Selective Licensing of Landlords

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I would hate for the responsible landlord I'm with now, to be put under a selective licensing scheme with little consultation, just because my previous landlord was not a responsible one. There should be more powers given to tackle irresponsible landlords, rather than hitting the responsible ones.

Our Council Leader, Peter Britcliffe, seems very happy with the improvements these licences will bring to the chosen communities, and the thorough consultation that was carried our beforehand, by H.B.C.

Originally Posted by garinda

'Forward from the Leader of the Council -
The Council welcomes the chance to gain extra powers to deal with poor private landlords. Poor management practises can affect more than just the individual tenant; it can affect the immediate neighbours and the wider community.'

'I have learnt from my constituency role that general population has a poor regard for private landlords, mainly due to the activities of a few who are unwilling to show any responsibility towards the community. I hope that the implementation of Selective Licensing will improve standards and where necessary result in the poor landlords leaving the field, allowing the majority of good landlords to show that residents need not fear the presence of private lettings amongst them.'

http://www.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/downloa...ng_-_App_C.pdf

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by garinda

If you continue to post incorrect statements, and then don't have the good grace to apologise, when what you posted was proved to be totally inaccurate, you're probably right.

Another little tip.

This is a family forum, and bad language, even when disguised by asterisks, isn't allowed. I've had to report one of your posts because of this, making more work for our site moderators.

Perhaps a perusal of the forum rules might be wise.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...mer-29681.html

An introduction, in the relevant thread, after issuing your apology, might be a wiser move still.

Garinda, I see you consider yourself an Agent provocateur. You are certainly a tit for tat member.

I apologise for not following site protocol. I must confess I was introduced to the site by a friend who advised me that it was a good place to share and debate my opinions and on this subject which I have a passionate view, I may well of jumped straight in at the deep end.

In choosing the clear username Eafield I had considered myself as transparent. I am not a conservative councillor and for the second time my political views have no bearing on my comments.

My name is Paul Brown and as I thought was clear I am a letting agent and landlord in Accrington. I am NOT against licensing, I am merely against the current plans. I would love nothing more than the opportunity to voice my thoughts with the powers that be, but as also mentioned when I attempted to speak with Mr Jones he advised me to call back in three weeks. Accyweb seemed an ideal method of raising my comments sooner. As Mr Jones has not responded to any of the points I raise, I also apologise for being drawn into a ridiculous tit for tat, I shall leave it for Mr Jones to review my comments and perhaps he will then take it upon himself to comment further.

I thank you for taking the time to look at my web site and raising the issue of profit for landlords, could you not have the decency to also compliment the content relating to safety checks and landlord obligations, along with the need to obtain good quality references for all tenants. Just a few of the items we and our landlords have promoted for many years, unlike many less scrupulous landlords.

I am sorry for the use of bad language in my comments, this I shall ensure does not happen again.

Your personal onslaught in reference to factual content seems just a little childish to me, as I thought we had already cleared up the typo in my initial text relating to the date being March and not April. Apologies again for causing you such trauma.

On this subject and the absence of an apology to Clatonender, I should just point out that a response has been added and I shall consider an apology based on the response to the facts that I still believe to be correct. You state I am inaccurate with my comments, on what basis have “you” qualified this.

On a final note, if you have any other comments relating to my views that you would like to air, perhaps we could stick to the relevant points in hand and leave the politics at home. If you are not capable of this then it is not likely you will receive a response from me.

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by andrewb

My current landlord is a good one. When I've had problems, they have been sorted. Of course my landlord is making profit. I don't mind that. He provides a product and service which I'm happy to pay for.

A previous landlord was not quite so good. They were shocking at getting things fixed and when they did come to fix things, would often appear in our house with their own key, without notice.

I would hate for the responsible landlord I'm with now, to be put under a selective licensing scheme with little consultation, just because my previous landlord was not a responsible one. There should be more powers given to tackle irresponsible landlords, rather than hitting the responsible ones.

Thank heavens their is at least one rational person on here. I look forward to speaking more.

Regards....

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eafield

Garinda, I see you consider yourself an Agent provocateur. You are certainly a tit for tat member.

I apologise for not following site protocol. I must confess I was introduced to the site by a friend who advised me that it was a good place to share and debate my opinions and on this subject which I have a passionate view, I may well of jumped straight in at the deep end.

In choosing the clear username Eafield I had considered myself as transparent. I am not a conservative councillor and for the second time my political views have no bearing on my comments.

My name is Paul Brown and as I thought was clear I am a letting agent and landlord in Accrington. I am NOT against licensing, I am merely against the current plans. I would love nothing more than the opportunity to voice my thoughts with the powers that be, but as also mentioned when I attempted to speak with Mr Jones he advised me to call back in three weeks. Accyweb seemed an ideal method of raising my comments sooner. As Mr Jones has not responded to any of the points I raise, I also apologise for being drawn into a ridiculous tit for tat, I shall leave it for Mr Jones to review my comments and perhaps he will then take it upon himself to comment further.

I thank you for taking the time to look at my web site and raising the issue of profit for landlords, could you not have the decency to also compliment the content relating to safety checks and landlord obligations, along with the need to obtain good quality references for all tenants. Just a few of the items we and our landlords have promoted for many years, unlike many less scrupulous landlords.

I am sorry for the use of bad language in my comments, this I shall ensure does not happen again.

Your personal onslaught in reference to factual content seems just a little childish to me, as I thought we had already cleared up the typo in my initial text relating to the date being March and not April. Apologies again for causing you such trauma.

On this subject and the absence of an apology to Clatonender, I should just point out that a response has been added and I shall consider an apology based on the response to the facts that I still believe to be correct. You state I am inaccurate with my comments, on what basis have “you” qualified this.

On a final note, if you have any other comments relating to my views that you would like to air, perhaps we could stick to the relevant points in hand and leave the politics at home. If you are not capable of this then it is not likely you will receive a response from me.

As you were informed, Graham Jones might be a little too busy to answer your questions on demand at the moment, as he is standing in the General Election, and probably rates other concerns as being more urgent.

Sticking to the thread's subject, did you send back your questionnaire to our council, and are therefore included in the lowly 11% of the 1,000 landlords that H.B.C. contacted ?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eafield

In choosing the clear username Eafield I had considered myself as transparent. I am not a conservative councillor and for the second time my political views have no bearing on my comments.

My name is Paul Brown and as I thought was clear I am a letting agent and landlord in Accrington.

Further to my posting from the Eafield & Maple website, you'd made no mention of the fact that you were a letting agent, only that you were a landlord.

As for your choice of username being transparent, that's risible.

Someone could decide to call themselves Coutts...we wouldn't necessarily presume them to be a banker.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

My current landlord is a good one. When I've had problems, they have been sorted. Of course my landlord is making profit. I don't mind that. He provides a product and service which I'm happy to pay for.

A previous landlord was not quite so good. They were shocking at getting things fixed and when they did come to fix things, would often appear in our house with their own key, without notice.

I would hate for the responsible landlord I'm with now, to be put under a selective licensing scheme with little consultation, just because my previous landlord was not a responsible one. There should be more powers given to tackle irresponsible landlords, rather than hitting the responsible ones.

Ask pretty much any responsible landlord and the majority seem to be in favour of the scheme. I'm sure you have facts and figures at your fingertips as regards the response to HBC but there's no substitute for talking to people.

The scheme is not a punishment for anyone who is already doing a good job or a way of extracting money, more a way of bringing an industry into line which has proved itself to be incapable of keeping its own house in order. The poor, defenceless property developers will simply put up the rents to compensate while the tenants will be ensured decent living arrangements.

It's long overdue and I'm surprised that your opinion doesn't tally with Cllr Britcliffe, leader of an excellent council.

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by garinda

As you were informed, Graham Jones might be a little too busy to answer your questions on demand at the moment, as he is standing in the General Election, and probably rates other concerns as being more urgent.

Sticking to the thread's subject, did you send back your questionnaire to our council, and are therefore included in the lowly 11% of the 1,000 landlords that H.B.C. contacted ?

Would it not be beneficial to have the votes of the "local" landlords affected by this scheme?

On the subject of the questionnaire, I most certainly did respond, I also went in to great detail as to how I felt landlords could interact better with the council and how the scheme would "in my opinion” be best implemented.

I did not receive any follow up to the questionnaire. I have also received no other information or correspondence on this subject since then.

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by garinda

Further to my posting from the Eafield & Maple website, you'd made no mention of the fact that you were a letting agent, only that you were a landlord.

As for your choice of username being transparent, that's risible.

Someone could decide to call themselves Coutts...we wouldn't necessarily presume them to be a banker.

Going back to my comments about you, your childish input and your wish to be personal.

Perhaps as an educated man you could enlighten us all as to why you would choose (past tense) to make reference to Eafield & Maple in your previous threads, if as you claim in this your latest thread, my choice of username is risible and not transparent.

I suggest all comments you have sir are unconstructive and risible.

I shall now be leaving your playground as I refuse to play with bullies who clearly have more spare time on their hands than I.

Have a nice life.

[cashman]

now who's childish, spit yer dummy out have ya?

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by cashman

now who's childish, spit yer dummy out have ya?

Not at all, just not keen on wasting everyones time with childish arguments that have no relevance to my initial thread and the points I raised.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eafield

Going back to my comments about you, your childish input and your wish to be personal.

Perhaps as an educated man you could enlighten us all as to why you would choose (past tense) to make reference to Eafield & Maple in your previous threads, if as you claim in this your latest thread, my choice of username is risible and not transparent.

I suggest all comments you have sir are unconstructive and risible.

I shall now be leaving your playground as I refuse to play with bullies who clearly have more spare time on their hands than I.

Have a nice life.

Your statement that choosing the username Eafield makes it clear that you are a lettings agent, is risible, because many people might not be aware of the company Eafield & Maple, or if they have, what they do.

We only know what people decide to tell us.

You informed us earlier in the thread that you were a landlord, nothing else.

As pointed out, someone could decide on the username Coutts or Hoare, without us necessarily knowing they're a silly little banker.

As for being bullied, it wasn't me who broke forum rules by using bad language, and caused extra work for our moderators.

Thank you for your input.

Goodbye.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eafield

my initial thread.

Er...the thread was started by claytonender, one of our councillors, the member you wrongly claimed had supplied misinformation, whilst getting in a tiz yourself, and misinforming us with dates yet to happen..

If anyone has a right to clain the thread as their's, I suspect it's her.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Eafield

Not at all, just not keen on wasting everyones time with childish arguments that have no relevance to my initial thread and the points I raised.

As ya aint got an initial thread. just posts in someone elses, yer inaccuracys continuing. ya actually made some relevant points imho, just embellished em with crap that was at best not factual.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Eafield

I shall now be leaving your playground as I refuse to play with bullies who clearly have more spare time on their hands than I.

Have a nice life.

Right lets clear this up, Why did ya join Accyweb? my view is it was not to become a participating member, it was to get yer own selfish point of view across, i base that view on all the subjects ya have contributed on 1. some folk don't agree with that view, yer spitting yer dummy out n sodding off. fer your information, not that it matters, i am a landlord meself, so have no axe to grind about yer views. my axe is purely cos of yer inaccuracies n porkies, i would love ya to prove me wrong n become a participating member, but aint holding me breath, so if ya are going, Don't slam the door on yer way out.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

Right lets clear this up, Why did ya join Accyweb? my view is it was not to become a participating member, it was to get yer own selfish point of view across, i base that view on all the subjects ya have contributed on 1. some folk don't agree with that view, yer spitting yer dummy out n sodding off. fer your information, not that it matters, i am a landlord meself, so have no axe to grind about yer views. my axe is purely cos of yer inaccuracies n porkies, i would love ya to prove me wrong n become a participating member, but aint holding me breath, so if ya are going, Don't slam the door on yer way out.

I thought his post meant that he would be leaving Garinda's playground, rather than coming down to his childish level, not Accringtonweb. We shall soon find out I guess.