I am a HA tenant. I had recently a stock condition survey carried out of my flat. I asked my HA whether I would be allowed to have a copy of it. The answer I got is that the survey is for the use of the HA only. As is a survey of my flat I am a bit puzzled by the fact I cannot have access to such a document and check what is being said about my property. It is not part of my property maintenance history?
I would like to ask independent views on whether a tenant is allowed to have a copy of the stock survey of his/her property.
I'd be grateful for contributions.
There is tenant involvement in almost all SRLs. The landlords are requested by the governemnt to involve tenants and so it's not they are doing because they like it - But tenant involvement DOES NOT mean there is tenant representation.
INVOLVEMENT and REPRESENTATION are 2 different things.
Involvement/participation means you can participate in one way or another but you have NO POWER because you are getting involved by personal choice, and you can contribute as much or as less as you like. And you are there until you are convenient for the landlord to have you there.
REPRESENTATION means you have been elected, given a mandate to represent tenants and you have the legal and moral authority that comes with any democratic election (as a parliamentary or councillor or trade unionist). The landlords cannot dismiss you at their liking. The only ones who can dismissi you at the next election are the tenants that elected you.
There is a lot of tenant participation but THERE IS NO TENANT REPRESENTATION.
Until tenant do not have a system where they are all given the chance to elect democratically their representatives the landlords will go on getting away with murder, by passing off participation as representation, which is the greatest con against social residents.
Do not fall for it and fight for 1 TENANCY 1 VOTE!
I would be interested for comments from those who are familiar or experience with this case. What do you think are think are its implications?
On the wake of the report in this website titled "Million use credit cards for housing debt"
I think I have the solution to the credit card rent/debt problem.
There should be a credit card issued solely for rent (or mortgage) purpose and for NO OTHER reason.
The card would be the outcome of and agreement between social landlords and credit card companies, and issued to each tenant willing to pay by credit card. In this way Housing Benefit or any other rent money goes into this account and cannot be used for any other reason. The tenant would control his money in this account but not be able to take it out. The only time a tenant can take money out from this account is when she decides to close it.
The benefit for Creditc cards companies would come from an arrangements with the landlords and from any pubblicity.
There you are, I hope everybody concerned gets working on this straightaway and, if not entirely, much of this credit card-related problem should go away.
This is in response to the Housing Minister initiative to give a £500 reward on people reporting on subletter and follows comments made in that thread....
Making some aspects of subletting legal would give tenants more choices, even better than home swapping, because it would allow them to go back to their home.
Once Home swapping was illegal and some people were against it, and now it is perfectly legal. Taking in lodgers was perceived as illegal and then became perfectly acceptable.
Making subletting legal is the next step in this progression.
If I am a student or I have got a job or for whatever other reason, I have to be in another part of the country for months on end paying for another rent there, why do I have to travel back to my social home every now and then just to show that I still live there, when I could let it to someone else and not pay double rent?
I think far better than home swapping, subletting would give freedom for tenants to move to other parts of the country over serious matters like jobs, studies, assisting relatives who are ill., etc.
Illegal subletting is happening anyway, with resources and money wasted in trying to control it. All to no one's benefit. So why not make it legal so everyone benefits for it?... This is a very sensible and positive groundbreaking proposal I am making, Any political party with some sense should steal this idea of mine right now and make it their policy.
I am a tenant of this HA. This used to be a 5 day repair. When I last reported it (on 16th November 2009) I was told it is a 20 working days repair...
I was not given any warning of this and L&Q website website to date still reports "toilet not flushing" as urgent repair to be carried out within 5 days.... Was what I was told by the maintenace operator and his supervisor about this change legal? Are there any challenges available for tenants on similar situations?
I reported my toilet not flushing on 16th November 2009. I got a contractor appointment letter for it to be fixed it on 2nd December 2009.
Toilet not flushing has always been classified as urgent repair (i.e.) to be carried out within 5 days.
I phoned today London & Quadrant maintenance and the operator said it is a repair to be carried out within 20 days of reporting it. He also checked with his supervisor and she also said the same. I got onto London and Quadrant website and it says clearly that toilet not flushing is a urgent repair... As I found in the past useless to complain to London and Quadrant about anything, has any other tenant had a similar experience? Not necessarily to do with their toilet?
When in matters of repairs and other works to be carried at his/her property a tenant asks his/her Housing Association to be provided with FULL details of the works specifications for the works to be carried out:
a) which are these specifications, in technical terms?
b) what information and how detailed (inclusive of costs and material etc) should the tenant be provided with?
c) Is it a legal requirement for the HA to provide such detailed information to the tenant?
I would be grateful for advice and/or comments.
I reported various times antisocial issues against me from another tenant of the same HA. This tenant has been intimidating me and harassing me to have me moved or evicted. The police response has been that If I was unhappy by this situation I should move. But should I move just because another tenant decides he wants me out of the way through harassment and intimidation? I have also the feeling the police would find it very convenient for me to move so they would have solved this issue not through their efforts and trying to protect the victim but simply moving the victim somewhere else. Assuming this is the correct scenario, what do the expert suggest should I be doing, please?