Building regs and fire safety reform

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

Seen elsewhere:

MHCLG and the Home Office have released these...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-a-safer-future-proposals-for-reform-of-the-building-safety-regulatory-system

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-regulatory-reform-fire-safety-order-2005-call-for-evidence

Owain

[Andy Burns]

spuorg...@gowanhill.com wrote:

> https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-a-safer-future-proposals-for-reform-of-the-building-safety-regulatory-system

How come there several categories of building which have more fires per
1,000 buildings between 11 and 18m tall than there are for all buildings
in the category regardless of height?

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

<spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:66d98f9c-339a-4077...@googlegroups.com...

not required in the near of Scotland...we sorted all that out after the
tower block fire in Irvine ....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0VuME.308494$Ud5.2...@fx12.am4...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1150881/grenfell-tower-fire-london-irvine-scotland-cladding/

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:lWuME.310411$Ud5.1...@fx12.am4...

just what were you English playing at? ......

[Robin]

It would help to know just which figures you have in mind. But footnote
29 to para 33 seemed to me a reasonable explanation:

"29 The analysis was designed to explore the relative rate of fires
across different types of building and did not take into account the
number of individual dwellings or occupants within each building.
Therefore, although some building types have higher rates of fires than
others this is likely to be because of the higher occupancy rates in
larger buildings."





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Andy Burns]

Robin wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> How come there several categories of building which have more fires
>> per 1,000 buildings between 11 and 18m tall than there are for all
>> buildings   in the category regardless of height?
>
> It would help to know just which figures you have in mind.

table A2

[Brian Gaff]

As usual, not really well publicised so the main people who will respond are
those with a vested interest of some kind.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

<spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:66d98f9c-339a-4077...@googlegroups.com...

[Brian Gaff]

Statistical problems I'd suggest. I was looking the other day about
fatalities in different sized buildings and it seems caravans and temporary
buildings are far more dangerous than massive high rise flats.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:gmfbu9...@mid.individual.net...

[Brian Gaff]

Hmm, well the other report I read obviously based its data on people against
size or something.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:73990358-5cc2-e5f2...@outlook.com...

[tim...]

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:gmfbu9...@mid.individual.net...

presumably because the vast majority of buildings in the category are below
11m and have no fires at all

So what that says is that tall buildings are more likely to have fires (as
in occupants in those building who create fires)

That in itself is not a good statistic

tim

[tabb...@gmail.com]

" We are ending ‘no fault’ evictions under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 so landlords cannot evict tenants for no reason;"

The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad news tenants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of housing areas being blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is a very good reason section 21 was introduced.

As for Grenfell related risks, there are way easier ways to deal with that. And submitting a fire report before even getting PP is silly. As is giving tenants a say in the fire safety process, whatever that actually means.

Has the govt really learnt none of the lessons of the past regarding tenant/landlord rights? It seems not. The result is going to be that
a) all sorts of people can no longer rent a house or flat
b) rents will rise yet again
c) antisocial behaviour will increase
d) the rentable housing stock will dwindle even further
e) homelessness will rise even further

Sadly events like Grenfell, which are fairly easy to prevent reoccurrence of, seem to inevitably be taken as an excuse for governments to meddle ever more in areas they plainly do not understand. And the result is as ever more problems for everyone. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that government is firmly focussed on scamming everyone out of more money any which way they can, without much in the way of genuine justification.


NT

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad
> news tenants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of
> housing areas being blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is
> a very good reason section 21 was introduced.

But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow and difficult.

If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction? Having been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of every 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month tenancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what rent).

On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.

At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).

Owain



Owain

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, spuorg...@gowanhill.com wrote:

> On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

> > The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad
> > news tenants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of
> > housing areas being blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is
> > a very good reason section 21 was introduced.
>
> But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow and difficult.

taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

> If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction? Having been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of every 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month tenancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what rent).

Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.

OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?

> On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.
>
> At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).
>
> Owain

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.

The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.


NT

[Theo]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with
> antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to
> understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now
> the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

We also have a housing crisis. Reducing the predatory aspects of private
renting is supposed to improve that. Typically the LL is in a much stronger
position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for
instance).

> Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get
> paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention
> there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.

Because they want to increase the rent?

> OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious
> financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the
> tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should
> people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice
> to move?

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
to sell or live in the property).

> Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
> the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
>
> The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
a choice in which agency to use. This is what has resulted in agency fees
to tenants skyrocketing.

By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control. An agency which
tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.

Theo

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:

> tabbypurr wrote:

> > taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with
> > antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to
> > understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now
> > the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.
>
> We also have a housing crisis.

we do

> Reducing the predatory aspects of private
> renting is supposed to improve that.

Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.

And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.

> Typically the LL is in a much stronger
> position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for
> instance).
>
> > Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get
> > paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention
> > there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.
>
> Because they want to increase the rent?

Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.

> > OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious
> > financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the
> > tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should
> > people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice
> > to move?
>
> That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
> to sell or live in the property).

to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.

> > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
> > the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
> >
> > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
>
> The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
> customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
> agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
> a choice in which agency to use.

No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.

> This is what has resulted in agency fees
> to tenants skyrocketing.

it isn't

> By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
> competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control.

whether they are incorporated or separate makes zero difference to the cost. Obviously incorporating them does not control them. That is the sort of nonsense one hears from politicians keen to smooth through their agenda.

> An agency which
> tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.

Equally true whether incorporated or not.


NT

[tim...]

<tabb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da3d97e9-009e-469b...@googlegroups.com...

But it doesn't work like that out in the real world

LL - pay me an extra 50 pound per month in rent or you'll have to pay a
thousand pounds to move house

T - perhaps I'll pay you the 50 pounds

>> > OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious
>> > financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the
>> > tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why
>> > should
>> > people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable
>> > notice
>> > to move?
>>
>> That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take
>> possession
>> to sell or live in the property).
>
> to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't
> find it.
>
>> > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated
>> > into
>> > the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
>> >
>> > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
>>
>> The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
>> customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
>> agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't
>> have
>> a choice in which agency to use.
>
> No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a
> whole market to choose from.

you obviously don't live in the real world of renting

>> This is what has resulted in agency fees
>> to tenants skyrocketing.
>
> it isn't
>
>> By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
>> competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control.
>
> whether they are incorporated or separate makes zero difference to the
> cost.

you have had it explained to you

Yes it does

>Obviously incorporating them does not control them.

It Economics 101 that it does. So it's not even a tiny bit obvious that it
doesn't

>That is the sort of nonsense one hears from politicians keen to smooth
>through their agenda.

And you obviously know absolutely nothing about something you have seen fit
to come here and discuss

tim

[Theo]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
> Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.

Other people's experiences differ.

> And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.

There's a secondary effect on supply, but the point of the reforms is to
control the existing market.

> Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.

Tenants' income doesn't increase due to market forces. Them becoming
homeless because of such market forces is something society seems to view as
a bad thing.

> > That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
> > to sell or live in the property).
>
> to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.

No idea, but I suspect this would create a loophole unless carefully
controlled (a slumlord might have a tame family member they urgently need to
house every time they want to evict).

> > > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
> > > the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
> > >
> > > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
> >
> > The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
> > customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
> > agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
> > a choice in which agency to use.
>
> No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.

But supply is limited, and no property is identical to another property.

> > This is what has resulted in agency fees
> > to tenants skyrocketing.
>
> it isn't

Tell me: can I search Rightmove for a rental including fees? Can I sort
properties by price including fees, picking the one with the lowest total
cost?

The answer is no, because fees are numerous and opaque. Holding fee,
credit check fee for each tenant, a fee for drawing up the contract, fee for
a guarantor, fee for checking the inventory at the beginning, checkout fee.
Often the fees are unjustifiable: why does it cost hundreds of pounds for a
credit check and photocopying a contract?

Hyperinflation in fees is an obvious sign of market failure.

Theo

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 15:36:07 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
> <tabbypurr> wrote in message

I could comment but I'm just amused.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qdvkue$hjg$1...@dont-email.me...

like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house .......

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 16:49:19 UTC+1, Theo wrote:

> tabbypurr wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:


> > Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.
>
> Other people's experiences differ.

What predatory practices are currently a problem in your opinion?

> > And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.
>
> There's a secondary effect on supply, but the point of the reforms is to
> control the existing market.

so it does not put more properties on the market. Controls always move properties off the market, making the housing problem deeper.

> > Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.
>
> Tenants' income doesn't increase due to market forces. Them becoming
> homeless because of such market forces is something society seems to view as
> a bad thing.

though that isn't the point

> > > That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
> > > to sell or live in the property).
> >
> > to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.
>
> No idea, but I suspect this would create a loophole unless carefully
> controlled (a slumlord might have a tame family member they urgently need to
> house every time they want to evict).

I also don't expect they provided for this. So the landlord's brother/sister/etc goes homeless instead of the tenant just renting another house. Not really a plus.

As for slumlords, I've not seen slums in a long time here.

> > > > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
> > > > the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
> > > >
> > > > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
> > >
> > > The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
> > > customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
> > > agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
> > > a choice in which agency to use.
> >
> > No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.
>
> But supply is limited, and no property is identical to another property.

so they have a slice of the market to choose from, not just one place

> > > This is what has resulted in agency fees
> > > to tenants skyrocketing.
> >
> > it isn't
>
> Tell me: can I search Rightmove for a rental including fees? Can I sort
> properties by price including fees, picking the one with the lowest total
> cost?
>
> The answer is no, because fees are numerous and opaque. Holding fee,
> credit check fee for each tenant, a fee for drawing up the contract, fee for
> a guarantor, fee for checking the inventory at the beginning, checkout fee.

Right move's sorting algorithm is purely a matter between Rightmove & its customers. Ebay have tackled this problem, it can will sort by price + p&p.

> Often the fees are unjustifiable: why does it cost hundreds of pounds for a
> credit check and photocopying a contract?

I absolutely agree. However the only thing that counts is the total cost, both to tenant and landlord.

> Hyperinflation in fees is an obvious sign of market failure.

It's an obvious sign that some people think they can ask more from tenants. This sort of thing happens all the time in retail. And sooner or later customers revolt and say no, we're not paying that, we'll rent somewhere else, then landlords realise their agent is not a good choice and market forces sort it. It's business as normal.


NT

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:02:38 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
> like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house .......

They are, which is why Building Regs for 3-storey houses are more onerous.

For HMOs:

Statistics show that residents are six times more likely to die in a house fire if they live in an HMO. And if the HMO is three or more storeys high, the probability increases to 16 times more likely.

https://www.ifsecglobal.com/fire/houses-in-multiple-occupation-fire-risk-regulation-in-england/

Owain

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

<spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:6ea0507f-a619-4388...@googlegroups.com...

and houses fire doors protected enclosure.....

because non family members living together don't give a shit .....

[Rod Speed]

<tabb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c154919-704f-4436...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, spuorg...@gowanhill.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
>
>> > The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad
>> > news tenants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of
>> > housing areas being blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is
>> > a very good reason section 21 was introduced.
>>
>> But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow
>> and difficult.
>
> taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with
> antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to
> understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now the
> govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.
>
>
>> If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction?
>> Having been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out
>> of every 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another
>> 6-month tenancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what
>> rent).

> Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem?

Because some of them can be a complete pain in the arse.
Ours monstered the landlord using Messenger who was
coming back here for Xmas about some bees that had
got into the roof structure. Stupid cow was too stupid
to use fly spray and demanded that he fix the problem
even tho the real estate told her that it was her problem.

The rental market is very tight indeed here and she was
desperate to rent the house, she was camped out with
her mother with the two teenage kids and dog. The
back fence of the property isnt great, but she was
very happy to move in anyway. Now she keeps
demanding that the fence be replaced with a new one.

Very manipulative woman, there's a reason she needed
somewhere to rent after her marriage broke up. I did
some work on the house that needed to be done and
at times you can damned near cut the air with a knife
with a standoff between her and the kids.

> Lls want to get paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles.

And that’s why some LLs want to get rid of the most
demanding tenants when they know they can rent the
place to someone else in an instant when the get rid
of the arsehole of a tenant.

> The paperwork issue you mention there is simply
> the direct result of bad government policy.

> OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll
> has a serious financial or family problem and must
> regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to
> remain in the same house for life trump that? Why
> should people go bankrupt or homeless rather
> than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?

>> On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at
>> fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.

>> At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England
>> (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant
>> Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of
>> a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you
>> are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a
>> licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).

> Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get
> incorporated into the rent, none of that fiddling
> changes the total costs any.

> The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

The problem is that there will always be issues on both sides. No
one world wide has ever found a good solution in centurys now.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:26:13 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
> <tabbypurr> wrote in message

so a tenant that is a problem.

> The rental market is very tight indeed here and she was
> desperate to rent the house, she was camped out with
> her mother with the two teenage kids and dog. The
> back fence of the property isnt great, but she was
> very happy to move in anyway. Now she keeps
> demanding that the fence be replaced with a new one.
>
> Very manipulative woman, there's a reason she needed
> somewhere to rent after her marriage broke up. I did
> some work on the house that needed to be done and
> at times you can damned near cut the air with a knife
> with a standoff between her and the kids.
>
> > Lls want to get paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles.
>
> And that’s why some LLs want to get rid of the most
> demanding tenants when they know they can rent the
> place to someone else in an instant when the get rid
> of the arsehole of a tenant.

in some cases yes. I see nothing wrong with Lls preferring to rent to tenants that don't create a bunch of unnecessary problems.

> > The paperwork issue you mention there is simply
> > the direct result of bad government policy.
>
> > OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll
> > has a serious financial or family problem and must
> > regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to
> > remain in the same house for life trump that? Why
> > should people go bankrupt or homeless rather
> > than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?
>
> >> On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at
> >> fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.
>
> >> At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England
> >> (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant
> >> Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of
> >> a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you
> >> are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a
> >> licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).
>
> > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get
> > incorporated into the rent, none of that fiddling
> > changes the total costs any.
>
> > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
>
> The problem is that there will always be issues on both sides. No
> one world wide has ever found a good solution in centurys now.

But there are some policies that clearly make matters worse, and abolition of section 21 is right up there. We have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants.


NT

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 04:26:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>> Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem?
>
> Because some of them can be a complete pain in the arse.

Certainly not as complete a pain in the arse as you are, senile Rodent!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <62dcaae57b421e2b...@haph.org>

[Rod Speed]

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qe0nfs$sto$1...@dont-email.me...

> like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house
> .......

It is when there is a fire in it, escaping wise.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmiaie...@mid.individual.net...

yes

[Rod Speed]

<tabb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8edf950c-de9d-4357...@googlegroups.com...

Not in the sense that there is any legal right evict them for that reason.

>> The rental market is very tight indeed here and she was
>> desperate to rent the house, she was camped out with
>> her mother with the two teenage kids and dog. The
>> back fence of the property isnt great, but she was
>> very happy to move in anyway. Now she keeps
>> demanding that the fence be replaced with a new one.
>>
>> Very manipulative woman, there's a reason she needed
>> somewhere to rent after her marriage broke up. I did
>> some work on the house that needed to be done and
>> at times you can damned near cut the air with a knife
>> with a standoff between her and the kids.
>>
>> > Lls want to get paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles.
>>
>> And that’s why some LLs want to get rid of the most
>> demanding tenants when they know they can rent the
>> place to someone else in an instant when the get rid
>> of the arsehole of a tenant.
>
> in some cases yes.

In most cases LLs will chose to rent the property to
those less likely to be a nuisance about what they
are legally entitled to.

> I see nothing wrong with Lls preferring to rent to tenants
> that don't create a bunch of unnecessary problems.

But the regulators are increasingly not allowing that.

We even had one state govt here propose that LLs
couldn’t have any say on whether the tenants had
pets and couldn’t discriminate between prospective
tenants on that basis.

There was such an immense howl of rage about that
proposal that even the fuckwit Labor party that ran
that flag up the mast had enough of a clue to stop
talking about doing that.

>> > The paperwork issue you mention there is simply
>> > the direct result of bad government policy.
>>
>> > OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll
>> > has a serious financial or family problem and must
>> > regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to
>> > remain in the same house for life trump that? Why
>> > should people go bankrupt or homeless rather
>> > than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?
>>
>> >> On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at
>> >> fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.
>>
>> >> At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England
>> >> (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant
>> >> Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of
>> >> a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you
>> >> are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a
>> >> licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).
>>
>> > Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get
>> > incorporated into the rent, none of that fiddling
>> > changes the total costs any.
>>
>> > The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
>>
>> The problem is that there will always be issues on both sides. No
>> one world wide has ever found a good solution in centurys now.

> But there are some policies that clearly make matters worse,

Yep, like rent control. Doesn’t stop it happening tho.

> and abolition of section 21 is right up there. We
> have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants.

Always have done and always will do and even when it
was legally possible to give them the bums rush whenever
the LL chose to do that, that didn’t fix the problem either.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:23:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>>> So what that says is that tall buildings are more likely to have fires
>>> (as in occupants in those building who create fires)
>>>
>>> That in itself is not a good statistic
>
>> like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house
>> .......
>
> It is when there is a fire in it, escaping wise.

No shit, senile wisenheimer!

[Peeler]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:37:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>> and abolition of section 21 is right up there. We
>> have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants.
>
> Always have done and always will do and even when it
> was legally possible to give them the bums rush

You antisocial, clinically insane idiot NEVER had any "tenants". Just like
you don't have anyone to talk to in real life, as your abnormal posting
hours keep revealing

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1...@dont-email.me>

[alan_m]

On 14/06/2019 19:32, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> But there are some policies that clearly make matters worse, and abolition of section 21 is right up there. We have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants.
>

By keeping the antisocial tenants in the private housing market takes
the pressure off from the local council who would have to house them
otherwise.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[tim...]

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qe0nfs$sto$1...@dont-email.me...
>

if it falls on you it will be

tim

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

"alan_m" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gmjl5i...@mid.individual.net...

> On 14/06/2019 19:32, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> But there are some policies that clearly make matters worse, and
>> abolition of section 21 is right up there. We have a nationwide problem
>> with antisocial tenants.
>>
>
> By keeping the antisocial tenants in the private housing market takes the
> pressure off from the local council who would have to house them
> otherwise.
>
>
>

bunch of scum that tenants are....

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 15 June 2019 08:31:02 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:

> On 14/06/2019 19:32, tabbypurr wrote:

> > But there are some policies that clearly make matters worse, and abolition of section 21 is right up there. We have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants.
> >
>
> By keeping the antisocial tenants in the private housing market takes
> the pressure off from the local council who would have to house them
> otherwise.

they wouldn't. And it solves nothing.