Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Si1

When can your landlord throw all your stuff out of the window?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

It is possible that she has heard of it, she just perfers having children to working.

I agree with you although I would add people like this should not be given housing in places where there is a housing shortage.

That means not housing her kids. We're meant to be a civilised society. We don't deny kids a home because we're judgmental about their mothers. The way to deal with the housing shortage is to build more houses.

If you want to take rights away, first destroy sympathy for the victim. Want to restrict internet freedom? Target restrictions on terrorists and paedophiles - who in their right mind would object to that? - and then slowly roll them out to everyone else. Want to destroy public support for benefits and social housing? Bang on about people with big families and no visible means of support, and fill the tv screens with hour after effing hour of poverty porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

That means not housing her kids. We're meant to be a civilised society. We don't deny kids a home because we're judgmental about their mothers. The way to deal with the housing shortage is to build more houses.

If you want to take rights away, first destroy sympathy for the victim. Want to restrict internet freedom? Target restrictions on terrorists and paedophiles - who in their right mind would object to that? - and then slowly roll them out to everyone else. Want to destroy public support for benefits and social housing? Bang on about people with big families and no visible means of support, and fill the tv screens with hour after effing hour of poverty porn.

You did not read my post, I didn't say she should not get a house, just not in a place with high demand.  Lots of people don't live in Edinburgh or London etc, I have done it myself, it is not that bad.

 

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

Want to destroy public support for benefits and social housing? Bang on about people with big families and no visible means of support, and fill the tv screens with hour after effing hour of poverty porn.

Alternatively if you want to keep public support for benefits, reform the system so it is fairer.  I don't want to live in a country with no benefits, the threat is from the system getting so sick that people kill it rather than cure it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

You did not read my post, I didn't say she should not get a house, just not in a place with high demand.  Lots of people don't live in Edinburgh or London etc, I have done it myself, it is not that bad.

I did read your post. So we should make her kids live miles away from their friends and family, all of their social support network, because we've decided they're undesirables? In doing so we make them move away from areas of prosperity, meaning they're pretty much condemned to continuing in social exclusion. 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should have parts of the country which are reserved for poor people and others we feel a bit snobby about. If so, I look forward to you agreeing to be among the first deported to the ghettoes.

Edited by Man of Kent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I did read your post. So we should make her kids live miles away from their friends and family, all of their social support network, because we've decided they're undesirables? In doing so we make them move away from areas of prosperity, meaning they're pretty much condemned to continuing in social exclusion. 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should have parts of the country which are reserved for poor people and others we feel a bit snobby about. If so, I look forward to you agreeing to be among the first deported to the ghettoes.

High horse. I am about to move my kids away from their friends and family and 'support network's because I have to pay my own rent from money I earn and where I currently live is just too expensive.

I am not undesirable. Just have to cut my cloth to fit my (fairly considerable) income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 8:39 PM, adarmo said:

 

If there was ever a piece of me that wanted to do any landlording the thought of dealing with worthless trash like this this on a daily basis would iron it out. 

 

i see no turnstile among that trash she must have taken it with her. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, longgone said:

 

i see no turnstile among that trash she must have taken it with her. 

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I did read your post. So we should make her kids live miles away from their friends and family, all of their social support network, because we've decided they're undesirables? In doing so we make them move away from areas of prosperity, meaning they're pretty much condemned to continuing in social exclusion. 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should have parts of the country which are reserved for poor people and others we feel a bit snobby about. If so, I look forward to you agreeing to be among the first deported to the ghettoes.

Lots of careers involve moving away from home, nothing to be a desirable or not.  If she had wanted to work in the car industry she would have had to move from Edinburgh.

Why should benefit claimant not be on the careers that involve moving.

I don't want anyone to live in a ghetto, do you think everywhere that is not expensive is a ghetto?  You obviously don't know what the word means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

High horse. I am about to move my kids away from their friends and family and 'support network's because I have to pay my own rent from money I earn and where I currently live is just too expensive.

I am not undesirable. Just have to cut my cloth to fit my (fairly considerable) income.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 9:17 PM, Man of Kent said:

Leaving aside all the stuff about the tenant

 

Why?

On 3/12/2018 at 9:17 PM, Man of Kent said:

I respectfully submit that the answer to the question is "never," or possibly "when they are on fire."

 

...and if it was your property and they'd "fall behind" on rent, but you still have to pay the mortgage and can't rent the place because the previous tenant's belongings are still in there...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2018 at 8:34 PM, A third of everything said:

Isn't it generally the done thing to go back for your stuff as you only get an hour when you're initiallty kicked out? They usually have to do so by appointment (according to countless episodes of can't pay we'll take it away)

I seem to have the same recollection as you with this. There was an eviction in which this scumbag of a woman had messed the landlord around for ages, all went to court and he turned up with a bailiff and the guy from some landlord assistance group. They got her out, she took a few bits and pieces then the guy told the landlord that he had to retain the stuff for a couple of weeks or something like that, to give her time to remove them. He was properly pissed off.

I'm sure there was another one whereby there was a cat involved as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Lots of careers involve moving away from home, nothing to be a desirable or not.  If she had wanted to work in the car industry she would have had to move from Edinburgh.

Why should benefit claimant not be on the careers that involve moving.

I don't want anyone to live in a ghetto, do you think everywhere that is not expensive is a ghetto?  You obviously don't know what the word means.

I live in the 'third world' as depicted in the fantastic scene from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life....yes, I live in Yorkshire.?. And you are so right....countryside, gentle commute, decent living expenses, fresh air and decent city and town access for those who want a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Would not live in London if it were 5 times cheaper than Yorkshire and the wages 5 times more....but let's keep that our secret. 

'Ghettos' exist 2 miles from affluent areas in cities. If community existed and gardens were tidied and those in the poorer areas could look up instead of in....they can improve their ongoing situation. But I appreciate some people are in despair, they gave hard lives and can't be motivated....often brought down by a tiny minority who just don't care. 

It is a tricky debate re moving people from affluent areas and a social mix is important. But like those who buy or pay their own rent...those that don't and rely of benefits also need to earn their right to stay where they want to live. Pay their rent, be socially aware and respectful of all. Like everybody.  

In terms of throwing things out of a window.....never. Just a nasty thing to do and an unnecessary statement by the landlord. As already suggested an assessment of value v's storage/removal cost....plenty of notice and then the tip if appropriate. Valuables ie television, espresso machine or George Foreman Grill ?...stored if practical. 

 

Edit: having seen the article, the mess, some mitigants re tenants circumstances and the fact he promised her time to get stuff out....then in relation to this article the answer is definitely NEVER. He is just a bully exerting power when he had already evicted her and 'won'.  She had agreed a few more days to empty the place and looking at the amount of things any reasonable person would ask her to start on the Sunday as agreed and probably given her a couple of weeks to get sorted. 

Edited by Pop321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pop321 said:

It is a tricky debate re moving people from affluent areas and a social mix is important.

True however it is unfair that some people have a long journey to work whilst others who do not work live closer to places where there are lots of jobs e.g. central London etc.

Personally spending more time with my family is more important to me than a social mix.

1 hour ago, Pop321 said:

In terms of throwing things out of a window.....never. Just a nasty thing to do and an unnecessary statement by the landlord. As already suggested an assessment of value v's storage/removal cost....plenty of notice and then the tip if appropriate. Valuables ie television, espresso machine or George Foreman Grill ?...stored if practical. 

 

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:40 PM, Man of Kent said:

I did read your post. So we should make her kids live miles away from their friends and family, all of their social support network, because we've decided they're undesirables? In doing so we make them move away from areas of prosperity, meaning they're pretty much condemned to continuing in social exclusion. 

They will not be condemned to social exclusion if they have to move. Surely the children will make friends wherever they go. They are more likely to face economic exclusion, but I don't think anyone is condemned to this anywhere in the country.

 

The issue of being "moved away from family and social support networks" is a bit more complicated. Who are they and what do they do? If she has a lot of family and social support on benefits, they could be moved elsewhere en masse without disruption. If she has a lot of family and social support network from more affluent people, perhaps she doesn't require benefits.

In this case it seems like she doesn't have much of a support network. If so, why didn't they help her move out when she received the eviction notice? Also from a quick look at the article there didn't seem to be mention of father(s).

 

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:40 PM, Man of Kent said:

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should have parts of the country which are reserved for poor people and others we feel a bit snobby about.

We already do have parts of the country which are almost reserved for poor people. But people tend only to live there due to the lottery of being born there.

I think arguing against relocating some people on benefits to cheaper areas might be barking up the wrong tree. Might it not be better to focus on how to make the undesirable areas more desirable?

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 8:40 PM, Man of Kent said:

If so, I look forward to you agreeing to be among the first deported to the ghettoes.

Nobody is being deported anywhere. Everyone has the right to live where there like provided they have the means. Millions of people on decent incomes realise they have to leave family and friends. Why should there be a threshold below which people are protected from having to move? Can you suggest a reform which would make this more equitable?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Nobody is being deported anywhere. Everyone has the right to live where there like provided they have the means. Millions of people on decent incomes realise they have to leave family and friends. Why should there be a threshold below which people are protected from having to move? Can you suggest a reform which would make this more equitable?

 

 

Wonderful post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Bank of England Base Rate   290 members have voted

    1. 1. What do you predict the Bank of England base rate to be at the end of 2018?


      • .25% or lower
      • .5%
      • .75%
      • 1% or higher

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.