Posted by: angiebobs, possilpark on 11:58am Mon 11 Feb 08
This terrible situation shows that business cant be trusted to develop housing solutions for Glasgow - the average business person is only interested in a quick buck.
These are the people who Glasgow City Council wants to run housing, public parks, etc etc. Who are they kidding?
This terrible situation shows that business cant be trusted to develop housing solutions for Glasgow - the average business person is only interested in a quick buck.
These are the people who Glasgow City Council wants to run housing, public parks, etc etc. Who are they kidding?
Posted by: Zanardi, Glasgow on 12:29pm Mon 11 Feb 08
I once viewed an apartment here when the development was still very new - two different estate agents told me to avoid it as the Buy To Let flats had been taken over by anti-social tenants who had been evicted from elsewhere, drug dealers or were being used as brothels - at the time (about 3 years ago) there were apparently at least 3 on the go.
Surely it's not beyond the wit of developers or the council to force amateur landlords to make standard and regular checks on tenants?
I once viewed an apartment here when the development was still very new - two different estate agents told me to avoid it as the Buy To Let flats had been taken over by anti-social tenants who had been evicted from elsewhere, drug dealers or were being used as brothels - at the time (about 3 years ago) there were apparently at least 3 on the go.
Surely it's not beyond the wit of developers or the council to force amateur landlords to make standard and regular checks on tenants?
Posted by: jkr, Lochwinnoch, Greater Glasgow on 12:39pm Mon 11 Feb 08
The buy-to-let market should be stopped.It should be in the title deeds of new developments that properties cannot be let out.
Why do builders not build flats specifically for the renting market?
The present situation is extremely detrimental
to owner-occupiers.
The buy-to-let market should be stopped.It should be in the title deeds of new developments that properties cannot be let out.
Why do builders not build flats specifically for the renting market?
The present situation is extremely detrimental
to owner-occupiers.
Posted by: marty, Glasgow on 12:51pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]angiebobs[/bold] wrote:
This terrible situation shows that business cant be trusted to develop housing solutions for Glasgow - the average business person is only interested in a quick buck.
These are the people who Glasgow City Council wants to run housing, public parks, etc etc. Who are they kidding?[/quote] This must be the most idiotic comment ever posted on here. One very unfortunate problem in private homes does not mean every PLC should be hounded out the country and replaced with state-run institutions!
I feel really sorry for the owners in this development - it's the absent landlords who must be brought to task one way or another.
angiebobs wrote:
This terrible situation shows that business cant be trusted to develop housing solutions for Glasgow - the average business person is only interested in a quick buck.
These are the people who Glasgow City Council wants to run housing, public parks, etc etc. Who are they kidding?
This must be the most idiotic comment ever posted on here. One very unfortunate problem in private homes does not mean every PLC should be hounded out the country and replaced with state-run institutions!
I feel really sorry for the owners in this development - it's the absent landlords who must be brought to task one way or another.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 12:59pm Mon 11 Feb 08
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their [italic]"Plush Riverside Flats!"[/italic]
Get away!
There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers!
Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ?
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their
"Plush Riverside Flats!"
Get away!
There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers!
Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ?
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 1:09pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Again we are all seeing the legacy of buy to let mortgages: social instability, over valued flats, irresponsible fraudulent selfish landlords, and builders who dont want to take responsibility for their actions. Amazing. Also Barratts sales practices should be investigated for any illegality. Selling almost 40 flats to one buyer is really irresponsible and a bit dubious.
Again we are all seeing the legacy of buy to let mortgages: social instability, over valued flats, irresponsible fraudulent selfish landlords, and builders who dont want to take responsibility for their actions. Amazing. Also Barratts sales practices should be investigated for any illegality. Selling almost 40 flats to one buyer is really irresponsible and a bit dubious.
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 1:54pm Mon 11 Feb 08
with respect, you seem to be missing the main point of this story. Properties owned communaly need to be factored. And the factor needs to be able to collect the sums due otherwise the system doesn't work and ghastly problems like this follow.
"People Power"'s comments are disgraceful by the way. These are ordinary people who scrimp and save just like everyone else. Have a look at the avg price of a house and you will see that the folk living here are jsut trying to get on with it. Anyone loosing £1000s on a house that they have bought to live in should be pities- not laughed at. A touch of the Wolfie Smiths about pp i think.
How about a maybe factoring isnt a bad thing after all? or a maybe it really is a costly business to run for its clients?
or a maybe they are not modern dick turpins? etc from Marianne and the self publicising Mr Dailly.
with respect, you seem to be missing the main point of this story. Properties owned communaly need to be factored. And the factor needs to be able to collect the sums due otherwise the system doesn't work and ghastly problems like this follow.
"People Power"'s comments are disgraceful by the way. These are ordinary people who scrimp and save just like everyone else. Have a look at the avg price of a house and you will see that the folk living here are jsut trying to get on with it. Anyone loosing £1000s on a house that they have bought to live in should be pities- not laughed at. A touch of the Wolfie Smiths about pp i think.
How about a maybe factoring isnt a bad thing after all? or a maybe it really is a costly business to run for its clients?
or a maybe they are not modern dick turpins? etc from Marianne and the self publicising Mr Dailly.
Posted by: Captain Sensible, Glasgow on 2:39pm Mon 11 Feb 08
X Factor, I would like to agree with you on this one. I commented last week on one of Marianne's stories that if a Factor pulls out a property might be left to deteriorate.
I imagine, in a property as complicated as this one with powered water supplies and cold water storage tanks(which our factor in our flats has to disinfect and check for nasties) ,the property has not only lost money but is to a large degree unsale able. Especially when the water is enevitably turned off and the first sunstantial uninsured damages occur ( i.e fire)
I feel sorry for the owner occupiers here, however I think they have to accept the fact that this development has been targeted by sub-prime mortgage applicants, many of whom will not exist or will be purchasing under an alias.
Tenants will have been placed in these flats upon mortgage completion and rent will be ingathered by agents working for the landlords for as long as it takes for the mortgagee to repossess. Meantime no mortgage payments or of course Factors bills will be paid.
I note Ms Sturgeons comments with interest and I would suggest that perhaps its not the Developer who should be blamed here but an inadequate and frankly naive legal system which assumes that the factor will always have a mechanism for recovering his costs.
Perhaps its time the clever people in Holyrood started to consider something substantial, like say a 'Land attachment' which would allow a creditor ( the factor) opportunity to apply for sale of an apartment with a large debt and allow precidence would fall to the factor for anything owed ahead of the mortgagee. This could satisfy the factors debt and send a clear message to the mortgagees that they cannot continue to lend to anyone with access to a computer and a loose grasp of the english language.
X Factor, I would like to agree with you on this one. I commented last week on one of Marianne's stories that if a Factor pulls out a property might be left to deteriorate.
I imagine, in a property as complicated as this one with powered water supplies and cold water storage tanks(which our factor in our flats has to disinfect and check for nasties) ,the property has not only lost money but is to a large degree unsale able. Especially when the water is enevitably turned off and the first sunstantial uninsured damages occur ( i.e fire)
I feel sorry for the owner occupiers here, however I think they have to accept the fact that this development has been targeted by sub-prime mortgage applicants, many of whom will not exist or will be purchasing under an alias.
Tenants will have been placed in these flats upon mortgage completion and rent will be ingathered by agents working for the landlords for as long as it takes for the mortgagee to repossess. Meantime no mortgage payments or of course Factors bills will be paid.
I note Ms Sturgeons comments with interest and I would suggest that perhaps its not the Developer who should be blamed here but an inadequate and frankly naive legal system which assumes that the factor will always have a mechanism for recovering his costs.
Perhaps its time the clever people in Holyrood started to consider something substantial, like say a 'Land attachment' which would allow a creditor ( the factor) opportunity to apply for sale of an apartment with a large debt and allow precidence would fall to the factor for anything owed ahead of the mortgagee. This could satisfy the factors debt and send a clear message to the mortgagees that they cannot continue to lend to anyone with access to a computer and a loose grasp of the english language.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 2:47pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their [italic]"Plush Riverside Flats!"[/italic] Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ? [/quote] I remember having such polarised political views - when I was 16. What a lot of class war nonsense. It doen't matter how well off - or otherwise - you are, you shouldn't have to put up with people drinking and taking drugs in your hallway.
People Power wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their "Plush Riverside Flats!" Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ?
I remember having such polarised political views - when I was 16. What a lot of class war nonsense. It doen't matter how well off - or otherwise - you are, you shouldn't have to put up with people drinking and taking drugs in your hallway.
Posted by: Scooby79, Glasgow on 2:56pm Mon 11 Feb 08
I have rented one of these flats for over 2 years. A lot of the problems are down to Barrat: e.g. the "secure entrances" were not fit for purpose - thin wooden frames on the doors that either warped or were kicked in. Barratt promised to replace them but this took a year and a half leaving the development open to all. Once the doors were unlocked no decent tennants would rent the flats so landlords were forced to let them out to "sub-prime" tennants who wrecked the place even more.
The build quality of these flats is shocking - if I lean on my living room wall it will move 2-3 inches as it is not attached to the floor! We have had leaks through the roof since we moved in, electrical sockets are so cheap that we have had to relace 3 in 2 years and I would say that half of the door handles are stuck. Barrat spent as little as possible on the building and now do not want pay to replace the shoddy/cheap workmanship.
I have rented one of these flats for over 2 years. A lot of the problems are down to Barrat: e.g. the "secure entrances" were not fit for purpose - thin wooden frames on the doors that either warped or were kicked in. Barratt promised to replace them but this took a year and a half leaving the development open to all. Once the doors were unlocked no decent tennants would rent the flats so landlords were forced to let them out to "sub-prime" tennants who wrecked the place even more.
The build quality of these flats is shocking - if I lean on my living room wall it will move 2-3 inches as it is not attached to the floor! We have had leaks through the roof since we moved in, electrical sockets are so cheap that we have had to relace 3 in 2 years and I would say that half of the door handles are stuck. Barrat spent as little as possible on the building and now do not want pay to replace the shoddy/cheap workmanship.
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 3:21pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Scooby79[/bold] wrote:
I have rented one of these flats for over 2 years. A lot of the problems are down to Barrat: e.g. the "secure entrances" were not fit for purpose - thin wooden frames on the doors that either warped or were kicked in. Barratt promised to replace them but this took a year and a half leaving the development open to all. Once the doors were unlocked no decent tennants would rent the flats so landlords were forced to let them out to "sub-prime" tennants who wrecked the place even more. The build quality of these flats is shocking - if I lean on my living room wall it will move 2-3 inches as it is not attached to the floor! We have had leaks through the roof since we moved in, electrical sockets are so cheap that we have had to relace 3 in 2 years and I would say that half of the door handles are stuck. Barrat spent as little as possible on the building and now do not want pay to replace the shoddy/cheap workmanship.[/quote] Scooby, I am no lover of Barrats but the owners ned to get control again. It sounds like there a lot of "latent defects" that could be pursued here. I suspect that individual owners would have to take up their own case. Maybe the NHBC (national House Builders Council) could help. They register builders and developers who agree to comply with NHBC's Rules and Standards. I would assume a big builder like Barrats would be part of their scheme.
Otherwise I think its a door chapping exercise for the poor folk finding themselves in the pickle. Ask everybody if they would like to be factored (or self-factor) get the things that really need to be done sorted and fight for the cash back through the Court. The one thing they do have in their favour are that houses stay put! ultimately if the Court decides the bills should be paid, and they will, force the non-payers to sell if need be.
Kind of cuts across the black and white world as seen my marianne and others however.
Good luck to the guys n gals who own and live in these houses. I hope you gan get yourselves in the driving seat again. Moan and lobby by all means but try to take action as well.
Scooby79 wrote:
I have rented one of these flats for over 2 years. A lot of the problems are down to Barrat: e.g. the "secure entrances" were not fit for purpose - thin wooden frames on the doors that either warped or were kicked in. Barratt promised to replace them but this took a year and a half leaving the development open to all. Once the doors were unlocked no decent tennants would rent the flats so landlords were forced to let them out to "sub-prime" tennants who wrecked the place even more. The build quality of these flats is shocking - if I lean on my living room wall it will move 2-3 inches as it is not attached to the floor! We have had leaks through the roof since we moved in, electrical sockets are so cheap that we have had to relace 3 in 2 years and I would say that half of the door handles are stuck. Barrat spent as little as possible on the building and now do not want pay to replace the shoddy/cheap workmanship.
Scooby, I am no lover of Barrats but the owners ned to get control again. It sounds like there a lot of "latent defects" that could be pursued here. I suspect that individual owners would have to take up their own case. Maybe the NHBC (national House Builders Council) could help. They register builders and developers who agree to comply with NHBC's Rules and Standards. I would assume a big builder like Barrats would be part of their scheme.
Otherwise I think its a door chapping exercise for the poor folk finding themselves in the pickle. Ask everybody if they would like to be factored (or self-factor) get the things that really need to be done sorted and fight for the cash back through the Court. The one thing they do have in their favour are that houses stay put! ultimately if the Court decides the bills should be paid, and they will, force the non-payers to sell if need be.
Kind of cuts across the black and white world as seen my marianne and others however.
Good luck to the guys n gals who own and live in these houses. I hope you gan get yourselves in the driving seat again. Moan and lobby by all means but try to take action as well.
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 3:24pm Mon 11 Feb 08
I just noticed this bit!
[italic]Glasgow City Council denied the problem was growing.
A spokesman added: "We met property managers from one major development in the last few days to discuss this issue and found no evidence of a widescale problem."[/italic]
That is classic! In other words, whats all the fuss about? we spoke to a guy down the pub who knows somebody with a house and he is ok so everyone is ok. Duh!!
I just noticed this bit!
Glasgow City Council denied the problem was growing.
A spokesman added: "We met property managers from one major development in the last few days to discuss this issue and found no evidence of a widescale problem."
That is classic! In other words, whats all the fuss about? we spoke to a guy down the pub who knows somebody with a house and he is ok so everyone is ok. Duh!!
Posted by: Boo, Clackmannan on 4:43pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Firstly these flats are not on the riverside and calling themselves Kingston Dock is a joke. The Waterfront flats with nice gardens are on the riverside with twice as much gardens space. Wallace Street was a disaster waiting to happen. The security doors are flimsy. Someone getting entry can walk around the whole building which is bad design. As was mentioned, loads of flats were sold to one company and many lay empty for over a year. many have been put up for auction. I feel sorry for the people who bought expecting a luxury development.
Firstly these flats are not on the riverside and calling themselves Kingston Dock is a joke. The Waterfront flats with nice gardens are on the riverside with twice as much gardens space. Wallace Street was a disaster waiting to happen. The security doors are flimsy. Someone getting entry can walk around the whole building which is bad design. As was mentioned, loads of flats were sold to one company and many lay empty for over a year. many have been put up for auction. I feel sorry for the people who bought expecting a luxury development.
Posted by: Zanardi, Glasgow on 4:56pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their [italic]"Plush Riverside Flats!"[/italic] Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ? [/quote] Oh look, the cretino-left is alive and well. Power to people indeed. So long as it's the right kind of people. Not the sort of people that other people don't approve of. Those people can get stuffed.
Ever thought of reading a [italic]second[/italic] book?
People Power wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their "Plush Riverside Flats!" Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ?
Oh look, the cretino-left is alive and well. Power to people indeed. So long as it's the right kind of people. Not the sort of people that other people don't approve of. Those people can get stuffed.
Ever thought of reading a
second book?
Posted by: mick, Glasgow on 5:10pm Mon 11 Feb 08
It is reassuring to hear from Glasgow District Council that there is no problem with this type of tenancy.
Can they now confirm that the Glasgow Council Tax is being paid on these absentee landlord properties ?
It is reassuring to hear from Glasgow District Council that there is no problem with this type of tenancy.
Can they now confirm that the Glasgow Council Tax is being paid on these absentee landlord properties ?
Posted by: Stevie, Glasgow on 5:42pm Mon 11 Feb 08
It's not Barratt or LPM fault. There's a rather large thread on the Kingston Quay's associations website about all this. I bought a Barratt place on an estate and LPM are our factors. When we had a query and needed a wall sorting out after it was crashed into. LPM got it sorted out quickly. You can't blame the builders for neds kicking in security doors or wrecking the building. If someone has bought 40 flats and not paid a penny on any of the mortgages then who lent them the money in the first place? People need to pay their factors fee and take responsibility for their own places. Folk should have done their homework before buying these flats too as the place has numerous homeless hostels near by.
It's not Barratt or LPM fault. There's a rather large thread on the Kingston Quay's associations website about all this. I bought a Barratt place on an estate and LPM are our factors. When we had a query and needed a wall sorting out after it was crashed into. LPM got it sorted out quickly. You can't blame the builders for neds kicking in security doors or wrecking the building. If someone has bought 40 flats and not paid a penny on any of the mortgages then who lent them the money in the first place? People need to pay their factors fee and take responsibility for their own places. Folk should have done their homework before buying these flats too as the place has numerous homeless hostels near by.
Posted by: Murraymint, Kilbarchan on 5:49pm Mon 11 Feb 08
I am afraid that relying on the NHBC to effect any kind of influence over Barratt is going to prove a waste of time, as NHBRC certificates aren't worth the paper the're written on. They were supposedly brought in to guarantee that owners of newly-built properties would have an inspection carried out on completion and if any defects were found, they would be able to take redress against a builder for various defects, with the number of items covered reducing, until a period of ten years had elapsed, by which time the certificate would be cease to be of any value.
However the real and intended effect of these certificates was to protect the builder and not the owner, as cases too numerous to mention have proved. This situation has been covered in various tv programmes, and has proved that since the NHBC was set up by developers, it has consistently found in their favour and is just a scam to con unsuspecting owners that they were protected from these very same people!
The real tragedy in all of this, is the shockingly poor building quality and control in this country, not to mention the abysmal architecture, with developers using what would appear to be unskilled labour instead of properly trained tradesmen.
I am afraid that relying on the NHBC to effect any kind of influence over Barratt is going to prove a waste of time, as NHBRC certificates aren't worth the paper the're written on. They were supposedly brought in to guarantee that owners of newly-built properties would have an inspection carried out on completion and if any defects were found, they would be able to take redress against a builder for various defects, with the number of items covered reducing, until a period of ten years had elapsed, by which time the certificate would be cease to be of any value.
However the real and intended effect of these certificates was to protect the builder and not the owner, as cases too numerous to mention have proved. This situation has been covered in various tv programmes, and has proved that since the NHBC was set up by developers, it has consistently found in their favour and is just a scam to con unsuspecting owners that they were protected from these very same people!
The real tragedy in all of this, is the shockingly poor building quality and control in this country, not to mention the abysmal architecture, with developers using what would appear to be unskilled labour instead of properly trained tradesmen.
Posted by: Aggie Bagwash, glasgow on 7:12pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Oho thon 'Holy Willie's' a belter aint eh?...'non Christians???'...gee
z peace you!....so its down to all those bad heathens eh...aye well lets round them aw up and burn them wan bae wan...offer them up tae that great god in the sky...aye him that sends the floods and the plagues an aw geez peace you!
The laws need to be scrutinised and changed, to protect decent people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours...even the 'non Christian' ones...
Multiple purchases by landlords?.....why allow it when it is causing so many problems...
That area is dodgy...any Glaswegian will tell you that...but its bad enough having the scum surround you and then some eejit goes and gives them a key to the door!!......but the landlords dont care cos...see....they probably live in a huge hoose hidden away oot in the country somewhere...or Strathblane etc....where none o' the peasants can git tae them...
Oho thon 'Holy Willie's' a belter aint eh?...'non Christians???'...gee
z peace you!....so its down to all those bad heathens eh...aye well lets round them aw up and burn them wan bae wan...offer them up tae that great god in the sky...aye him that sends the floods and the plagues an aw geez peace you!
The laws need to be scrutinised and changed, to protect decent people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours...even the 'non Christian' ones...
Multiple purchases by landlords?.....why allow it when it is causing so many problems...
That area is dodgy...any Glaswegian will tell you that...but its bad enough having the scum surround you and then some eejit goes and gives them a key to the door!!......but the landlords dont care cos...see....they probably live in a huge hoose hidden away oot in the country somewhere...or Strathblane etc....where none o' the peasants can git tae them...
Posted by: George Brown, glasgow on 7:39pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Don't see the gripe, it's all that the upper class want is effluent living
Don't see the gripe, it's all that the upper class want is effluent living
Posted by: GaryP, Glasgow on 8:25pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Chum of mine rented one of these, one of the corner balcony ones.
I couldn't believe the development was only a few years old when I first saw the flat itself and the communal areas. The fit and finish was appalling. The balconies had cheap chicken wire attached to them with cable ties - presumably because no one at Barrat knows something as simple as building codes that don't allow horizontal bars on balcony railings.
But the cost-cutting in the design and build weren't half as galling as the fact that it was in council tax band G - in an area with almost no facilities whatsoever.
Chum of mine rented one of these, one of the corner balcony ones.
I couldn't believe the development was only a few years old when I first saw the flat itself and the communal areas. The fit and finish was appalling. The balconies had cheap chicken wire attached to them with cable ties - presumably because no one at Barrat knows something as simple as building codes that don't allow horizontal bars on balcony railings.
But the cost-cutting in the design and build weren't half as galling as the fact that it was in council tax band G - in an area with almost no facilities whatsoever.
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 8:37pm Mon 11 Feb 08
All landlords in Scotland are required to register their properties on the national landlord register which was implemented to prevent landlords avoiding their responsibilities, such as failing to pay for factoring and anti-social tenants.
Glasgow City Council has the power to prosecute landlords and/or issue Rent Penalty Notices. The notices forbid the tenant from paying rent to the landlord until the landlord registers their contact details.
The reason why rent penalties were introduced was an outcome of lessons learned from the HMO legislation which found that fines resulting from prosecutions for health and safety breaches were deemed to be ineffective - landlords just shrugged them off as low risk and the fines too low to bother with complying with the legislation.
It was felt that stopping all the income to the landlord via Rent Penalty notices would be more effective in smoking out landlords that evaded their responsibilities.
Last summer, Glasgow City Council had 13,000 on its landlord register and issued precisely zero rent penalty notices and had prosecuted zero landlords.
The residents of this block ought to find out why Glasgow City Council are saying they have limited powers to act when they can clamp down on all flats that are let out by issuing rent penalty notices to the tenants, stopping the flow of money to tight landlords who seek to conceal their identities.
Where are the rent penalty notices for all flats that have absentee landlords?
All landlords in Scotland are required to register their properties on the national landlord register which was implemented to prevent landlords avoiding their responsibilities, such as failing to pay for factoring and anti-social tenants.
Glasgow City Council has the power to prosecute landlords and/or issue Rent Penalty Notices. The notices forbid the tenant from paying rent to the landlord until the landlord registers their contact details.
The reason why rent penalties were introduced was an outcome of lessons learned from the HMO legislation which found that fines resulting from prosecutions for health and safety breaches were deemed to be ineffective - landlords just shrugged them off as low risk and the fines too low to bother with complying with the legislation.
It was felt that stopping all the income to the landlord via Rent Penalty notices would be more effective in smoking out landlords that evaded their responsibilities.
Last summer, Glasgow City Council had 13,000 on its landlord register and issued precisely zero rent penalty notices and had prosecuted zero landlords.
The residents of this block ought to find out why Glasgow City Council are saying they have limited powers to act when they can clamp down on all flats that are let out by issuing rent penalty notices to the tenants, stopping the flow of money to tight landlords who seek to conceal their identities.
Where are the rent penalty notices for all flats that have absentee landlords?
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 8:43pm Mon 11 Feb 08
For approx £7 per flat, the scottish land registry will provide ownership details which will give the address of the landlord who bought the property. Of course, particularly dodgy buyers are going to hide behind off-shore bank accounts/companies.
For approx £7 per flat, the scottish land registry will provide ownership details which will give the address of the landlord who bought the property. Of course, particularly dodgy buyers are going to hide behind off-shore bank accounts/companies.
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 9:38pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]jkr[/bold] wrote:
The buy-to-let market should be stopped.It should be in the title deeds of new developments that properties cannot be let out. Why do builders not build flats specifically for the renting market? The present situation is extremely detrimental to owner-occupiers.[/quote] Do you really think those who let these properties, care, as long as the cash is rolling in then nothing else concerns them.Flats can be used for prostitution,drugs,a
nd be left in a continuous rundown state,It's only the decent owner occupiers who suffer, and it's not only new and modern built property's which suffer from this negligence, there are flats and house been let to problem family and other undesirables in quite ,respectable areas.We had problems when the house below us was let out to two junkies, fights,needles,filth
,drunks,loud music all day and into the early hours,police attending most nights,We complained to the owner of the property who said,tough it's not his problem,the police couldn't do anything either, I Agree with you the regulations need changing
jkr wrote:
The buy-to-let market should be stopped.It should be in the title deeds of new developments that properties cannot be let out. Why do builders not build flats specifically for the renting market? The present situation is extremely detrimental to owner-occupiers.
Do you really think those who let these properties, care, as long as the cash is rolling in then nothing else concerns them.Flats can be used for prostitution,drugs,a
nd be left in a continuous rundown state,It's only the decent owner occupiers who suffer, and it's not only new and modern built property's which suffer from this negligence, there are flats and house been let to problem family and other undesirables in quite ,respectable areas.We had problems when the house below us was let out to two junkies, fights,needles,filth
,drunks,loud music all day and into the early hours,police attending most nights,We complained to the owner of the property who said,tough it's not his problem,the police couldn't do anything either, I Agree with you the regulations need changing
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 10:03pm Mon 11 Feb 08
You think you have poor service at the GHA until you read that above. Send in the crack team of South Maryhill. Their community estates management team will show all hows is truly done. Aye, good and proper cause we'd be better of without them... Get out and clean the stairs yourself!
You think you have poor service at the GHA until you read that above. Send in the crack team of South Maryhill. Their community estates management team will show all hows is truly done. Aye, good and proper cause we'd be better of without them... Get out and clean the stairs yourself!
Posted by: absent_not_vacant, London on 10:28pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Aside from Barrats notoriously shoddy workmanship I think a big part of the problem is the cluelessness of Glasgow Council.
They've completely failed to develop (or allow the development of) the riverfront in Glasgow. In any other city in Europe the riverfront would be a prime property site that would suck in the sort of huge sums required to ensure that it gets properly developed once and for all.
Only then should development push on into more vulnerable areas.
Glasgow Council have scattered planning permission and public money around in little vulnerable pockets. They have not focused effort and have allowed the creation of second-rate developments such as this. Developments that are vulnerable to vandalism and petty crime.
What happened to the Tradestone / Broomielaw bridge project? Years behind time and scaled back, by the time it comes it may be too late to have any impact on the area.
I for one, speaking as an absentee landlord, (what other type is there?) will not be investing any more of my money in Glasgow.
I'll be keeping it where it will be safe.
Aside from Barrats notoriously shoddy workmanship I think a big part of the problem is the cluelessness of Glasgow Council.
They've completely failed to develop (or allow the development of) the riverfront in Glasgow. In any other city in Europe the riverfront would be a prime property site that would suck in the sort of huge sums required to ensure that it gets properly developed once and for all.
Only then should development push on into more vulnerable areas.
Glasgow Council have scattered planning permission and public money around in little vulnerable pockets. They have not focused effort and have allowed the creation of second-rate developments such as this. Developments that are vulnerable to vandalism and petty crime.
What happened to the Tradestone / Broomielaw bridge project? Years behind time and scaled back, by the time it comes it may be too late to have any impact on the area.
I for one, speaking as an absentee landlord, (what other type is there?) will not be investing any more of my money in Glasgow.
I'll be keeping it where it will be safe.
Posted by: chedwardall, glasgow on 5:56am Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their [italic]"Plush Riverside Flats!"[/italic] Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ? [/quote] Everyone regardless of their station in life has the right to live in peace and security. PP's fallacious logic implies that better off people should be happy to accept drug dealing, anti social behaviour etc just because someone, somewhere else is worse off. By all means help the impoverished, but this is a separate issue which requires separate addressing.
People Power wrote:
My heart bleed for these poor well off folk - in their "Plush Riverside Flats!" Get away! There are far worse of folk financially than these high end of the market house / flat buyers! Where are the impoverised that Glasgow City Council would rather we don't talk about or mention ? Scared the image of Glasgow would be tarnished are we ?
Everyone regardless of their station in life has the right to live in peace and security. PP's fallacious logic implies that better off people should be happy to accept drug dealing, anti social behaviour etc just because someone, somewhere else is worse off. By all means help the impoverished, but this is a separate issue which requires separate addressing.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 8:50am Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote][bold]HOLY WILLIE[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Aggie Bagwash[/bold] wrote: Oho thon 'Holy Willie's' a belter aint eh?...'non Christians???'...gee z peace you!....so its down to all those bad heathens eh...aye well lets round them aw up and burn them wan bae wan...offer them up tae that great god in the sky...aye him that sends the floods and the plagues an aw geez peace you! The laws need to be scrutinised and changed, to protect decent people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours...even the 'non Christian' ones... Multiple purchases by landlords?.....why allow it when it is causing so many problems... That area is dodgy...any Glaswegian will tell you that...but its bad enough having the scum surround you and then some eejit goes and gives them a key to the door!!......but the landlords dont care cos...see....they probably live in a huge hoose hidden away oot in the country somewhere...or Strathblane etc....where none o' the peasants can git tae them...[/quote] you are obviously by your comments a non believer and as if that is not bad enough you suggest changing our laws to suit your fellow non christians,no doubt shariah law is what you advocate.as for floods and plagues these are natural disasters and not the fault of god,our maker is only responsible for doing good [/quote] Isn't it sign of a modernising and progressive society that folk have access to computers on the mental ward these days.
HOLY WILLIE wrote:
Aggie Bagwash wrote: Oho thon 'Holy Willie's' a belter aint eh?...'non Christians???'...gee z peace you!....so its down to all those bad heathens eh...aye well lets round them aw up and burn them wan bae wan...offer them up tae that great god in the sky...aye him that sends the floods and the plagues an aw geez peace you! The laws need to be scrutinised and changed, to protect decent people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours...even the 'non Christian' ones... Multiple purchases by landlords?.....why allow it when it is causing so many problems... That area is dodgy...any Glaswegian will tell you that...but its bad enough having the scum surround you and then some eejit goes and gives them a key to the door!!......but the landlords dont care cos...see....they probably live in a huge hoose hidden away oot in the country somewhere...or Strathblane etc....where none o' the peasants can git tae them...
you are obviously by your comments a non believer and as if that is not bad enough you suggest changing our laws to suit your fellow non christians,no doubt shariah law is what you advocate.as for floods and plagues these are natural disasters and not the fault of god,our maker is only responsible for doing good
Isn't it sign of a modernising and progressive society that folk have access to computers on the mental ward these days.
Posted by: rgtrrgtr, netherlee on 12:52pm Tue 12 Feb 08
I have known Colin Campbell, one of the directors of LPM, for many years and had a drink with him towards the end of last year. He was agonising over what to do. The problem of security was awful, and he just did not know what else his firm could do. His company have done what they can.
So the buy to let market needs to be regulated as well somehow. Patricia please add another chapter to your bill....
One major problem is that getting anything done in the courts is so hugely SLOW and outrageously EXPENSIVE that it is virtually impossible for anyone - factors included to do anything within a reasonable time.
Several years ago I tried to get peverel thrown off for over charging and generally under performing. they took out an injunction against me to stop me communicating with my neighbours and just about anyone else they could think of. actually it turned into a human rights abuse matter...
anyway to cut a long story short, their pilferings or whatever got noticed by barclays bank who pulled the rug on them in december 2006. vincent tchenguiz (who specialises in property financing as well) and his consensus business group bought peverel removing a few objectionable key personnel. Then peverel under their new owners decided FOUR years later to walk away from their case aganist me - ok so i can post what i want. but it RESOLVED nothing - and we now have doors falling off cupboards ad nauseam - all because the factor [and quite few residents] won't abide by the deeds. the rest of us are appalled. and oh yes the fence has got do many holes in it that it is no longer a fence and the local lads run riot round our gardens.
there needs to be some "whatever" which can act with both SPEED and AUTHORITY. from my 40 years experience in the construction industry that generally means keeping the lawyers out - but then how to control it ? i suggest a panel of engineers - as a profession we are used to making major decisions quickly and sensibly, and are not prone to coercion [viz taking bribes].
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman might be thought to be a usable body - but in fact it has turned out to be a total disaster that is almost completely useless.
so THINK who you vote for next time and extract from them a committment to sort this type of fiasco out whether it be your local councillor, mp or mep.
as colin said to me some years ago: "we are just building tomorrows slums today, because the building designs are just not manageable."
but it is a question of getting a reasonable balance.
[bold]Q[/bold] why do we knock down tower blocks ?
[bold]A[/bold] because there are too many people in one space
... so why did the planners allow it to happen to start with ?
back to work - drpressed ...
I have known Colin Campbell, one of the directors of LPM, for many years and had a drink with him towards the end of last year. He was agonising over what to do. The problem of security was awful, and he just did not know what else his firm could do. His company have done what they can.
So the buy to let market needs to be regulated as well somehow. Patricia please add another chapter to your bill....
One major problem is that getting anything done in the courts is so hugely SLOW and outrageously EXPENSIVE that it is virtually impossible for anyone - factors included to do anything within a reasonable time.
Several years ago I tried to get peverel thrown off for over charging and generally under performing. they took out an injunction against me to stop me communicating with my neighbours and just about anyone else they could think of. actually it turned into a human rights abuse matter...
anyway to cut a long story short, their pilferings or whatever got noticed by barclays bank who pulled the rug on them in december 2006. vincent tchenguiz (who specialises in property financing as well) and his consensus business group bought peverel removing a few objectionable key personnel. Then peverel under their new owners decided FOUR years later to walk away from their case aganist me - ok so i can post what i want. but it RESOLVED nothing - and we now have doors falling off cupboards ad nauseam - all because the factor won't abide by the deeds. the rest of us are appalled. and oh yes the fence has got do many holes in it that it is no longer a fence and the local lads run riot round our gardens.
there needs to be some "whatever" which can act with both SPEED and AUTHORITY. from my 40 years experience in the construction industry that generally means keeping the lawyers out - but then how to control it ? i suggest a panel of engineers - as a profession we are used to making major decisions quickly and sensibly, and are not prone to coercion .
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman might be thought to be a usable body - but in fact it has turned out to be a total disaster that is almost completely useless.
so THINK who you vote for next time and extract from them a committment to sort this type of fiasco out whether it be your local councillor, mp or mep.
as colin said to me some years ago: "we are just building tomorrows slums today, because the building designs are just not manageable."
but it is a question of getting a reasonable balance.
Q why do we knock down tower blocks ?
A because there are too many people in one space
... so why did the planners allow it to happen to start with ?
back to work - drpressed ...
Posted by: bluecandy01, glasgow on 8:10pm Wed 13 Feb 08
Imust comment on your recent article re landlords
I have been a landlord for almost fifteen years,up until recently I did everything myself
When I bought mymost recent apartment I gave it to Clyde Properties to manage for me, the result being the tenant they put in has now left the apartment owing thousands of pounds.
I registered with the Council when the registration became law I also have had the apartments checked annually with the appropriate bodies I have done everything that was required and more, so please don't treat all landlords the same
Oh and before I forget we have an excellant factor Speirs Parnie in Bath Street.
respectfully
bluecandy01
Imust comment on your recent article re landlords
I have been a landlord for almost fifteen years,up until recently I did everything myself
When I bought mymost recent apartment I gave it to Clyde Properties to manage for me, the result being the tenant they put in has now left the apartment owing thousands of pounds.
I registered with the Council when the registration became law I also have had the apartments checked annually with the appropriate bodies I have done everything that was required and more, so please don't treat all landlords the same
Oh and before I forget we have an excellant factor Speirs Parnie in Bath Street.
respectfully
bluecandy01
Posted by: anon54, trandeston on 11:05am Thu 14 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Murraymint[/bold] wrote:
I am afraid that relying on the NHBC to effect any kind of influence over Barratt is going to prove a waste of time, as NHBRC certificates aren't worth the paper the're written on. They were supposedly brought in to guarantee that owners of newly-built properties would have an inspection carried out on completion and if any defects were found, they would be able to take redress against a builder for various defects, with the number of items covered reducing, until a period of ten years had elapsed, by which time the certificate would be cease to be of any value. However the real and intended effect of these certificates was to protect the builder and not the owner, as cases too numerous to mention have proved. This situation has been covered in various tv programmes, and has proved that since the NHBC was set up by developers, it has consistently found in their favour and is just a scam to con unsuspecting owners that they were protected from these very same people! The real tragedy in all of this, is the shockingly poor building quality and control in this country, not to mention the abysmal architecture, with developers using what would appear to be unskilled labour instead of properly trained tradesmen.[/quote] Sadly, what murraymint says is very true - I have reported major faults in the building to the NHBC and after many months with no effective repairs having been done I reached the point of no return by NHBC (when they have to facilitate a proper repair) - they virtually denied any responsibility at all - they are most definitely controlled by the builders - the NHBC certificate is a worthless and expensive document
Murraymint wrote:
I am afraid that relying on the NHBC to effect any kind of influence over Barratt is going to prove a waste of time, as NHBRC certificates aren't worth the paper the're written on. They were supposedly brought in to guarantee that owners of newly-built properties would have an inspection carried out on completion and if any defects were found, they would be able to take redress against a builder for various defects, with the number of items covered reducing, until a period of ten years had elapsed, by which time the certificate would be cease to be of any value. However the real and intended effect of these certificates was to protect the builder and not the owner, as cases too numerous to mention have proved. This situation has been covered in various tv programmes, and has proved that since the NHBC was set up by developers, it has consistently found in their favour and is just a scam to con unsuspecting owners that they were protected from these very same people! The real tragedy in all of this, is the shockingly poor building quality and control in this country, not to mention the abysmal architecture, with developers using what would appear to be unskilled labour instead of properly trained tradesmen.
Sadly, what murraymint says is very true - I have reported major faults in the building to the NHBC and after many months with no effective repairs having been done I reached the point of no return by NHBC (when they have to facilitate a proper repair) - they virtually denied any responsibility at all - they are most definitely controlled by the builders - the NHBC certificate is a worthless and expensive document
Posted by: anon54, trandeston on 11:07am Thu 14 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Boo[/bold] wrote:
Firstly these flats are not on the riverside and calling themselves Kingston Dock is a joke. The Waterfront flats with nice gardens are on the riverside with twice as much gardens space. Wallace Street was a disaster waiting to happen. The security doors are flimsy. Someone getting entry can walk around the whole building which is bad design. As was mentioned, loads of flats were sold to one company and many lay empty for over a year. many have been put up for auction. I feel sorry for the people who bought expecting a luxury development.[/quote] It was a luxury development until the scum of the earth took over!
Boo wrote:
Firstly these flats are not on the riverside and calling themselves Kingston Dock is a joke. The Waterfront flats with nice gardens are on the riverside with twice as much gardens space. Wallace Street was a disaster waiting to happen. The security doors are flimsy. Someone getting entry can walk around the whole building which is bad design. As was mentioned, loads of flats were sold to one company and many lay empty for over a year. many have been put up for auction. I feel sorry for the people who bought expecting a luxury development.
It was a luxury development until the scum of the earth took over!
Posted by: georgethomaskennedy, kingston quay, glasgow on 8:24pm Thu 12 Feb 09
I have moved into a flat pretty recently, and ive got to say we've had to do a hell of a lot of work to get the flat decorated as when we moved in the place was an absolute dump, infeted with bedbugs, manky carpets, everything was a mess. Also outside the flat the corridors are stinking (due to refuse shoot), and also have problems with noise from neighbours. Other things that annoy me are that gates at front dont always open and lifts usually broken down and never fixed.
After speaking with an experienced builder he said the flats are a discrace for a newbuild.
The flats could be so much better, there in a brilliant location in the city.
It is also clear that drugs are being used in the flat, my girlfriend and i were met one night by a group of guys asking if we had any drugs and also we can smell 'hash' all the time.
I have moved into a flat pretty recently, and ive got to say we've had to do a hell of a lot of work to get the flat decorated as when we moved in the place was an absolute dump, infeted with bedbugs, manky carpets, everything was a mess. Also outside the flat the corridors are stinking (due to refuse shoot), and also have problems with noise from neighbours. Other things that annoy me are that gates at front dont always open and lifts usually broken down and never fixed.
After speaking with an experienced builder he said the flats are a discrace for a newbuild.
The flats could be so much better, there in a brilliant location in the city.
It is also clear that drugs are being used in the flat, my girlfriend and i were met one night by a group of guys asking if we had any drugs and also we can smell 'hash' all the time.
Posted by: newtenant?, scotland on 3:29pm Sat 14 Feb 09
[bold]bold[/bold] hi my son thinking of buying ones of these flats been shown round recently and maybe niave but no one told us any of the above thnik is it worth buying he first time buyer trying to get foot in the matket and roof over his head your comments appriaciated closing date for offers this next week is it a case of jump and sink or light at end of tunnel
hi my son thinking of buying ones of these flats been shown round recently and maybe niave but no one told us any of the above thnik is it worth buying he first time buyer trying to get foot in the matket and roof over his head your comments appriaciated closing date for offers this next week is it a case of jump and sink or light at end of tunnel
Comment | Read Comments (33)
