 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Building regs and fire safety reform
Seen elsewhe
MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain |
|
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
|
|
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
wrote in message ... Seen elsewhe MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain 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 |
|
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Seen elsewhe MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain 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 https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...land-cladding/ |
|
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... "Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Seen elsewhe MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain 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 https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...land-cladding/ just what were you English playing at? ...... |
|
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On 13/06/2019 17:28, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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 Â*in the category regardless of height? 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 |
|
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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 Â*Â*in the category regardless of height? It would help to know just which figures you have in mind. table A2 |
|
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! wrote in message ... Seen elsewhe MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain |
|
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "Robin" wrote in message ... On 13/06/2019 17:28, Andy Burns wrote: wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 |
|
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Andy Burns" wrote in message ... wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 |
|
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On Thursday, 13 June 2019 17:22:06 UTC+1, wrote:
Seen elsewhe MHCLG and the Home Office have released these... https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-system https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...l-for-evidence Owain " 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 |
|
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, 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 |
|
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, 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 |
|
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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 |
|
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
wrote in message ... 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. 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 |
|
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
|
|
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On Friday, 14 June 2019 15:36:07 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message ... 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. 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 I could comment but I'm just amused. |
|
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"tim..." wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house ....... |
|
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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 |
|
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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/hou...on-in-england/ Owain |
|
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
wrote in message ... 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/hou...on-in-england/ Owain and houses fire doors protected enclosure..... because non family members living together don't give a **** ..... |
|
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
wrote in message ... On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, 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 thats 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. |
|
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:26:13 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message ... On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, 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. 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 thats 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 |
|
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
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 **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
|
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... "tim..." wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house ....... It is when there is a fire in it, escaping wise. |
|
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ... "Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... "tim..." wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house ....... It is when there is a fire in it, escaping wise. yes |
|
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
wrote in message ... On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:26:13 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote: tabbypurr wrote in message ... On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, 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. so a tenant that is a problem. 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 thats 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 couldnt have any say on whether the tenants had pets and couldnt discriminate between prospective tenants on that basis. There was such an immense howl of rage about that proposal that even the ****wit 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. Doesnt 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 didnt fix the problem either. |
|
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
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 ****, senile wisenheimer! -- "Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed: "You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
|
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
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: |
|
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
|
|
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ... "tim..." wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ulatory-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? 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 like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house ....... if it falls on you it will be tim |
|
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
"alan_m" wrote in message ... On 14/06/2019 19:32, 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.... |
|
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Building regs and fire safety reform
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| New Building Regs Part B (Fire) | UK diy | |||
| For info - building regs on loo/kitchen/fire escape routes | UK diy | |||
| Building/fire regs - kitchen open into lounge/stairs | UK diy | |||
| Building regs: 30 mins fire resistance | UK diy | |||
| Mains fire detectors. Building Regs vs manufacturer's recommendations | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
