Am I prejudice?????

Cakeguts

There are badly behaved people living in all tenures of housing. The problem is that the focus has been on problems on council estates and that appears to have given the impression that ALL tenants as opposed to owners are a problem. This isn't the case. People who rent their homes are no more likely to be a problem than people who own their homes. In my road there are 13 houses. Two of them are rented. It was 3 but one was sold. We have never had any problem with any of the tenants. They are just ordinary people like the rest of the road. We did in the past have a bit of a bully owner occupier but they sold their house and moved.

Ashingtonian

Cakeguts wrote: »

There are badly behaved people living in all tenures of housing. The problem is that the focus has been on problems on council estates and that appears to have given the impression that ALL tenants as opposed to owners are a problem. This isn't the case. People who rent their homes are no more likely to be a problem than people who own their homes. In my road there are 13 houses. Two of them are rented. It was 3 but one was sold. We have never had any problem with any of the tenants. They are just ordinary people like the rest of the road. We did in the past have a bit of a bully owner occupier but they sold their house and moved.

I believe most people would disagree with that statement.

Cakeguts

Ashingtonian wrote: »

Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, private tenants are much more likely to cause problems than home owners, they're not concerned about the state of the property they live in as they don't have to fork out for repairs. Of course some LL's have a lot to answer for renting out to trouble makers in the first place and turning a blind eye as long they get their money.

What evidence do you have for this statement about private tenants? I have seen rented houses that really are very well looked after and not at all like the assumption you are making. What I don't think you realise is that a rented house is a home for a tenant the fact that is rented and not bought doesn't make it any the less of a home. There are some tenants who are antisocial. There are some owner occupiers who are antisocial.

marksoton

Ashingtonian wrote: »

I believe most people would disagree with that statement.

I don't.

Based on anecdotal evidence of course.

Ashingtonian

Cakeguts wrote: »

What evidence do you have for this statement about private tenants? I have seen rented houses that really are very well looked after and not at all like the assumption you are making. What I don't think you realise is that a rented house is a home for a tenant the fact that is rented and not bought doesn't make it any the less of a home. There are some tenants who are antisocial. There are some owner occupiers who are antisocial.

Of course, and I assume the vast majority of both types are fine, however I believe a higher percentage of tenants will behave antisocially than home owners. We can agree to disagree.

Just a little story to back up my view, a new build development near where I work is nearing completion, however there is a certain percentage of the housing classed as "Social housing" which will be owned by the council to rent out to tenants. The developer can barely give away the houses they'are selling to private owners due to this, despite the national housing shortage. Make of that what you will.

Pixie5740

Ashingtonian wrote: »

Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, private tenants are much more likely to cause problems than home owners, they're not concerned about the state of the property they live in as they don't have to fork out for repairs. Of course some LL's have a lot to answer for renting out to trouble makers in the first place and turning a blind eye as long they get their money.

Yes, that's right, tenants love living in hovels. (Where is the eyeballing smilie when you need it?) No tenants don't have to pay for major repairs and maintenance but landlords do. If landlords can't/won't pay then it is unfair to lay the blame of properties in disrepair at the tenants' feet.

I've seen plenty of repossessed properties and probate properties that are in a terrible state. You can't tell that's down to tenants when its the owners who couldn't afford or weren't physically able to carry out repairs. Hell some of them clearly couldn't even keep up with the mortgage payments never mind paying to fix things.

Pixie5740

Ashingtonian wrote: »

Just a little story to back up my view, a new build development near where I work is nearing completion, however there is a certain percentage of the housing classed as "Social housing" which will be owned by the council to rent out to tenants. The developer can barely give away the houses they'are selling to private owners due to this, despite the national housing shortage. Make of that what you will.

Some people are snobs. I take it nothing has actually happened on this particular estate just that some has been ear marked for social housing which could include shared ownership properties.

Ashingtonian

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes, that's right, tenants love living in hovels. (Where is the eyeballing smilie when you need it?) No tenants don't have to pay for major repairs and maintenance but landlords do. If landlords can't/won't pay then it is unfair to lay the blame of properties in disrepair at the tenants' feet.

I've seen plenty of repossessed properties and probate properties that are in a terrible state. You can't tell that's down to tenants when its the owners who couldn't afford or weren't physically able to carry out repairs. Hell some of them clearly couldn't even keep up with the mortgage payments never mind paying to fix things.

This is a totally different argument about bad landlords and wannabe homeowners who didn't do their sums properly before buying.

marksoton

Ashingtonian wrote: »

Of course, and I assume the vast majority of both types are fine, however I believe a higher percentage of tenants will behave antisocially than home owners. We can agree to disagree.

Just a little story to back up my view, a new build development near where I work is nearing completion, however there is a certain percentage of the housing classed as "Social housing" which will be owned by the council to rent out to tenants. The developer can barely give away the houses they'are selling to private owners due to this, despite the national housing shortage. Make of that what you will.

Because of the very prejudice you have just displayed.

Most newbuild developments require an element of housing. A feral social housing teenager is only a bike ride away!

Ashingtonian

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Some people are snobs. I take it nothing has actually happened on this particular estate just that some has been ear marked for social housing which could include shared ownership properties.

Yes nothing has happened yet because no one wants to buy a house there.