Again, balance is needed. A tenant can still insist on everything being fixed and made beautiful and refuse to pay the rent for what ever reason. It takes usually a minimum of 6 months to evict a bad tenant, and usually there are significant repair bills. So, in a number of cases, the landlord does not rush around to fix a broken window…..that they broke as they aren’t being paid. There are two sides to every coin, and you need to look at both before arriving at a perspective.
Mortgage rates / interest etc
- Thread starter baldkev
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
johna.clements
Established Member
There certainly are bad tenants as well.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I would agree that there are bad landlords and I have every sympathy with those that get exposed to them but it’s simply not the case that they are the bigger issue. Of the 2.7 million landlords in the UK the vast majority are good landlords.
Equally there are good and bad tenants.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
"Good" landlords aren't the problem by definition.
The big issue is "bad" landlords, appallingly so in some cases, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
The other big issue is house price "affordability".
Not quite "equally" - good or bad tenants need somewhere to live, landlords usually don't.
Last edited:
I would suggest that bad tenants have no ‘right’ other than to modify their behaviour to make them acceptable within society. It’s fallen out of fashion, but the old mantra of ‘do to others as you would be done by’ is a good basis to live by. Any other suggestion (excluding medical / mental health issues causing the poor behaviour) is just advocating anarchy. Is it acceptable for the neighbours trying to live respectably lives to have to tolerate inappropriate bahviour? Typically, poor tenants also in many cases create antisocial issues for their neighbourhood.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Yes.
It’s a perspective, which your entitled to and I’m sure your living by your principles. I hope you’ve opend up your house to the needy, distributed anything surplus that you have etc etc. I have no issue with alternative views IF they live by their values, if they do they are to be admired. What I find difficult to understand is arm chair socialist perspectives that feel the world must change, but do absolutely nothing themselves to enact their values, it’s always what someone else must do. It lacks both credibility and integrity.
Last edited:
That could come down to free housing, a landlord has to charge a rent that covers their cost / fair profit and a tenant has to pay but what has to be sorted is a fair rent for a property that is fit for domestic habitation and not some dirty slum. This is where it all comes apart, the good landlords end up tared with the same brush.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
No it's something which we all must do i.e. accept that these things must be paid for from taxation which we all pay.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
True that "good" landlords get drawn in to the problem - we all do. We have to buy, sell, rent at the market rates. We need to make changes to the market.
A landlord doesn't have to be a landlord at all.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Some noble souls do but most people don't have the capacity for that degree of self sacrifice and it could never be a solution. This is what governments are for - pooling resources, managing and and acting for the common good. Much more efficient and cost effective than charity.
So, do you live by your principles, are you philanthropist? are you doing your bit to change the world? If so, I’d be really interested to know what your doing, credit should be given to those who live by their conviction.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Taxation is the price of civilisation. Philanthropy couldn't pay for it. Hardly a radical point of view. The only strange thing is having to explain it, over and over again!
Sorry, but I take it from your comment you dont live by your convictions. If you don’t believe in your views enough to actually live by them, they have in my opinion little if any credibility.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It's not about "convictions" it's about problem solving.
Do your "convictions" tell you that an unregulated free market is the best of all possible worlds?
If not, how would you solve the affordability problem yourself?
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/
PS it's not about "fairness" either, it's about solving the problem of homelessness, inadequate housing, un-affordability and so on.
Last edited:
johna.clements
Established Member
The terrorist attack in Dover has been confirmed as anti asylum seeker.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Most interesting thing I've been listening to for a long time is this: The Plan Is to Make You Permanently Poorer | Aaron Meets Gary Stevenson | Novara Media
He is a world class expert on his subject.
He explains why the rich have to be taxed or the economy will fail.
I've only got to 38 minutes so far - it goes on a bit but is deeply fascinating.
About him here Gary Stevenson, City trader turned campaigner: ‘I made money betting on a disaster’
He is a world class expert on his subject.
He explains why the rich have to be taxed or the economy will fail.
I've only got to 38 minutes so far - it goes on a bit but is deeply fascinating.
About him here Gary Stevenson, City trader turned campaigner: ‘I made money betting on a disaster’
Last edited:
Im not very good at this meme thing yet 
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
There are ~500k second homes in the UK. Of these ~200k (39%) are holiday homes or weekend cottages.
Liberating these would add ~1% to the available UK housing stock. The impact would be rather less than suggested by the numbers as the geographic distribution of holiday homes is unlikely to be well aligned to the availability of jobs, schools, public transport etc.
The other 60% are a mix of rented as holiday homes (tourist industry), for future retirement, living or working away from main residence. There may be rather less of a case for "liberating" these as they already serve a socially or economically useful function.
As usual dogma dominates rational analysis.
