Good Old Fergus!

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

In the context of this board does it matter? In the continued absence of any data about his houses, business or tenants the subject of debate is whether he's a bell or not and there seems to be a broad consensus he is.

With the way you go on about the detail, yes, I should think it matters.

Unless you are going to quit the hundreds of posts following up mine whinging on about detail and taking issue with the wording of every single article?

I'm all for that...

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

Fergus wanted a former tenant to pay for a new bathroom after the tenant broke the toilet and the tenant didn't want to. As a result they went to court to resolve the disagreement.

It doesn't seem like a particularly contentious thing. The courts were simply doing what they do: resolving disputes.

I'd expect a business running 900 - 1000 tenancies with an apparently obnoxious individual in charge to be in the courts much more.

Even the disputes that do make it to court seem inconsequential.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'd expect a business running 900 - 1000 tenancies with an apparently obnoxious individual in charge to be in the courts much more.

Even the disputes that do make it to court seem inconsequential.

Why? What are you expecting? He's within the law. Being obnoxious and ruthless doesn't attract court proceedings. it just harms lives.

That's what many people take issues with - the law isn't strong enough.

leveller2911

mayonnaise wrote: »

How's that? You've done some carpentry or joinery for him?

No, friends of mine own a shop he visits regularly. I'm often in there when he turns up. Unless I was in dire need of work I wouldn't lower myself to work for him..:D

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With the way you go on about the detail, yes, I should think it matters.

Unless you are going to quit the hundreds of posts following up mine whinging on about detail and taking issue with the wording of every single article?

I'm all for that...

Sorry I didn't make my point clearly enough. Of course getting the detail of the court case correct are important but it seems more of a discussion time subject akin to 'is Jeremy Clarkson a !!!!!!'.

Mr Wilson might be the pantomime landlord people love to hate but there seems to be almost no detail about his business despite the Kent Messenger putting their crack team of journalists on the case.

leveller2911

Generali wrote: »

Fergus wanted a former tenant to pay for a new bathroom after the tenant broke the toilet and the tenant didn't want to. As a result they went to court to resolve the disagreement.

It doesn't seem like a particularly contentious thing. The courts were simply doing what they do: resolving disputes.

The tenant cracked a peach or avocado coloured toliet cistern and Fungus wanted a complete new bathroom saying he couldn't get a toilet cistern cover to match the existing one and claimed around £6k or so. If he had a ounce of common sense he only needed to look in the reclaimation yard a few miles from his house to find a replacement one which would have cost about £20-00.


Fungus would include the costs of replacing the kitchens,bathrooms etc every few years in the rents he charges. He is a chancer, chancing his arm into rooking the people who rent his properties.

Make them pay twice, thats his motto just so he can be the richest man in the graveyard.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why? What are you expecting? He's within the law. Being obnoxious and ruthless doesn't attract court proceedings. it just harms lives.

That's what many people take issues with - the law isn't strong enough.

Bizarre. You think because he's in court so little is evidence the law isn't strong enough?

That's your prejudice talking - it must be because you know virtually nothing about how he runs his business.

Zandoni

He has been to court with many of his tenants, most of them keep it quiet in case he puts them through it again.

wotsthat

Zandoni wrote: »

He has been to court with many of his tenants, most of them keep it quiet in case he puts them through it again.

Surprised the Fergus fan club don't report on the detail of these frequent and frivolous legal cases.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Bizarre. You think because he's in court so little is evidence the law isn't strong enough?

That's your prejudice talking - it must be because you know virtually nothing about how he runs his business.

He has been in court many times. Sometimes for offences to do with the business, sometimes for offences outside of the business.

It was YOU who concluded that "you'd expect him in court more often" as a barometer of his business.

I've lost the will on this one. Seems you are arguing for arguments sake. He has been on the TV PLENTY of times describing his business, so feel free to go and gen up instead of making out everyone has decided how he runs his buisiness based on one single article.

On the other hand, if you are just here to cheerlead him as he's a BTL landlord, just go down the mayonnaise route. Of course, you'll say you are not. But you are taking issue with anything anyone has to say against him.