outside toilets/ hot water- see the plumbing above

4) A washing machine and refrigerator are the tenants responsibility, unless you think we should knock down victorian social housing because the 19th century builders neglected to put plasma TVs on the wall? !!!!!! get a grip!!!

5) A Damp proof course is usually present on victorian housing, but I wouldnt expect you to know that

6) Drinkable tap water - Ah, I see whats happened here, youre getting 'Victorian 2 up 2 down' mixed up with 'Third World Country' - !!!!!! its the water supply company that provides running water, not the house or housebuilder in question - these properties are connected to mains water and thus have drinking water - please, PLEASE tell me youre not so stupid as not to grasp this. Please.

7) I fit quite well into this 'evolutionary scale' - I know my facts and figures (Seemingly unlike you)

Yet you fail to understand what was a very simple post..... Hmmmmmmm. I was merely pointing out the things that we would now miss if we had followed your rather backward thinking. Is that any clearer for you? Or shall I get the crayons out?

Ulfar

BigAunty wrote: »

That's not a particularly accurate description of how priority is defined, though it's true that there is often a mismatch between the type of properties that tenants are seeking and those available for let, plus the single and healthy are bound to be lower in priority for social housing compared to those with disabilities, dependents, fleeing DV, etc.

I have been in this very position while unemployed and on the waiting list, my council every two weeks advertises empty properties to bid on they are usually one and two bedroom flats.

I tried to request one and it was explained to me by a housing officer that I didn't have enough points to count as a priority and therefore was not allowed to bid. She explained how the points system worked and to get enough points you had to have two children or more, as a single person it was physically impossible for me to qualify this despite me being given notice as my landlord wanted to sell up.

The property in question was advertised for a period of 3 months in the paper after that I just gave up.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and look up a few words like "progress" and "Aspiration". Why are you so intent on setting us a downward race to the bottom?

Your not only an idiot, but a patronising one at that.

For what its worth, I know what both those words mean.

Explain why there is anything WRONG with refurbishing terraced housing to bring back into social housing stock?

I dont buy your previous arguements:
- No hot water/ toilets/ heating etc (As many have demonstrated, these houses can be refurbished at some cost)
- Small garden (Small newbuild houses and flats, which represent a large amount of social housing have exactly the same problem)
- Right by the street (I live in a Victorian terraced property that is set back 3 feet from the street, admittedly not right on the street, and its NOT A PROBLEM)

concerned43

jc808 wrote: »

Nonsense. Unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing paid accomodation (Eg majorly unfit for habitation, extremely bad area, several cities away from your job etc) you should NOT refuse what your given.

What does this have to do with race?

Nothing to do with race BUT with descrimination. Why should someone on benefits be any different to someone who isn't when it comes to housing (or anything else )
Thankfully the housing departments do not ask if the client is on benefits when making an application!
and I think you will find that all but the 'homeless' are asked which areas they wish to live in. The problem is the state of the houses which are offered as there is very little legislation to ensure quality housing is offered.
With regards to the 'homeless' the council treat the homeless like the scum of the earth and put them in the most deprived areas (where noone wants to live) or miles away from their support network.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Yet you fail to understand what was a very simple post..... Hmmmmmmm. I was merely pointing out the things that we would now miss if we had followed your rather backward thinking. Is that any clearer for you? Or shall I get the crayons out?

Then youve clearly misunderstood my posts. My arguement is that instead of knocking down servicable housing, one should refurbish said housing to bring it up to modern standards, ie double glazing, electrics, plumbing etc. My argument was NOT a demand for forced austerity in Social Housing. Im sorry youre having difficulty reading.

No need for crayons this end, im afraid. Save them for filling out your specsavers request.