Southend Council's new powers to crack down on rogue landlords

Jacqueline Lansley, the Council’s Head of Procurement, Commissioning and Housing

Jacqueline Lansley, the Council’s Head of Procurement, Commissioning and Housing

First published in Local News
Last updated

SOUTHEND Council is using tough new powers to crack down on rogue landlords.

The council’s private sector housing team has been given additional enforcement powers to censure unscrupulous landlords who persist in exploiting vulnerable tenants.

The team can serve intermediate management orders giving the council the power to take control of premises and withhold rents. The authority can also force landlords to pay for essential repairs.

In addition, landlords can be served with penalty charge notices for failing to apply for energy performance certificates, which carries a fine of up to £600.

The initiative comes as it emerges the number of properties bought by buy-to-let investors is soaring.

In 2001, 15 per cent of the borough’s homes were in the hands of private landlords. Latest figures show this is up to 23 per cent.

As a coastal town, where the number of rented flats and bedsits is typically higher, council housing bosses responsible for enforcing housing legislation are used to keeping an eye on large numbers of rented properties.

However, the rise, partly fuelled by the rising cost of accommodation in London, means their resources are being stretched and there has been a rise in slum landlords.

Jacqueline Lansley, the council's head of of procurement, commissioning and housing, said: “The increase in privately rented properties is also fuelling the buy-to-let market, and, sadly, some landlords are refusing to acknowledge they have a responsibility to ensure the units they often let to vulnerable people need to be maintained to a minimum housing standard.”

A council spokesman said new powers were helping.

Officers have now issued one unnamed Westcliff landlordwith an improvement notice to keep his property properly maintained and he could face prosecution.

The council has been hitting rogue landlords in the pocket after the Echo exposed failings in a number of properties.

The housing team last month prosecuted landlord Alfred Katona, 75, of Chadwick Road, Westcliff, for five housing management breaches. He was fined almost £20,000.

The team also used a management order to take control of six flats rented to vulnerable people in London Road, Westcliff, by landlord Steve Beechy, 66, of Sebastian Avenue, Shenfield, after concerns over his management practices.

Mr Beechy plans to appeal against the order.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:48am Mon 13 Jan 14

heartbeat says...

This sounds like great news. If only they could do something about the disgusting state of York Road and various other locations around the borough. I really don't understand how the residents or owners of the properties can't be prosecuted (and heavily fined) for Health and Safety issues which must be caused by the filthy rubbish left lying around. I walked along York Road recently, just a few minutes' walk from the "luxury" Park Inn Palace Hotel. I counted four filthy rotting mattresses in front gardens, just in the little stretch from Queensway up to the bus station (and that was on the side of the road I was walking on). It's Southend's own Benefits Street but I as far as I know Winsome Green in the tv programme doesn't advertise itself as "The Place to Be" and try to woo tourists!
This sounds like great news. If only they could do something about the disgusting state of York Road and various other locations around the borough. I really don't understand how the residents or owners of the properties can't be prosecuted (and heavily fined) for Health and Safety issues which must be caused by the filthy rubbish left lying around. I walked along York Road recently, just a few minutes' walk from the "luxury" Park Inn Palace Hotel. I counted four filthy rotting mattresses in front gardens, just in the little stretch from Queensway up to the bus station (and that was on the side of the road I was walking on). It's Southend's own Benefits Street but I as far as I know Winsome Green in the tv programme doesn't advertise itself as "The Place to Be" and try to woo tourists! heartbeat
  • Score: 12

10:29am Mon 13 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

heartbeat wrote:
This sounds like great news. If only they could do something about the disgusting state of York Road and various other locations around the borough. I really don't understand how the residents or owners of the properties can't be prosecuted (and heavily fined) for Health and Safety issues which must be caused by the filthy rubbish left lying around. I walked along York Road recently, just a few minutes' walk from the "luxury" Park Inn Palace Hotel. I counted four filthy rotting mattresses in front gardens, just in the little stretch from Queensway up to the bus station (and that was on the side of the road I was walking on). It's Southend's own Benefits Street but I as far as I know Winsome Green in the tv programme doesn't advertise itself as "The Place to Be" and try to woo tourists!
Your right of course, but theres many a road in the borough that need sorting out...but thats what you get for allowing bedsits and flat conversions and letting all and sundry in the places, all the lovely old homes and roads in southend ruined over the years(80's/90's) theres no turning back now.
look at the lady with the armchair in westcliff...she got singled out but many more roads have similar problems.
[quote][p][bold]heartbeat[/bold] wrote: This sounds like great news. If only they could do something about the disgusting state of York Road and various other locations around the borough. I really don't understand how the residents or owners of the properties can't be prosecuted (and heavily fined) for Health and Safety issues which must be caused by the filthy rubbish left lying around. I walked along York Road recently, just a few minutes' walk from the "luxury" Park Inn Palace Hotel. I counted four filthy rotting mattresses in front gardens, just in the little stretch from Queensway up to the bus station (and that was on the side of the road I was walking on). It's Southend's own Benefits Street but I as far as I know Winsome Green in the tv programme doesn't advertise itself as "The Place to Be" and try to woo tourists![/p][/quote]Your right of course, but theres many a road in the borough that need sorting out...but thats what you get for allowing bedsits and flat conversions and letting all and sundry in the places, all the lovely old homes and roads in southend ruined over the years(80's/90's) theres no turning back now. look at the lady with the armchair in westcliff...she got singled out but many more roads have similar problems. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 17

10:35am Mon 13 Jan 14

jayman says...

It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners.

social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing.

we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'.

'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself.

We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for.

We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment.
It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners. social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing. we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'. 'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself. We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for. We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment. jayman
  • Score: 5

4:03pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Joe Clark says...

Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage.

A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well.

Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one.
Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage. A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well. Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one. Joe Clark
  • Score: 35

4:23pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

Joe Clark wrote:
Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage.

A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well.

Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one.
I totally agree. Time for the sponges to pay their way and stop Benifits handouts
Call me aTory this or a liberal that! All I am is a tax payer who is fed up with Lazy/Drug user sitting at home all day getting paid for nothing! I would rather the money going to the elderly for free meals or more police, nurses cheap rail traval
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage. A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well. Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one.[/p][/quote]I totally agree. Time for the sponges to pay their way and stop Benifits handouts Call me aTory this or a liberal that! All I am is a tax payer who is fed up with Lazy/Drug user sitting at home all day getting paid for nothing! I would rather the money going to the elderly for free meals or more police, nurses cheap rail traval Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: -5

5:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Daisy Juke says...

Does this mean I might finally be able to get my landlord to sort the damp problem out in our house?! I may not be a vulnerable tenant, but the house will fall down around our ears if it isnt sorted soon, and the landlord just says "lets see if it gets any worse". Unfortunately we have pets and it isnt easy finding a new rental that accepts dogs.
Does this mean I might finally be able to get my landlord to sort the damp problem out in our house?! I may not be a vulnerable tenant, but the house will fall down around our ears if it isnt sorted soon, and the landlord just says "lets see if it gets any worse". Unfortunately we have pets and it isnt easy finding a new rental that accepts dogs. Daisy Juke
  • Score: 13

6:28pm Mon 13 Jan 14

pembury53 says...

go after these landlords HARD and keep on going....... they are some some of the worse parasites imaginable....
go after these landlords HARD and keep on going....... they are some some of the worse parasites imaginable.... pembury53
  • Score: 10

6:41pm Mon 13 Jan 14

jayman says...

Joe Clark wrote:
Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage.

A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well.

Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one.
where in the above article does it mention 'housing benefit fraud'?
you're an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, manifesting itself as a Tory.

extracted from Wikipedia.

"Southend has the highest percentage of residents receiving housing benefit (19%) and the third highest percentage of residents receiving council tax benefit in Essex."

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Southend-on
-Sea#Economy

the above article suggests this percentage may have increased

also

"Save the Children's research data shows that for 2008/2009, Southend had 4,000 children living in poverty, a rate of 12%, the same as Thurrock, but above the 11% child poverty rate of the rest of Essex"

the vast, vast! majority of people are legitimately claiming 'top-up' housing benefit whilst in EMPLOYMENT not for financial gain or fraud but because they have little other choice and are trapped in the hardships of poverty in one of the richest nations on the earth.

But hay... whatever you do, do not attempt to research your claims or provide any sourced evidence to back up your wildly inaccurate accusations... absolutely do not do that.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: Anyone found fiddling housing benefit should loose ALL benefits until the amount they stole is paid back with interest, for far too long its been too easy for people to live off the state. benefits should be a last resort not a life style, benefits should not pay more than the basic wage. A tougher more robust method of paying benefits should be implemented where people who are on the "sick" for drink or drug addiction are ordered to under take detox and mandatory testing if they fail they loose benefits until they can prove they are clean, why should my taxes pay for their habits (some illegal) Do I care this view might upset some of you NO I don't I am fed up with seeing Such and Such person unemployed was found with drugs, yes I know (not personally) people that work also take drugs but it is their money that are wasting, people taken to hospital though drink or drugs should be made to pay for their care as well. Rant over, off to Japan for a couple of weeks its a tough job but somebody has to have one.[/p][/quote]where in the above article does it mention 'housing benefit fraud'? you're an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, manifesting itself as a Tory. extracted from Wikipedia. "Southend has the highest percentage of residents receiving housing benefit (19%) and the third highest percentage of residents receiving council tax benefit in Essex." http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Southend-on -Sea#Economy the above article suggests this percentage may have increased also "Save the Children's research data shows that for 2008/2009, Southend had 4,000 children living in poverty, a rate of 12%, the same as Thurrock, but above the 11% child poverty rate of the rest of Essex" the vast, vast! majority of people are legitimately claiming 'top-up' housing benefit whilst in EMPLOYMENT not for financial gain or fraud but because they have little other choice and are trapped in the hardships of poverty in one of the richest nations on the earth. But hay... whatever you do, do not attempt to research your claims or provide any sourced evidence to back up your wildly inaccurate accusations... absolutely do not do that. jayman
  • Score: 6

11:14pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Lauqhlast. says...

Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords!
Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords! Lauqhlast.
  • Score: 3

1:29am Tue 14 Jan 14

Nebs says...

I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.
I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent. Nebs
  • Score: -1

11:13am Tue 14 Jan 14

megamite says...

jayman wrote:
It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners.

social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing.

we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'.

'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself.

We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for.

We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment.
Jayman I agree with all you have said here, why dont they listen? Because A) They Dont Care and B) As long as they are alright Jack. So if WE ALL went on strike they might have to put their hands in their pocket and pull something out!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners. social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing. we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'. 'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself. We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for. We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment.[/p][/quote]Jayman I agree with all you have said here, why dont they listen? Because A) They Dont Care and B) As long as they are alright Jack. So if WE ALL went on strike they might have to put their hands in their pocket and pull something out! megamite
  • Score: 4

11:39am Tue 14 Jan 14

Lauqhlast. says...

Nebs wrote:
I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.
Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ?

If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true?

If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs'
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.[/p][/quote]Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ? If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true? If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs' Lauqhlast.
  • Score: 4

11:46am Tue 14 Jan 14

jayman says...

megamite wrote:
jayman wrote:
It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners.

social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing.

we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'.

'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself.

We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for.

We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment.
Jayman I agree with all you have said here, why dont they listen? Because A) They Dont Care and B) As long as they are alright Jack. So if WE ALL went on strike they might have to put their hands in their pocket and pull something out!
The problems that face our society are complex. The mindset of the daily mail readership would be to make complex issues into simplistic stereotyping. Othering or 'us and them' is the favoured simplistic method of placing a value on an individual or collective identity which is deemed to be 'not of value'.

physical action would be ineffective. how can you protest against having your 'identity capital' stolen?

simply remember the past that you are connected to, defend you life and the choices you make in a way that rejects 'lifestyle'
[quote][p][bold]megamite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: It seems to me to be a problem connected to the private rental market as a whole, 'Maximum financial gain for minimal effort'. Just as we are seeing in the utilities industry, rail and sadly (A Tory idea) free schools. there are some industries and markets that should not be in the hands of private owners. social housing was created in the aftermath of mass slums and the eventual slum clearances. 'a slum' seems to be the natural outcome that will arise with mass private social housing. we need to learn from the lessons of the past and not create state tower blocks of disrepair and sprawling pigeon holes for the poorest in our society as this has its own 'natural outcome'. 'Doing nothing' is the predisposition of the Tory party, furthermore actions of 'end product' intervention (as described in the above article) merely maintain a insufficient status quo. I suspect this may be due to the influence of wealthy and powerful 'large portfolio' landlords who wish to protect their own reputation, One which hovers just above 'slum landlord status' itself. We need to take meaningful action. As long as we intend to have an economy which is driven by a minimum wage that no one can live on. As long as we have a situation where a private housing market which is subsidised by 'top up' housing benefit, AKA 'landlords benefit' we will have a situation of ever increasing poverty and hopelessness with ever diminishing returns of social capital. Children born and raised in such environments and circumstances will form an undesirable subculture which will be much to the target of the daily mail and the Tory party of which they are causally responsible for. We need low cost, high quality, low density social housing because people are products of their environment.[/p][/quote]Jayman I agree with all you have said here, why dont they listen? Because A) They Dont Care and B) As long as they are alright Jack. So if WE ALL went on strike they might have to put their hands in their pocket and pull something out![/p][/quote]The problems that face our society are complex. The mindset of the daily mail readership would be to make complex issues into simplistic stereotyping. Othering or 'us and them' is the favoured simplistic method of placing a value on an individual or collective identity which is deemed to be 'not of value'. physical action would be ineffective. how can you protest against having your 'identity capital' stolen? simply remember the past that you are connected to, defend you life and the choices you make in a way that rejects 'lifestyle' jayman
  • Score: 4

9:24pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Nebs says...

Lauqhlast. wrote:
Nebs wrote:
I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.
Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ?

If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true?

If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs'
No.
Because councils are inefficient.

I wonder if the sum total of rent arrears would be sufficient to cover the sum total of essential repairs.
[quote][p][bold]Lauqhlast.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.[/p][/quote]Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ? If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true? If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs'[/p][/quote]No. Because councils are inefficient. I wonder if the sum total of rent arrears would be sufficient to cover the sum total of essential repairs. Nebs
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Lauqhlast. says...

Nebs wrote:
Lauqhlast. wrote:
Nebs wrote:
I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.
Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ?

If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true?

If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs'
No.
Because councils are inefficient.

I wonder if the sum total of rent arrears would be sufficient to cover the sum total of essential repairs.
You think they may be connected?
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lauqhlast.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: I wonder which is higher, properties that need essential repairs or tenants that are behind with their rent.[/p][/quote]Does rent arrears pardon disrepair ? If so, doesn't the post "Some councils are the biggest rogue landlords" ring true? If not, why on earth should there be council properties needing 'essential repairs'[/p][/quote]No. Because councils are inefficient. I wonder if the sum total of rent arrears would be sufficient to cover the sum total of essential repairs.[/p][/quote]You think they may be connected? Lauqhlast.
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree