advertisement


Housing market

Probably better than the "homes" many vulnerable people are forced to live with mould and leaks and so on, not forgetting the number of souls being forced to live on the streets. Many new builds are awful and unlikely to last 50 years, the best affordable housing was probably built from the 1930s to the 1970s with the exception of prefabs and some high rise.
Many new builds may be badly built, but this is a policing, not regulation, issue. If they are built to code and current regs they will last 100 years. They are being badly built in places because there isn't a building inspector round every day kicking arse. The cheap housing of the interwar period is now generally OK because all the crap has been demolished, fallen into disrepair or been repaired at some point in the last 80 years.
 
The organisations to protect the public are deliberately underfunded so they cannot do their jobs properly, or afford to take legal action when they discover wrongdoing. Unscrupulous businesses will always take advantage of this.
 
indeed ...

The Conservatives’ promise to abolish no-fault evictions before the election will not now happen.
The Renters (Reform) Bill, which would ban landlords from evicting tenants without a reason, will not become law before parliament is shut down on Friday.
Rishi Sunak's flagship bill to eventually ban smoking will also be shelved.
Legislation is being rushed through as Friday is the last day MPs will sit in Parliament before the election.
A separate government bill to reform leaseholds will be debated in the House of Lords on Friday. Labour sources have indicated that while they want to strengthen the bill, they are prepared to back the legislation as it stand

 
The Conservatives’ promise to abolish no-fault evictions before the election will not now happen.
Call me naive, but I'm not sure what ARE 'no fault evictions'. I heard today that the practice (?) of giving notice to a tenant without a reason is to blame, but that sounds absurd. There IS a reason, so why not disclose it? No, there must be sth else.

The leasehold reform bill, which may pass into law, shouldn't be necessary because builders selling property on its own land should never have been allowed to create leaseholds, which are necessary for flats except where individual buy-outs happen (forming a freehold association of tenants).
 
many tenants were moaning to landlord ablout stuff they needed doing , rather than fix all the faults landlord gives them notice . means a lot of folks afraid to kick up a fuss
 
Call me naive, but I'm not sure what ARE 'no fault evictions'. I heard today that the practice (?) of giving notice to a tenant without a reason is to blame, but that sounds absurd. There IS a reason, so why not disclose it? No, there must be sth else.


Where a tenant breaches his contract -- for example by running up arrears debt or by behaving anti-socially or by damaging the building -- there is no easy way for the owner to terminate the contract and gain control of the property, other than a "no fault" eviction. Because no fault has to be proved, and because the judge's decision is mandated in law if the tenancy is compliant, the process is relatively rapid and more sure.
 
Last edited:
I overheard an estate agent and prospective client whilst walking the dog yesterday.

The subject of their conversation was Section 21.

A very prescient topic, because potential tenants need to know how secure their tenancy is going to be when rental property is becoming harder to find.
 
The organisations to protect the public are deliberately underfunded so they cannot do their jobs properly, or afford to take legal action when they discover wrongdoing. Unscrupulous businesses will always take advantage of this.
You could say the same about food, but I know that they are able to effectively police food. It's all LA funded. What's your evidence to your assertion?
 
You could say the same about food, but I know that they are able to effectively police food. It's all LA funded. What's your evidence to your assertion?
I've been trying to find what I was thinking of, so far fruitlessly but it's not something I made up. This'll have to do for starters although it's not the smoking gun that I saw reported.

Also: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/44309.htm

More relevant: https://www.nrla.org.uk/news/research-lays-bare-failure-to-tackle-criminal-landlords
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-prosecuted-a-single-landlord-in-three-years
 
I've been trying to find what I was thinking of, so far fruitlessly but it's not something I made up. This'll have to do for starters although it's not the smoking gun that I saw reported.

Also: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/44309.htm

More relevant: https://www.nrla.org.uk/news/research-lays-bare-failure-to-tackle-criminal-landlords
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-prosecuted-a-single-landlord-in-three-years
Is this in response to my comments about new build standards being a matter of policing, or is yours a more general point about funding for policing of health and safety, rented housing standards etc?
 
The organisations to protect the public are deliberately underfunded so they cannot do their jobs properly, or afford to take legal action when they discover wrongdoing. Unscrupulous businesses will always take advantage of this.
Is this in response to my comments about new build standards being a matter of policing, or is yours a more general point about funding for policing of health and safety, rented housing standards etc?
You asked me for evidence that organisations tasked with protecting the public fail to do so for lack of funding.

I have tried to provide some. i'm sure others have seen evidence of this too. 25 years ago I worked for a clearing bank, the Fire Brigade paid us annual or biennial ( I forget) visits, each time asking us to change what we had for the arrangements that had been in place the visit before last . Such fun.

When I worked for the Royal Mail I recall no such visits, nor do I recall any checks that the bags posties carried adhered to the 16kg (iirc) limit. I recall having to regularly exceed the limits by 40% to be able to do my job.
 
You asked me for evidence that organisations tasked with protecting the public fail to do so for lack of funding.

I have tried to provide some. i'm sure others have seen evidence of this too. 25 years ago I worked for a clearing bank, the Fire Brigade paid us annual or biennial ( I forget) visits, each time asking us to change what we had for the arrangements that had been in place the visit before last . Such fun.

When I worked for the Royal Mail I recall no such visits, nor do I recall any checks that the bags posties carried adhered to the 16kg (iirc) limit. I recall having to regularly exceed the limits by 40% to be able to do my job.
Understood, however this thread is about housing, we're talking about adherence to building standards. You are suggesting that this is being hampered by lack of funding of the policing organisations. In this case Building Inspectors. Like Trading standards and EHO these come out of LA funding, and I see no evidence, with my own experience of food manufacturing or your links, to support your suggestion.
 
Between 2010 and 2020, of the 85 Councils. that replied, there was a drop in the number of B.C.O’s of 27.4%. They struggle with the workload so fewer inspections take place.


Budget cut, wages and competition from the private sector are major factors.
 
Understood, however this thread is about housing, we're talking about adherence to building standards. You are suggesting that this is being hampered by lack of funding of the policing organisations. In this case Building Inspectors. Like Trading standards and EHO these come out of LA funding, and I see no evidence, with my own experience of food manufacturing or your links, to support your suggestion.

I'm done now, I'm sure there's tons more about Persimmon alone but can't be bothered.
 

I'm done now, I'm sure there's tons more about Persimmon alone but can't be bothered.
Thanks for the article, as I sa id earlier it demonstrates a lack of policing, not regulation. The regulation s are currently at a far higher standard than in the past. If you have a read, you'll see this. However regulations don't work if they aren't enforced on the ground. However you say you're done, in which case you won't be doing any reading.
 


advertisement


Back
Top