The Great British Property Scandal

[Blue Oval84]

Anyone else watching this? What's your thoughts?

I have to admit, it seems to make sense on the surface to refurbish some of the older houses, knock them together etc. rather than demolish them?

Especially when we appear to have the strange situation of having no money to fix them up, but have the budget available to demolish the houses, and then have to pay to re-house people in temporary housing.

I'll say one thing for the presenter, he may beat around the bush a little, but he does keep pinning the blame on Labour for their Pathfinder programme

I've posted here rather than in TV as my thoughts are more focussed on the topic of derelict housing stock rather than the TV show itself...

[collateral]

Seems pretty odd to me that he apparently had such trouble finding an owner willing to let him do up their falling down property for free. What's the mindset there?

[Blue Oval84]

He originally wanted the Housing Association to bear the costs (hence he was looking to do an entire street!), none of them seemed willing to do so, I think the offer to do up one house out of his own pocket was a last resort!

[Laurel Green]

I think one of the main reasons for flats above shops being difficult to find/let, is because often there is no separate entrance. Also, I believe insurance companies do not like the above premises to be let.

[oldmanbm]

I used to work in Local Government and we had a LOTS Scheme with mixed success ( Living Over The Shop) and no problems with insurance. I think the sum of the parts of the programmes was more than the whole. George had the conviction of a zealot who seemed to see his role as a mission with mixed success. Why not use the refurbishment of homes as part of a training programme with the usual key skills developed. That is of course if there's anyone left who could teach this.

[Six Fiend]

oldmanbm said:

I used to work in Local Government and we had a LOTS Scheme with mixed success ( Living Over The Shop) and no problems with insurance. I think the sum of the parts of the programmes was more than the whole. George had the conviction of a zealot who seemed to see his role as a mission with mixed success. Why not use the refurbishment of homes as part of a training programme with the usual key skills developed. That is of course if there's anyone left who could teach this.

Train/employ the unemployed AND solve some housing issues in one move? That's far too sensible!

I like it.

[cardigankid]

Because no one will buy a house built by trainees.

[collateral]

'we'll fix up that empty-for-decades sthole you own /for free/ so you can rent it out'

'no'

[madbadger]

I assumed the issue was putting a homeless person in as the tenant. Maybe they were worried it would trashed / rent wouldn't actually get paid?

Doesn't really make any sense, but there must have been some reason why no-one was interested.

[Six Fiend]

cardigankid said:

Because no one will buy a house built by trainees.

Lots of people do, they just don't realise...

[Simpo Two]

madbadger said:

Doesn't really make any sense, but there must have been some reason why no-one was interested.

Because it's not 'policy' and 'the system' doesn't allow it?

When local government is concerned, what seems like 2 + 2 = 4 to you and me is actually 3.872, if indeed it can be calculated at all, and none of them want to admit they've been a tit for not seeing the blindingly obvious. Basically, it's off their radar.

[madbadger]

Simpo Two said:

madbadger said:

Doesn't really make any sense, but there must have been some reason why no-one was interested.

Because it's not 'policy' and 'the system' doesn't allow it?

When local government is concerned, what seems like 2 + 2 = 4 to you and me is actually 3.872, if indeed it can be calculated at all, and none of them want to admit they've been a tit for not seeing the blindingly obvious. Basically, it's off their radar.

I'd expect the lg to need a check up from the neck up, but what about the private landlords?

[Jasandjules]

cardigankid said:

Because no one will buy a house built by trainees.

You mean, the people who will try their very best to make sure it's done well?

[MonkeyHanger]

madbadger said:

I'd expect the lg to need a check up from the neck up, but what about the private landlords?

They'd have to maintain it and TV Bloke might come back with a camera if they don't.

[wolf1]

It just doesn't make sense for a private landlord to refuse as it will actually increase the value of his property and also enable it to produce an income. The only thing I can think of is that there is a tie in to the council or a housing assosiation which quite a lot of landlords are reluctant to do. But even then a property that's making a profit is better than one that's standing empty and costing them money.

The low cost loan idea makes sense but how long before unscrupulous developers attempt or actualy manage to fiddle it.