The New Houses

[Keith Scantlebury]

I mentioned in the Cafe at the Oval thread, the new houses Wansbeck Homes built to replace the old Airey houses. I lived in one of the Airey houses from about 1964 and my parents lived there till approx 1980. As far as I can remember those houses were built just after WW2 and were only designed to last 25 - 30 years. They were modernised in the late 70's and heating put in and the old iron window frames replaced etc. The people that lived in them did not complain too much about the fact that those homes were still there well beyond their shelf life. This may have been largely due to the fact that they were good sized family homes with large gardens [some people liked to look after a garden] and the rent was relatavely low in comparison to other council owned properties at the time. Not everybody could live in the Hartlands or Grangepark. I have not been in any of the new houses but I would imagine that they would have the same footprint as the houses they replaced. Good big family homes. I have noticed that they all have off road parking, they all seem to have french windows leading into the gardens. Wansbeck Homes have provided a shed for each house [as the old wash houses were knocked down]. A lawn was laid at the front of each property and I presume the back gardens were left tidy for each tenant. All in all I think the people living in them would be pleased with what they have been given and that they would want to look after their homes. NOT SO. I was talking to an employee of the landlord today. He told me some of the lads had been in to do repairs to properties that have been damaged already, one of the properties had £5000 worth of damage to the internal doors, walls and work surfaces. The tenants responsable for that damage should have been thrown out immediately and made to pay for the repairs before being rehoused elsewhere after paying a bond for to pay for any future repairs, as they would have to if renting privately. Where I live is in desperate need of modernisation but you make the best of what you have, for the time being at least. A lot of people I know would move Heaven and Earth for one of those new houses and I know they would feel totaly pxxxxd off by the fact that some undeserving people would take the aquisition of a new rented property as a right and not a privelage and then proceed to wreck the said property. This in less than a year after some of those houses were completed.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Malcolm Robinson

[angechica]

You would think, wouldn't you.

They have been built on the same foundations of the old houses thus enabling the relatively quick build times - no idea about the build quality but you get a generous sized house and many of them have fantastic big garden plots. Unlike the £200k box with a shoebox-sized garden you get in the new build private estates!

I had heard that there would be quite strict rules about taking care of the new properties and tenants who didn't would be evicted? I was also told the same tenants would be moved back in after the builds which I found surprising. I would not like to generalise for all the tenants but there is a small minority who seem to be up all night banging and smashing things (often provoking my hubby and I to wonder what are they DOING?) and playing their duf-duf music. They also like to chuck stuff over into my allotment plot eg vodka bottles and scrap metal and indeed ruined my greenhouse by doing this! These are well known "problem" tenants & it seems totally crazy of the housing association to let them loose on these nice new properties!

Oh well, I expect the Tories will insist on flogging them off some time in the not too distant future.

[Merlin]

You had my hopes up there Ange then you added 'off some time in the not too distant future' :dribble:

[Keith Scantlebury]

Ange, I am sure the majority of those tenants are perfectly good honest industrious people who would no doubt look after their new homes and would realise that they are lucky to have one. Yes, some of them may be in a position to buy their home one day and good luck to them. It just beggars belief that those tenants that were a problem in the old properties were allowed to move back into the new ones, possibly the landlord had no choice but to allow this , who knows?. I think that more care should be taken in allocating properties in the future. Although everyone would like a nice shiny new place to live and in the best areas this is not always possible or practical. For instance a single parent with one child should not really be allocated a large 3 or 4 bedroom house when there is a family of two parents with 3 or 4 kids living in a property which is obviously far too small for them. Some people would argue that even problem tenants need somewhere to live, I don't. Let them PROVE that they are no longer a problem first and give them restricted probational tenancies to begin with. It is no good herding those families all into one area neither, as this runs the risk of creating ghetto's. I have no doubt that the landlord will be keeping a close eye on those new houses and hopefully hit those who abuse them with deserving punishment , yes, if need be,eviction and give them to a family who have proven themselves to be worthy tenants .

[Graham1]

I'm sure I heard last year about 2 tenants being evicted. Apparently they sold the garden sheds.

[Keith Scantlebury]

I'm sure I heard last year about 2 tenants being evicted. Apparently they sold the garden sheds.

That do's not surprise me in the least, this is how it goes 1) I wont look after the garden, so dont need a shed

2) don't need tools, so don't need shed.

3) If I have a shed, they might think I have something worth nicking

4) They break into shed, see there is nowt worth having so nick the shed.

5) Sell the shed before somebody pinches it.

6) Ring Wansbeck Homes and tell them somebody has nicked the shed.

7) Go get a bottle of vodka to drink while getting ready to go out.

Now if by any chance they are insured, they will ring their insurers to make a claim and guess what, the shed was crammed full of tools. That is the sort of thing that is the norm anywhere. As long as some folk can see a good night out they wont have any qualms about how they would finance it, as with money for drugs, THEY WOULD NICK THE BLOODY SADDLE OFF A NIGHTMARE. for a quick fix

[John Fox (foxy)]

That do's not surprise me in the least, this is how it goes 1) I wont look after the garden, so dont need a shed

2) don't need tools, so don't need shed.

3) If I have a shed, they might think I have something worth nicking

4) They break into shed, see there is nowt worth having so nick the shed.

5) Sell the shed before somebody pinches it.

6) Ring Wansbeck Homes and tell them somebody has nicked the shed.

7) Go get a bottle of vodka to drink while getting ready to go out.

Now if by any chance they are insured, they will ring their insurers to make a claim and guess what, the shed was crammed full of tools. That is the sort of thing that is the norm anywhere. As long as some folk can see a good night out they wont have any qualms about how they would finance it, as with money for drugs, THEY WOULD NICK THE BLOODY SADDLE OFF A NIGHTMARE. for a quick fix

And when God was giving out heads,they thought he said sheds,so they asked for a big wooden one!!!!!!