Housing Association residents disrupting quiet estate

sebtomato

Missme wrote: »

If the issue is not with people being public sector tenants, why make such a feature of it in the thread title?

Sorry, but read my posts. The few people creating trouble are indeed tenants from the Housing Association.

Missme wrote: »

Granted, it is no fun living near people who have no problem living in a sty but if you wanted to be free of such concerns, you would have paid a premium to avoid them.

Can't avoid them in my borough, apart from buying a house or a converted flat, rather than a flat in a block of flat or development. I paid a premium to be in a nice estate, and don't want a few people to make it a council estate.

sebtomato

I_have_spoken wrote: »

I'd be asking if the HA manager had been slipped a bung to allow these tenants onto the estate or possibly are family?

I don't think so, as I am sure there is a selection process for HA tenants, and the estate manager does not get to decide. However, he could give them warnings and push them out after a while.

I_have_spoken wrote: »

>starting at £350,000 for a flat up to £1.2M for a house. <

Must be gutting to spend that, then see chavs handed the same on a plate.

Yes, indeed, although the vast majority of the HA tenants are behaving well and are respecting the place. They are probably very happy to live in the development, and probably as annoyed by the disruption.

I understand why the borough wants to enforce 30% affordable housing in each development, but then they should have some strict rules about the tenants, so that the remaining 70% of private owners don't see the value of their investment decreased.

Tiffany_Aching

kingstreet wrote: »

It's a good job home owners and their kids are always well-behaved and never graffiti, rubbish or vandalise their neighbourhoods. Here fishy, fishy. I fancy some fun this morning!

No one has argued with your post! Doesn't look like you have caught your fish supper on your line yet, kingstreet - lol!

kingstreet

I know!

White text fail.

sebtomato

kingstreet wrote: »

It's a good job home owners and their kids are always well-behaved and never graffiti, rubbish or vandalise their neighbourhoods.

I know this comment was made to trigger a response.

Out of the 180 homes in the development, 60 are social housing. I am sorry to say that 95% of the trouble comes from a few of their residents or children. When I try to talk to them, they shout or insult. Recently, I caught a boy writing on a wall, and his girl friend dumping some wrapper in the bushes: neither could understand why it was wrong.

Only the social housing buildings have broken furniture left in the communal areas, things hanging by the windows, graffitis on the inside walls etc.

Do I know why disruption comes from the social housing? No, I don't. I don't think education or behaving decently has got anything to do with money. If I was living in a HA building, and had the opportunity to get a place in such nice estate, I wouldn't have a different behavior: I wouldn't leave litter on the ground or trash the place.

worried_jim

sebtomato wrote: »

Do I know why disruption comes from the social housing? No, I don't. I don't think education or behaving decently has got anything to do with money. If I was living in a HA building, and had the opportunity to get a place in such nice estate, I wouldn't have a different behavior: I wouldn't leave litter on the ground or trash the place.

It's just chav scum. I face exactly the same problem and am on a similar development, I know which flats are rented and which are owned just by looking at the communal waste areas next to each block. It only gets worse I am afraid.

geoffky

gazter wrote: »

Quite. They're many many areas across the north of England that have entire streets of houses empty. Often this has been caused by a couple of bad families.

It doesnt take much to bring down an areas value, and that isnt just material value.

Care to show me a example of this? Or some other proof please.
Or have you just made it up?

geoffky

sebtomato wrote: »

so that the remaining 70% of private owners don't see the value of their investment decreased.

Here is me thinking houses were for living in...Silly me..

gazter

geoffky wrote: »

Care to show me a example of this? Or some other proof please.
Or have you just made it up?

Really? You dont believe this is the case? Get yourself over to sunderland, newcastle, liverpool, leeds. There are no shortage of streets of social housing emptied due to anti social behaviour.

My dad owned a house on a street that by the end of it, he was the only person left, as he had bought his, and the rest were council housing. That street had to be knocked down for no other purpose that people would no longer live there.

leveller2911

sebtomato wrote: »

they should have some strict rules about the tenants, so that the remaining 70% of private owners don't see the value of their investment decreased.

And there is the crux........Typical of todays materialistic Society.Its all about investment value and little else.......

If all of the Social Housing residents had the Right to buy and did so but were still neighbours from hell would it make any difference ?.

The worse kept house in our cul-de-sac is the only property that has owner occupiers.It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not a property has owner occupiers of tenants.