In message , at 18:18:01 on Wed, 15 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:There's a huge gap between "unfit for purpose" and "functional but depressingly dilapidated". Landlords are also prone to install very cheap appliances, which are functional, but much less use than the ones an owner occupier might select.
Quite true! I don't go to the local boozer at all anymore, but I eat out as a matter of routine - where, indeed, I am keen to dine in physical comfort.
IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not live in accomodation furnished by the landlord. The cost need not be all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait for a bargain.
It is quite common for a fitted hob and cooker to be provided by the landlord, and I've known several landlords to offer fully-furnished family-sized properties at the bottom end of the market.
You make it sound like appliances are a once-in-a-lifetime purchase, that once you have them they follow you around for the rest of your life. In reality they require removal when moving house, and often require replacement within several years, so the poor do not necessarily carry a full set of high-quality appliances around with them.
Lol. How long are you typically prepared to wait with an empty stomach and dirty clothes? There is actually more of a market in my experience for *landlords* to make the capital investment in reasonable second- hand appliances, and then add it onto the weekly rent, because other than eliminating the up-front cost for those who have little money, landlords are usually in a better position to have contacts and knowledge, easy transportation, etc.
In message , at 21:49:49 on Fri, 17 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:That depends on their circumstances, and what the landlord has provided. For example, the dishwasher my landlord has provided is driving me crazy (so that explains it - ed) but I can't bring myself to put it in storage and buy a secondhand replacement when I know that in a year's time I'm moving to a different house that has a very good dishwasher in it already.
Similarly, the oven is cheaper than I ever knew ovens could be (it works perfectly to specification, but that spec is minimal). But I don't think I should be ripping it out of the cabinets and replacing it at my expense.
It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.
I know. Nor does the landlord carry a warehouse full of replacement fridges and cookers. Perhaps you think he should?
I manage all my cooking very well in an inexpensive combination microwave I acquired for free and a counter-top hob - though I recently bought a small oven/grill (£27 Argos 883/3516) to make cheese on toast. You can get second-hand microwave ovens and hobs for under £10 each without waiting too long. If you don't have Internet to look, Friday Ad is free.
Don't be such a drama queen. It's all part and parcel of preparing to live in a new home. A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from friends or family) is sufficient to make meals, and the local laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath as people used to do if you're really stuck.
If they did that, you'd be complaining about them profiteering from the poor. You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying, but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. Renting electonic goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.
Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. I appreciate that many landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it done with persistance. In any case those things can usually be tided sufficiently to not be an eyesore, and do not make the place less comfortable.
Rubbish! I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have been very pleased with almost all of them. Obviously you have to pick and choose and wait for the bargains. There are many reasons why people want to get rid of perfectly good appliances. A common reason is that they were given a new appliance as a gift (Christmas, birthday etc.). Another is that they are rich enough to afford to buy the latest appliances each year. Or perhaps they decided to replace a unit with a bigger or smaller model. Or were conned into buying an appliance that is more "green" than the one they had. People moving house often sell their appliances and get new stuff for the new house
- and in that case they are frequently "free to collector" because the person is really only looking for a free removal service. In other cases a well-off householder had replaced a unit simply because it was getting a bit grubby and it avoided a cleaning job.
The skills required are minimal. If a person does not want to learn some very simple skills, I put the blame squarely on that person. besides, a cooker is about the only appliance that requires any sort of skills at all - unless you count plugging a unit into the mains socket a skill.
Why should they be forced to move around involuntarily? I know several families with all members on long-term benefits and was in fact thinking of them when I wrote my post. The state pays for their rent in very reasonable houses that they have lived in for well over a decade. Apart from moving to more suitable accomodation due to a change in the size of the family, or moving at the request of the benefit receiptient themself, the main reason for being shunted from place to place is if the family cause a nuisance wto their neighbours.
Not even for a week or two to tide you over? As said, you can cook everything you need to eat with just a microwave and a kettle (I've done it). It's not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable while you source other appliances.
Yes, I can see that the sort of people who are dirty and dishonest might have a more difficult time getting favours from friends and relatives than clean, decent honest people. Now how are you going to blame that on the nasty rish businessmen?
Ste, I have actually *lived* in that situation, and so know *very* well what I am talking about. Perhaps it is yourself who is placing too much reliance on the veracity of hard-luck stories you have been told. Whilst I am relatively well off now, I know quite a few people of all ages who are out of work and have no assets. i know *very* well what's possible and what's not.
I was discussing the *temporary* situation after the person has just moved in to a new unfurnished home. Yes, it will indeed be more demanding during that time. Some people will sit on their arse, buy some cheap cider and moan about how unfair everything is whilst not bothering to wash the home or themselves properly, or even get out of bed before noon. Others will see it as a challenge and get stuck in to improve the situation for themselves.
I don't see "black" work as being immoral. Nor smuggling for tax evasion purposes. Both are artificial crimes that have been created due to the inadequacies of the state-imposed systems. HB rent is paid direct to the landlord, so there is no opportunity to avoid paying it.
In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.
Perhaps you should be taking issue with the behaviour of the tenants in that case instead of moaning about the landlord?
I have two hands and a brain, and would most certainly be able to effect sufficient repairs to make a vast improvement.
In any case, I think it is yourself who is being completely unrealistic in your scenarios, because I have visited many homes of people who have no money and are surviving completely on state benefits, and have not seen any homes in anything close to such a state of disrepair. I concede that they no doubt exist, but put it to you that they are very much the exception (except in places where the people deliberately damage their own homes - to which I say nobody has any duty whatsoever to make it better).
IIUC, after allowing a reasonable time for the landlord to do something, the tenant is lawfully permitted to get the job done himself and take the cost out of the rent. So long as the tenant has reciepts to verify that the amount is accurate, the landlord/agent won't be able to contest it.
Some people like very bright primary colours, especially in a kitchen. one person I know painted his bedroom completely black. I've not yet come across landlords who have refused to allow a tenant to redecorate, though I could understand it if a landlord was wary of the tenant's DIY skills and feared that they would do more harm than good.
In message , at 13:19:06 on Mon, 20 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years getting credit is more tiresome.
And where exactly do you do this picking, choosing, and waiting? The only place I know of locally is a council-run 'recycling' outfit, which many people are indeed now using - not least landlords of furnished properties. Nevertheless, as I've said you can't be expected to "wait" that long for essential household appliances like cookers and washing machines - you have to pay the going rate in the end.
I would say the primary reason above all for getting rid of appliances that I know of, is that they are faulty or that they are badly defective in appearance.
Which is exactly what I said, that they are cheap usually because they "lack quality in terms of appearance". That's not to say I don't know anyone who has appliances of poor appearance - the point is that their whole houses and even their person, typically reflect their lack of concern with appearance. That is something that you seem to suggest reflects badly on them, rather than being a reasonable response to the unaffordability of keeping up appearances.
They are relatively straightforward to show somebody, but doing the work safely is not intuitive to an inexperienced operator. In the end, I have to look at the evidence, which is that most people who are not professionals, have just enough skills to be dangerous.
That's ludicrous. Society is constantly telling people *not* to do electrics, plumbing, and gas work themselves - for good reason, because it is dangerous if done incorrectly by inexperienced operators.
It is also the case that the poor typically lack the correct tools for the job - which are not inordinately expensive, but would still require expenditure. So you get them using improvised tools like scissors and kitchen knives to strip cables that generally give a poor result and which are liable to cause injuries to themselves in the process - partly because the tools are unsuited to the purpose, and partly because they simply lack the everyday familiarity and skill with manual tools and are therefore prone to use the tools in ways that experienced users would deprecate (either from painful experience, or from cultural transmission of the painful experience of others).
Cookers and washing machines are the most basic and irreducible of kitchen appliances in today's society, and they are the appliances that require the most skill. Even fitting a washing machine, will often in practice require several tools and supplies.
Indeed, and that is a particular cause of involuntarily moving address. I know others who have moved because of harassment from creditors, the law, etc.
And the reality is, if you have a particularly difficult or high- energy child to raise, it's often the case that poor parents have no ability or inclination to manage that. A lot of mothers in that sort of situation genuinely despair of their children's behaviour (often because it does have real consequences, like frequent changes of address), but at the same time are loath to generate poor relations within the family purely for the benefit of those outside the family - in other words, whilst they might not always condone the behaviour, they're not going to incur the psychological and relational stress involved in effective discipline (which might be a very significant undertaking when you have few rewards available to offer for better behaviour, and no ability to spend money in order to change circumstances or provide alternative leisure pursuits for the child), when in contrast to those 'costs' the family itself will derive no great benefits from the discipline (which mainly accrues to the community at large). You're effectively expecing parents to become prison warders of their own children, in a system in which they themselves feel like inmates.
What I'm saying is that it would basically involve the lender going without the relevant appliance, since almost all people (including myself) only have one such appliance.
It depends what sort of other support you have, and how long it takes to source the other appliances.
Yes, because as I've said cleanliness is a costly pretense to maintain (and its a habit that is built up over a lifetime - not switched on and off at will), and so is honesty. There's no point being scrupulously clean and honest simply in order to gain charity from friends and relatives, if the cost of the cleanliness and honesty outweighs the reputational benefits. And in communities that are poor as a whole, there are going to be relatively few people in a position to give - there's no point having excellent creditworthiness, amongst friends who have no credit to offer.
When exactly was this? And for how many *generations* had your family lived in that 'situation'?
Rubbish. None of what I am saying is second-hand. Some of the poor characters I have in mind when giving accounts here, are no friends of mine, and are actually the sorts of people who *cause problems* for friends and relatives of mine, so it's laughable the idea that I'm just swallowing what I'm being given to swallow.
And what *are* you contending is possible? If we take the example of how you contend it is "possible" to feed one's self in a kitchen to contain only a kettle and a microwave, is quite a different question from whether it is reasonable to expect it as a matter of routine in our society. It is "possible" to feed children on flour and banana skins - but it is not reasonable to do so for any significant period in a society where the physical and mental effects of doing so would put them at a significant disadvantage and will make them less socially useful; a stunted idiot is no use to himself or anybody else.
So far as it is "possible" to live in poverty for generations, and maintain the same cleanliness, honesty and moral uprightness, optimism and cheeriness of the 'middle class', I'm not sure I can think of any examples of this. Even if such characters exist, their sheer rarity may well prove my rule that it is not possible to maintain those behavioural traits under the conditions of extreme poverty and the exclusion from the normal culture of society that comes with it.
Which, given the upheaval of moving house, is probably going to be the least reasonable time to impose such demands. Anyway, I don't think I was saying that I'm aware of anybody having any particular problem in being without a washing machine for a few days while they move house, so you are not really addressing any relevant point with this alternative interpretation - I quite reasonably assumed that what you meant was that they should be washing their clothes in the bath as a matter of routine, not as an exceptional stop-gap.
But failing to bargain for better social terms *won't* improve the situation - it will actually get worse, the more people compete for dwindling rewards.
And those with a bit of get-up-and-go are just as likely to become organised criminals - I know many people with determination and backbone, and the justice system intends to give them no leniency whatever for trying to improve themselves. In fact, evidence of significant rewards, is likely to attract stiffer punishment.
That's the problem in the end for people who talk about "getting stuck in" - they end up having to say "but only within the rules", and then that raises the question of who exactly had the greatest input into those rules and why those rules should not be changed.
Neither do I, but in reality it is sanctioned if detected - and I understand the new real-time PAYE system means that benefit claimants who work are detected almost instantly.
HB is paid direct to the tenant in the first place now, and only after a history of mis-spending the rent might it be paid direct to the landlord. Also, people who move between work and benefits are in a position at times to avoid paying the rent out of their own earnings.
In message , at
13:56:53 on Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Ste remarked:eBay, Gumtree, Freecycle...
Postcards in the newsagent's window, newspaper small ads...
Perhaps people who cannot afford replacement plates should not be throwing them at each other in the first place? Or do you believe that it is an unreasonable thing to ask people not to do?
I think I have thrown one plate in anger in my entire life (and that was at an inanimate object), so I know full well that it doesn't take a huge amount of self-control.
Anyone of adult years has no excuse for not having such basic skills if they are living in a situation where such skills are very desirable. I would be able to acquire a bit more than my fingernails in the UK, no matter how poor I was.
Every able-bodied adult of at least minimal intelligence is able to find a way to achieve more than basic income support in the UK, so there is no excuse for anyone to live that way for any length of time except by choice.
And yet you think the blame lies elsewhere? Incredible!
It is considered to be a "neutral" colour that will not put off prospective tenants or buyers.
In message , at 15:21:38 on Tue, 21 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:That's typecasting tenants a bit, isn't it?
A hundred or so (plus Xmas cards). But address these days isn't so much to mail you things, but part of your online "identity". eg The address you quote has to match the one they, or Experian or whatever, have for you.
We were discussing tenants who *you* stated were being forced to move frequently because they were being harrassed by creditors. Thus that is the subset of tenant I was referring to. Are people who are being forced to move for that reason (a) likely to have a credit rating or (b) likely to *want* mail from their creditors to be redirected?
If you are not going to communicate with a person before next Christmas, I really don't see why you would want to receive their Christmas card. If you need to impress visitors with how popular you are, buy some cards yourself to hang up, or use last years' cards. How many of your "hundred or so" people and organisations that you claim communicate with you by snailmail (seems extrordinarily high) do you actually *want* to receive mail from? To reach that figure, I assume you are including all the junk mail you receive. Do you
*really* want the post office to redirect offers from double glazing companies and book-of-the-month clubs?You will no doubt have informed your bank, utility companies and every other organisation that you have current financial dealings with. The change will filter through in due course. You could also inform the two credit rating companies if it is something that is important to you. When you order any goods via the mail from your new address, you would update any address held by the mailorder company as a matter of course. Untill then you will lose out on their marketing fliers - is that a problem?
In message , at 14:02:51 on Wed, 22 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:No, I was only talking about being on the receiving end of dilapidated fixtures and fittings.
So most of the rest you wrote is at cross purposes :(
Because they often include a "family newsletter" that's our main way of keeping in touch. It's also a common way for them to tell me about a change of address.
This Xmas I didn't hang any up.
Pretty much all of them. I can think of one catalogue company that won't take "no" for an answer, but the rest are quite welcome, albeit often only an annual statement of some kind.
I get almost no addressed junk mail. Perhaps that's because I opt out of the electoral roll public list and never fill in questionnaires (not that I get many).
Yep, that's where a lot of the 100 people come from. It's amazing how they mount up (I just signed up for four different railway ticket smartcards, so that's another four to keep updated).
Mail redirect only operates for a couple of months or so, so you still have to actually inform all those people of your change of address. Seeing that you have to inform them anyway, it is just as much effort to inform them *before* you move as afterwards.
I've substituted email for snailmail whenever possible, and find it a heck of a lot better. Albeit I was pretty much forced to do so because I was living on a boat (not having a letterbox). Most bills and statements can be switched to email these days. Consequently I don't get any more than 1 personally addressed letter every two weeks or so. It helps save trees as well (not that I care).
Rubbish!
You can do to for twelve months and then renew it. However, given the gross incompetence of Royal Mail, they may not bother to redirect your post even when you've paid for the service!
so you still
HomeOwnersHub website 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.