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
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Statistical problems I'd suggest. I was looking the other day about
fatalities in different sized buildings and it seems caravans and temporary
buildings are far more dangerous than massive high rise flats.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
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
On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:02:38 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
They are, which is why Building Regs for 3-storey houses are more onerous.
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.
" 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 te
nants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of housing areas bein
g blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is a very good reason section 21
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 o
f, 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 mor
e problems for everyone. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that gover
nment is firmly focussed on scamming everyone out of more money any which w
ay they can, without much in the way of genuine justification.
On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, email@example.com wrote:
But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow a
If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction? Hav
ing been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of e
very 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month te
nancy 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 t
hem out bag and baggage in 14 days.
At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England (but thanks to a looph
ole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with ex
clusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are sti
ll at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat you
are protected from fees).
On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with antis
ocial 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.
aving 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 p
aid & 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 bank
rupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?
them out bag and baggage in 14 days.
phole 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 s
till at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat y
ou are protected from fees).
Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into t
he rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
We also have a housing crisis. Reducing the predatory aspects of private
renting is supposed to improve that. Typically the LL is in a much stronger
position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for
Because they want to increase the rent?
That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
to sell or live in the property).
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. This is what has resulted in agency fees
to tenants skyrocketing.
By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control. An agency which
tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.
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.
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.
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.
to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.
No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.