the snap general election thread

antrobus

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This response is for Antrobus's benefit largely:

How do you expect to ensure that councils do that unless you have legislation in place to ensure councils aren't failing?

I am the first to say that those responsible should be personally prosecuted in situations where the council are to blame, as well as holding the council as a unit fully to account.

These homes are usually let to the most vulnerable with an average tenancy of much longer than 6 or 12 months commonly found in the private sector. The properties are also inspected a lot less, and I have seen first hand the failings of social landlords in getting the basics right.

I'm sorry you don't feel that those living in social housing are important enough to warrant legislation in the same way as private tenants have.

And for your benefit I would point out that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill was simply an attempt to remove the rent limits that are set out in s8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that sets out 'Implied terms as to fitness for human habitation'.

file:///C:/Users/Huw/Downloads/CBP-7328.pdf

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to accuse me of holding the opinion that "those living in social housing are important enough to warrant legislation". I put it down to ignorance. You fail to understand that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill had nothing to do with social housing. Councils have been legally obliged to provide residential rented accommodation that is fit for human habitation ever since the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885.

Chrysalis

Fella wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex

"Sixty-eight flats in a luxury apartment complex where prices start at £1.6m are being made available to families displaced by the Grenfell Tower fire."

Strangely although he was at pains to criticize the Government at every opportunity, Corbyn has yet to applaud them for this announcement.

If his concerns for the Tenants are genuine he will presumably remedy this shortly with a glowing commendation of this move.

I just checked his Twitter feed but no mention of this, he seems more concerned with criticizing the Queen's speech.

Perhaps some people care more about actually doing something to help the residents of Grenfell (as opposed to just politicizing their tragedy) than others?

Perhaps he's more concerned with hoping there'll be another snap general election?

On the flip side those dissing him for his comments, seem to have gone silent now the government has done this.

Thrugelmir

Chrysalis wrote: »

On the flip side those dissing him for his comments, seem to have gone silent now the government has done this.

Better things to do with their time. Silence is often better than a thousand words.......

CKhalvashi

antrobus wrote: »

And for your benefit I would point out that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill was simply an attempt to remove the rent limits that are set out in s8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that sets out 'Implied terms as to fitness for human habitation'.

file:///C:/Users/Huw/Downloads/CBP-7328.pdf

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to accuse me of holding the opinion that "those living in social housing are important enough to warrant legislation". I put it down to ignorance. You fail to understand that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill had nothing to do with social housing. Councils have been legally obliged to provide residential rented accommodation that is fit for human habitation ever since the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885.

Hi Antrobus,

My personal feelings are more along the lines that tenants of both private and social properties should have the same rights when renting, and that it's important that those tenants, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in society (especially in social housing) know exactly what those rights are.

The legislation at the moment is IMO far too vague, and in an ideal world we should be looking to sort this out, using one law fit for everyone.

I understand the legal requirements, however there has in the past been, especially with some of the more unscrupulous landlords, a nasty backlash for any work that needs to be done.

Take this example:

I ended up in an email argument with an agent on a tenants behalf about 18 months ago regarding fair wear and tear, especially regarding cheap looking carpets that had been in the property for at least 5 years and the fact they'd had a property fully professionally cleaned after finding things like a cobweb behind a radiator, so wanting around £800 IIRC for something that should have cost no more than about £200 to put right.

It took a letter before action to what was rightly owed back, and once the tenant had sent it (directly to the LL) the reaction from the agent was that they're the ones holding the money so it's not his problem (even though legally it was). IIRC about £1500 of the £1800 original deposit was returned, compared to probably nothing had I not stepped in at the beginning of the process.

I don't think that all 'bad' landlords, whether social or private, are bad people. I do, however, think that the majority of those bad landlords are badly advised on what the law is and especially what the tenants rights are.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Better things to do with their time. Silence is often better than a thousand words.......

You may want to tell the admins of this page this......



I wasn't anywhere near the internet yesterday (busy dealing with real life stuff), however I am happy the government has announced this, just less happy it's taken them so long and so much public pressure to do it.

sevenhills

CKhalvashi wrote: »

You may want to tell the admins of this page this......
I wasn't anywhere near the internet yesterday (busy dealing with real life stuff), however I am happy the government has announced this, just less happy it's taken them so long and so much public pressure to do it.

People dont need to worry, we will leave the EU and everything will be ok.

mayonnaise

CKhalvashi wrote: »

You may want to tell the admins of this page this......



I wasn't anywhere near the internet yesterday (busy dealing with real life stuff), however I am happy the government has announced this, just less happy it's taken them so long and so much public pressure to do it.

Typical that such islamophobic guff comes from a #goodbyeeu twitter handle.
'But no siree....we're not racist, no...no...' :rotfl:

CKhalvashi

sevenhills wrote: »

People dont need to worry, we will leave the EU and everything will be ok.

Except it won't, that's the problem.

We need a sensible debate and so far that is being largely denied. The government has promised to listen, and I am (around dealing with a lot of other things and not being well) trying to get a response to that in as quickly as possible, as I feel it's important all voices are heard.

Whether they'll take any notice of what businesses have to say though is to be seen.

mayonnaise wrote: »

Typical that such islamophobic guff comes from a #goodbyeeu twitter handle.
'But no siree....we're not racist, no...no...' :rotfl:

In fairness, a majority aren't.

What does concern me is how the admins of that particular page seem to think it's reasonable to 'out' anyone that disagrees with them on a fairly highly viewed page. Of course though, that's completely acceptable isn't it?

Then after another recent incident some people wonder why I keep my home and work addresses and closely guarded secret outside of the public eye. The obvious answer is that I don't want my safety put in danger by those that may feel extremely strongly against my views, which is why I also don't publish where I am at any given time publicly.

Before the referendum I tried to explain to someone that the majority of Muslims don't come from the EU (even though I have no problem with either), to be told that voting Leave will stop Muslims coming from the EU. After again trying to explain why and getting a similar response I have to admit I gave up.

hallmark

mayonnaise wrote: »

Typical that such islamophobic guff comes from a #goodbyeeu twitter handle.
'But no siree....we're not racist, no...no...' :rotfl:

So because that Brexiteer is a racist, they all are?

That's the kind of thinking that helped Remain lose.

It's the equivalent of suggesting that every Remain voter is a whinging elitist only thinking of themself & incapable of accepting the referendum result.

Fella

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I wasn't anywhere near the internet yesterday (busy dealing with real life stuff), however I am happy the government has announced this, just less happy it's taken them so long and so much public pressure to do it.

So much time? It's taken them a week to sort out permanent & what looks like high-quality accomodation for 68 families. Just how fast where you expecting them to do it? It would have taken at least some time (days) for them to even know the basic details such as how many families they needed to rehome. There would have been a lot of questions that had to be answered relating to whether the families would even want to live in an apartment block & whether they wanted to stay in the area etc etc. Actually doing stuff takes some time, Government can't just wave a magic wand & just know the details of what's required and then produce it from thin air. This could easily have taken months.

You might want to reflect that the Corbyn solution (sieze the homes of the rich) quite apart from being unecessary and draconian, would have been a messy nightmare to implement, would have seen the tenants scattered far & wide, and would NOT have given them permanent accomodation since those houses would have had to be returned to their legal owners sooner or later. By that point the Government would undoubtedly have been facing dozens of lawsuits from the house owners which they would certainly have lost. Then the relocated tenants would have been forced to move AGAIN, possibly pending results of court cases etc etc. A hideous unworkable mess.