Good Old Fergus!

James_Green_1982

chucknorris wrote: »

It isn't complicated (I don't mean to sound rude, but this is the truth), he is a nutter, it really is as simple as that. Just because he is rich (and he is very rich Crashy) but that doesn't say anything more about him than his wealth, let's face it, who would swap places with him! I certainly wouldn't.

I would argue that Wilson has allowed himself to become an easy 'Bogeyman' for those who argue against private landlords.
I would also point out the hypocrisy of the media establishment - many of whom are probably just as wealthy and may even own BTL properties themselves.

lisyloo

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

I would also point out the hypocrisy of the media establishment - many of whom are probably just as wealthy and may even own BTL properties themselves.

I don’t have any issue with people making themselves wealthy through their own efforts (even fergus).

What I have an issue with is people living in slums or without heating etc.
There needs to be a lot more enforcement of the bad uns and if that means all landlords have to cross-subsidise this enforcement then so be it.
There should be prison sentences where the neglect has led to human suffering. Money isn’t sufficient to stop wealthy people doing whatever they want.

But what’s wrong with making money? Surely that’s what we want people to do.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s hard for tenants on benefits to find places at all but especially if they have extra needs e.g. for a wheelchair.

Telling someone physically disabled to “just move” is a bit like telling someone whos begging to get a job.

I have been coming round to the conclusion that there isn’t a general housing crisis for millennial snowflakes but there is a crisis for those on benefits and the vulnerable because one of the downsides of exchanging social housing for private landlords is that they have a greater chance (than those of us who would be capable of just moving) of ending up in a slum or with a terrible landlord like Fergus. This is bad enough for anybody but more difficult for people who are vulnerable, aren’t articulate, don’t know their rights, shy away from confrontation and might have mental health issues.

Someone in a wheelchair is just as capable of moving to a new home as someone not in one, they are likely to have carers/support workers to help if needed, that is totally different to being mentally unwell and not being able to tell Fergus Ta Ta for some reason.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

It isn't complicated (I don't mean to sound rude, but this is the truth), he is a nutter, it really is as simple as that. Just because he is rich (and he is very rich Crashy) but that doesn't say anything more about him than his wealth, let's face it, who would swap places with him! I certainly wouldn't.

From Wikipedia - "However, that fortune related to the value of their properties at the peak and did not take account of any mortgage debt"

Do you know how much his mortgages are, how much he actually is worth? You would need to know this before bowing down at the altar of his "wealth" IMO, and if his lifestyle is what wealth brings I think most people would pass TBH. Of course these types of programmes are just distraction, the main problem is that banks and politicians deliberately turned on the credit taps to get lending going and hide the lack of wage growth in this country, of course lots of people fell for it and we are reaping the rewards now, Brexit is one result that would never have happened if house prices were allowed to correct sooner IMO.

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Someone in a wheelchair is just as capable of moving to a new home as someone not in one, they are likely to have carers/support workers to help if needed, that is totally different to being mentally unwell and not being able to tell Fergus Ta Ta for some some reason.

I did not say it was difficult them to move. I said it was more difficult for them to “find places”. For example they can’t do stairs and Probably need modifcations to the shower/bath, so they are more restricted over which properties are suitable.

I’ll take 50% of the responsibility for you getting the wrong end of the stick but “find places” is a direct quote.

What’s you opinion on the disabled lady with no heating for 5 months not moving?
Why don’t you think she mobilised her army of carers and supporters and moved somewhere else if it was that easy?

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

I did not say it was difficult them to move. I said it was more difficult for them to “find places”. For example they can’t do stairs and Probably need modifcations to the shower/bath.

I’ll take 50% of the responsibility for you getting the wrong end of the stick but “find places” is a direct quote.

What’s you opinion on the disabled lady with no heating for 5 months not moving?
Why don’t you think she mobilised her army of carers and supporters and moved somewhere else?

She needs to get a good social worker/key-worker/advocate for future issues, and then find a lawyer that will pursue a court case. TBH I didn`t watch the programme, not really that interested in what this guy has to say about anything, just amused at the way he used to be revered on here as something many posters secretly aspire to. The narrative is obvious though - Landlord = Bad, Tenant = Needs to be protected by more punitive landlord taxes for HMRC - why don`t they do a show about the thousands of disabled, mentally unwell, alcoholic, aslyum seekers etc. etc. put up at the taxpayers expense in some of the best postcodes in the country, in houses/flats that the average person will never afford? The reason IMO is that that would direct anger at the system in general and not at a sub-set of that system i.e landlords that the PTB want to scapegoat now.

lisyloo

She needs to get a good social worker/key-worker/advocate for future issues, and then find a lawyer that will pursue a court case

That is probably true, but it’s not that easy in the real world.
Most people can’t afford lawyers.

Social works vary enormously. We’ve had a very good one for social care but many are not and it’s a postcode lottery. She might not be considered that high priority if they have people without homes at all.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

That is probably true, but it’s not that easy in the real world.
Most people can’t afford lawyers.

Social works vary enormously. We’ve had a very good one for social care but many are not and it’s a postcode lottery. She might not be considered that high priority if they have people without homes at all.

Many lawyers do free or subsidised work for vulnerable people. You can be sure this lady (and Fergus) was chosen because it suits the present anti-landlord narrative. I don`t believe that he had 1000 houses and that all the tenants were unhappy.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

There was a love in on here some time ago when he supposedly sold the lot and became "very rich"

The only "love in" I've ever seen was on HPC where they're absolutely fixated on the guy; I'm sure some have a man crush on him.

Here on MSE most people seem to find him obnoxious and bigoted and wouldn't give him the time of day.

In a recent court case that his wife (who owns 300 of their properties) lost, she was ordered to reveal her financial circumstances and interestingly the judge commented that Mrs Wilson was "not as wealthy as people think" and only pays herself £23k a year ...

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

I have been coming round to the conclusion that there isn’t a general housing crisis for millennial snowflakes but there is a crisis for those on benefits and the vulnerable because one of the downsides of exchanging social housing for private landlords is that they have a greater chance (than those of us who would be capable of just moving) of ending up in a slum or with a terrible landlord like Fergus. This is bad enough for anybody but more difficult for people who are vulnerable, aren’t articulate, don’t know their rights, shy away from confrontation and might have mental health issues.

Sturgeon's Law I'm afraid. 90% of landlords and their properties are crap and it's not the well-off and self-motivated who are going to live in the crap ones.

But on the positive side, the standard of what we consider "crap" has soared over the last 100 years, thanks to economic growth backed up by regulation.