You are obviously not suited to being a landlord.
You should take up a less stressful form of investment.
High Rise Fire
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
You are obviously not suited to being a landlord.
You should take up a less stressful form of investment.
Really John, thanks, are you a landlord? I suppose you are not as you haven't got a clue what landlords have to put up with.
As for less stressful form of investment, I bought this property as my long term retirement investment, so i did not want to rent it out, as I realised that over a long term of 20 years, it would yield 11% PA in value (averaged over 20 years) and it would be sufficient for my needs during my retirement.
So I kept it empty from 2001 until 2013, when the LA came after me for keeping it empty, actually it was not empty, as I was also using it as my 2nd home, but they wouldn't have it as my second home as it was in the same street! so they doubled my council tax, they classified it as empty, and I was still paying full council tax, but i was also renovating it at my own pace, I had no rush to complete it in one month or one year, or even in 10 years! and even now It is still not fully renovated, despite the fact that LA forced me to rent it out or they would place a CPO on it! So John I was forced to become a landlord and get licensed and comply with many of the rules and regs, most of which I have complied with but the tenants don't seem to want to know that I am now a manager and a landlord and onus is on me to make sure their behaviour is monitored regularly and that they comply with strict rules laid by LA under the licensing condition and in particular regards to overcrowding, so If I was not keeping a regular check on it, my tenants started to bring their mates to share the accommodations and would have caused me to lose my license for allowing it to be overcrowded, so now most of my tenants are against me for keeping a very tight control on their behaviour as landlords are now responsible for any anti-social behaviour by tenants, and if I do not take strict action, I will be considered a bad manager, and lose my license and the LA can place an interim order to take control of it from me. so in a way i am glad that as a licensed landlord it has given me power to fire a bad tenant.
John that is Authoritarianism! We no longer live in a democracy society, we must do as we are told, or face heavy penalties such as fines of £ 20,000 like money grows on trees.
As for less stressful form of investment, I bought this property as my long term retirement investment, so i did not want to rent it out, as I realised that over a long term of 20 years, it would yield 11% PA in value (averaged over 20 years) and it would be sufficient for my needs during my retirement.
So I kept it empty from 2001 until 2013, when the LA came after me for keeping it empty, actually it was not empty, as I was also using it as my 2nd home, but they wouldn't have it as my second home as it was in the same street! so they doubled my council tax, they classified it as empty, and I was still paying full council tax, but i was also renovating it at my own pace, I had no rush to complete it in one month or one year, or even in 10 years! and even now It is still not fully renovated, despite the fact that LA forced me to rent it out or they would place a CPO on it! So John I was forced to become a landlord and get licensed and comply with many of the rules and regs, most of which I have complied with but the tenants don't seem to want to know that I am now a manager and a landlord and onus is on me to make sure their behaviour is monitored regularly and that they comply with strict rules laid by LA under the licensing condition and in particular regards to overcrowding, so If I was not keeping a regular check on it, my tenants started to bring their mates to share the accommodations and would have caused me to lose my license for allowing it to be overcrowded, so now most of my tenants are against me for keeping a very tight control on their behaviour as landlords are now responsible for any anti-social behaviour by tenants, and if I do not take strict action, I will be considered a bad manager, and lose my license and the LA can place an interim order to take control of it from me. so in a way i am glad that as a licensed landlord it has given me power to fire a bad tenant.
John that is Authoritarianism! We no longer live in a democracy society, we must do as we are told, or face heavy penalties such as fines of £ 20,000 like money grows on trees.
Last edited:
I agree with you the way that some tenants treat the property is a total disgrace
They should be arrested & tried in the courts for criminal damage and banged up for it imho
we have had landlords who have had to go to court to stop mr dck ead tenant from using a bathroom as a shower room as he decided to rig uphis own shower in the bath & constantly flooded out the flat below .
We have worked in rented props were u wipe yerfeet on the way out the prop the
tenants who sub let . The drug addicts . social mis fits dead beats & no hopers who think the world owes em a living
(probably labour voters
)
Exactly Transam, I tell my tenants that they are paying me rent to live in my property respectfully and they have no right to abuse my property, or to start kicking the place to bits or I will throw them out simple as that, Housing Act 1988 applies to both tenants as well as landlords, now that I know how to file a court case, I don't need any lawyers, so I can save a fair amount of money taking bad tenants to seek court orders. As long as our paperwork is in order and we have complied with all regs and rules, and given correct notices, and provided relevant evidence, courts usually issue eviction notices, so far I have not had to hire any bailiffs thank God. One bad tenant (single parent) cost me over £9,000 in loss of rent, and she left the place a wreck that cost me further £15K in renovations.
You don't like it. Stop grumbling and find something else to do with your money.
Returning to the subject of this thread, which is "High Rise Fire" (not "moaning landlords")
Criticism continues.
"Experts warned government against cladding material used on Grenfell
Safety experts compiled report last year that warned an increasing number of buildings are being wrapped in ‘potentially combustible materials’
Thursday 15 June 2017 20.57 BST Last modified on Friday 16 June 2017 00.26 BST
The government’s building safety experts warned last year that the drive for greater energy efficiency meant more and more buildings are being wrapped in materials that could go up in flames.
In a report compiled before the Grenfell Tower disaster on Wednesday, the Building Research Establishment, which works for the Department of Communities and Local Government on fire investigations, said attempts to innovate with insulation were leading to an “increase in the volume of potentially combustible materials being applied” to buildings.
Construction and fire experts increasingly fear that the cladding system applied to Grenfell Tower may have been instrumental in spreading the fire. The system was installed to improve the thermal efficiency of the building and improve its appearance.
Investigations are also focused on gas pipes in the stairways and lobbies recently installed by National Grid, which residents had complained had not been boxed in with fire retardant material despite assurances they would be.
London fire brigade said on Thursday a gas main inside the block had ruptured, causing firefighters to work through Wednesday night to isolate it.
There is also uncertainty over how the project’s adherence with building regulations was scrutinised. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where Grenfell Tower is situated, said a “full plans decision notice was not required in this case” and that “a completion certificate was issued” instead.
According to the government’s website, a full plans decision notice is “the most thorough option”, but this was not taken. Neither the borough nor the cladding contractor, Harley, responded when asked to comment on why this route was not taken.
The Reynobond cladding applied to the Grenfell tower last year as part of a £10m refurbishment is made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.
As detailed on the planning application, fire barriers were due to be inserted between the cladding on each floor to limit the spread to small melt out areas. But Dr Jim Glocking, technical director at the Fire Protection Association, said its own tests on external thermal insulation cladding systems showed that if these barriers are breached by a vent or a pipe, “a chimney effect may quickly develop that will cause the very rapid consumption of the insulation and expansion of the damage area”.
Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, said the hole could be relatively modest in size, adding: “Even a drill hole of four inches in diameter can be enough.”
During planning in 2012, the building service engineering company Max Fordham advised that one option in the refurbishment was to remove “fire stopping” systems temporarily in order to install new heating pipes. It is unclear if that approach was taken and Max Fordham did not return request for comment.
The cladding contractor, Harley, declined to comment on how the system was built out – citing the forthcoming investigation and public inquiry. But it is understood the design differed to that which was detailed in planning documents. Investigators are likely to want to quickly establish whether details such as cavity fire barriers, which appeared in planning drawings, were included.
Rydon, the main contractor, said in statement the project “met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulation and health and safety standards – and handover took place when the completion notice was issued by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea building control”.
Rydon chief executive Robert Bond said: “I will do all I can to assist in this investigation in order to establish what caused this tragedy. In light of the public inquiry, we cannot make any further comment at this time.”
Ipswich firm Celotex confirmed it provided insulation materials for the refurbishment. The material has the most stringent “class 0” fire rating in building standards regulations but independent tests on the material used to make it, polyisocyanurate, show that in intense fires it can release lethal hydrogen cyanide fumes and can be rapidly fatal.
Public Health England moved to dampen fears about ongoing poisons in the air and a spokeswoman said there was “minimal wider risk to public health as a result of the smoke plume”. She said all smoke is toxic and could have affected those close to the scene but that no additional or unusual chemical fumes had been detected.
At least one other London tower block has been refurbished using the same Reynobond aluminium cladding system used on Grenfell Tower. A planning application to renovate Clements Court in Hounslow, which has 13 storeys, was made in 2008. Planning application documents filed with the council detail plans to provide the building with a rainproof cladding, using the Reynobond brand of panels.
One architect, who has used similar systems, said cladding panels are also available with mineral wool insulation, which are less flammable but more expensive.
“I only use the mineral wool ones because your gut tells you it is not right to wrap a building in plastic,” he told the Guardian.
As far back as 2000, Gordon Cooke – a leading fire safety consultant – warned in a report commissioned by the mineral wool industry “the use of plastic foam cored sandwich panels ... is difficult to justify when considering life safety”.
He said the panels “can contribute to the severity and speed of fire development” and said this has led to “massive fire loses” in the past.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nt-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell
Criticism continues.
"Experts warned government against cladding material used on Grenfell
Safety experts compiled report last year that warned an increasing number of buildings are being wrapped in ‘potentially combustible materials’
Thursday 15 June 2017 20.57 BST Last modified on Friday 16 June 2017 00.26 BST
The government’s building safety experts warned last year that the drive for greater energy efficiency meant more and more buildings are being wrapped in materials that could go up in flames.
In a report compiled before the Grenfell Tower disaster on Wednesday, the Building Research Establishment, which works for the Department of Communities and Local Government on fire investigations, said attempts to innovate with insulation were leading to an “increase in the volume of potentially combustible materials being applied” to buildings.
Construction and fire experts increasingly fear that the cladding system applied to Grenfell Tower may have been instrumental in spreading the fire. The system was installed to improve the thermal efficiency of the building and improve its appearance.
Investigations are also focused on gas pipes in the stairways and lobbies recently installed by National Grid, which residents had complained had not been boxed in with fire retardant material despite assurances they would be.
London fire brigade said on Thursday a gas main inside the block had ruptured, causing firefighters to work through Wednesday night to isolate it.
There is also uncertainty over how the project’s adherence with building regulations was scrutinised. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where Grenfell Tower is situated, said a “full plans decision notice was not required in this case” and that “a completion certificate was issued” instead.
According to the government’s website, a full plans decision notice is “the most thorough option”, but this was not taken. Neither the borough nor the cladding contractor, Harley, responded when asked to comment on why this route was not taken.
The Reynobond cladding applied to the Grenfell tower last year as part of a £10m refurbishment is made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.
As detailed on the planning application, fire barriers were due to be inserted between the cladding on each floor to limit the spread to small melt out areas. But Dr Jim Glocking, technical director at the Fire Protection Association, said its own tests on external thermal insulation cladding systems showed that if these barriers are breached by a vent or a pipe, “a chimney effect may quickly develop that will cause the very rapid consumption of the insulation and expansion of the damage area”.
Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, said the hole could be relatively modest in size, adding: “Even a drill hole of four inches in diameter can be enough.”
During planning in 2012, the building service engineering company Max Fordham advised that one option in the refurbishment was to remove “fire stopping” systems temporarily in order to install new heating pipes. It is unclear if that approach was taken and Max Fordham did not return request for comment.
The cladding contractor, Harley, declined to comment on how the system was built out – citing the forthcoming investigation and public inquiry. But it is understood the design differed to that which was detailed in planning documents. Investigators are likely to want to quickly establish whether details such as cavity fire barriers, which appeared in planning drawings, were included.
Rydon, the main contractor, said in statement the project “met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulation and health and safety standards – and handover took place when the completion notice was issued by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea building control”.
Rydon chief executive Robert Bond said: “I will do all I can to assist in this investigation in order to establish what caused this tragedy. In light of the public inquiry, we cannot make any further comment at this time.”
Ipswich firm Celotex confirmed it provided insulation materials for the refurbishment. The material has the most stringent “class 0” fire rating in building standards regulations but independent tests on the material used to make it, polyisocyanurate, show that in intense fires it can release lethal hydrogen cyanide fumes and can be rapidly fatal.
Public Health England moved to dampen fears about ongoing poisons in the air and a spokeswoman said there was “minimal wider risk to public health as a result of the smoke plume”. She said all smoke is toxic and could have affected those close to the scene but that no additional or unusual chemical fumes had been detected.
At least one other London tower block has been refurbished using the same Reynobond aluminium cladding system used on Grenfell Tower. A planning application to renovate Clements Court in Hounslow, which has 13 storeys, was made in 2008. Planning application documents filed with the council detail plans to provide the building with a rainproof cladding, using the Reynobond brand of panels.
One architect, who has used similar systems, said cladding panels are also available with mineral wool insulation, which are less flammable but more expensive.
“I only use the mineral wool ones because your gut tells you it is not right to wrap a building in plastic,” he told the Guardian.
As far back as 2000, Gordon Cooke – a leading fire safety consultant – warned in a report commissioned by the mineral wool industry “the use of plastic foam cored sandwich panels ... is difficult to justify when considering life safety”.
He said the panels “can contribute to the severity and speed of fire development” and said this has led to “massive fire loses” in the past.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nt-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell
I was shocked that any party can vote against a proposal that rented homes must be safe and fit for human habitation.
But it's true.
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/tories-reject-move-to-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation
But it's true.
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/tories-reject-move-to-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation
John, I am not grumbling, it is part of the risk of renting, but why tarnish all landlords with the same brush? as a responsible landlord, most of my tenants are very decent, would not allow me to leave without me joining then on a table for a dinner! but you do get across one or two every say 10 years, and of course as a landlord we are required to meet so many safety standards that in my own house I am not even forced to put a smoke detector, or have fire doors, or obtain a mandatory gas safety certificate, why is that John? is my life less worthy than that of a benefit single parent tenant who abuse system and landlords, that is why after that last benefit tenant went, I wowed never to take on another single parent tenant. She even stuffed her padded jacket in the warm air heating duct to save on unnecessary heating upstairs as she could not afford heating both upstairs and downstairs, so she stuffed her old jacket in one of the ducts leading warm air upstairs, this resulted in my WAH melt down as the heat could not circulate fully and the cupboard housing the WAU overheated like an oven and melted the plastic front panel! good job it was lined up with asbestos lining! Some tenants hey!
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation
Plenty more in your link to worry about -
but, re the subject, they say the Councils already have powers to deal with the problem.
No reply to my query how I compel someone to rent my cold, damp, mould-ridden, rat-infested, restricted access hovel ?
Any ideas?
Last edited:
Ok fair enough I did a bit of a grumble to side with the good responsible landlords, not all landlords are scum landlords as many would have you believed.
My idea was to invest in a property and keep it empty but was forced to become a landlord.
My idea was to invest in a property and keep it empty but was forced to become a landlord.
will you be happy to rent it to 12 cats, they would be very pleased with this especially when they can have rats for meal! and damp does not bother them.
As a matter of fact, I know lots of Romanian people who would be over the moon to have a place like that, believe me! If they are happy to live in tents underneath flyovers, this would be a luxury!
Here's a thought:
Perhaps the properties weren't like that when the people moved in.
Only reported as unfit when the clueless little girl from the council inspects the damage caused and ignored by the tenants who never seem to have heard of bleach or cleaning.
In my experience Mike and Doggit are correct.
Perhaps the properties weren't like that when the people moved in.
Only reported as unfit when the clueless little girl from the council inspects the damage caused and ignored by the tenants who never seem to have heard of bleach or cleaning.
In my experience Mike and Doggit are correct.
One such ex very nice flat on eviction.
Gas central heating. All good when let.
Gas central heating. All good when let.
- Status
