To wonder why councils strip properties back before re-letting them

[witchofzog]

I work with vulnerable people in their homes. Many of whom live in council properties. Time and time again people move into homes with bare flooring when there were decent carpets in place before, or move into another property leaving behind decent floor coverings, just to find out later from their old neighbours that the council ripped them out before the new tenant moved in.

I understand the health and safety issues with possible infestations in carpets etc, but I think people should at least have the option of keeping the existing floor coverings providing they sign a disclaimer first. Why do councils do this? It must cost so much money too to pay someone to take out floor coverings and dispose of them in multiple properties. And it costs a lot to carpet a whole home which many people can't afford when they first move into a property.

it's probably a lot easier to just get rid of everything than spending a fortune to clean them, deal with complaints about stains and carpet coming undone.

That said, everybody I know in council property (london and South East) had flooring when they moved in. I know in London the place was even redone before they moved in, walls repainted, new oven and so on.

Council properties sound like NHS treatment, there's a postcode lottery going on there!

One thing I saw when viewing with family, the walls were painted a terrible colour. HA painted over it in a neutral cream shade but didn't do the bottom parts and top parts (so just above skirting). The whole room had to be repainted, actually the whole home. They would have been happy with that shade.

I understand carpets being taken out because you don't really know what's been on there but it is pricey.

I can’t believe it’s easier and cheaper to get rid of everything and redo.

It’s madness and such a waste.

I think that is where the disclaimer would come in. People could sign to say they accept the floor coverings in their current condition and accept that the council will not accept liability for any issues occurring as a result of keeping the floor coverings. Providing people can see inside the property before they move, they should be able to gauge whether they want to accept the flooring.

I have seen some situations where the carpets left behind were good quality / condition and neutral in colour. The only reason they were left behind was due to the dimensions of the new property. Yet they were binned.

My understanding is that if a HA provides something then they are responsible for it e.g.boiler / kitchen. If they provided carpets / lino etc by way of leaving them there they would get endless calls about carpet wearing through, needing replacing etc. Plus there have been cases of fleas etc, which is a nightmare for the HA. From their perspective it's easier to rip out and leave the tenant to sort themselves out. Which is obviously a shame if the flooring was clean and good quality, but when you're looking at large scales and quick turn around it makes sense.

Its madness. My friend left a housing association property with beautiful carpets in. She had no pets didn't smoke yet up they came.

But who is going to assess whether a carpet is full of fleas/mites/moths - it might look good, equally it might not.

I would have thought it would be easier to put in place something like a cheap laminate, but even so, that would cost in workmans time to lay the stuff.

O/T our first property was ex council and the council came round and replaced everyones windows whether they needed it or not including our shed window!

Perhaps what they could do is allow the incoming tenant to buy the fittings for a nominal sum, say 1p. That way they can keep the carpets or blinds if they want to, but they take on ownership? It wouldn't mean the HA couldn't replace when they became worn out, but it would stop the concerns about the HA being liable for fleas or something, mean incoming tenants could benefit, and would save cash... would that work?

But do carpets really wear our so quickly?

I’ve had mine for over 15 years and with th dogs and children they do look shabby by will have to do for a couple more years.

It’s such a waste to replace routinely.

You can look at flooring and not know what's underneath. They have to make sure floors underneath are safe and not damaged which will mean taking up the carpets. Laying them again or checking them all to make sure they are safe and dirt/infestation free is time they won't have to waste so they dump them. Disclaimers wouldn't help with that because infestations could have long term effects on the property or neighbouring properties beyond the person signing the disclaimer. Plus I think it's correct that if they leave it, they are responsible for it and imagine the hassle!

I've often wondered exactly the same thing. I think they're pretty unreasonable on the whole. I know two people whose mums lived in council properties and both of them were given just two weeks to clear them after they died. Both of them offered to pay rent to give them more time and were refused. Both properties stood empty for over a month after they'd been cleared.

It's more than likely a blanket rule because when you start making exceptions here and there it just gets into a shitshow of personal opinion.

Council person A thinks the carpet is fine (let's not even get into what carpet expertise we assume they have/need to acquire to judge this).

Tenant B moves in and finds it's horrible/flea infested/wrong colour and kicks up a stink.

Or Tenant C hears about Tenant B getting a carpet and demands to know why their house didn't have one.

And then Tenant D comes along and says they didn't even want a carpet and expects council to rip it up and dispose.

So by saying everyone gets a house with walls and a roof, no more, no less, it's the same for everyone. All the above would require extra council resources just to handle the tenant responses, which they just don't have.

There will be outliers of course - the tenants who installed premium Axminster throughout, 2 weeks before they moved and the like. But that the exception, not the rule.

I think it’s because if they leave it there the HA/council then have a responsibility to maintain the floors/carpets/white goods. If they take it all out it’s no longer their responsibility. At least that’s what I was told by someone from shelter.

Our house had downstairs and hall carpeting but we had to buy and get carpets fitted for the bedrooms. We’ve since placed flooring down in our living room and downstairs hallway for ease of cleaning and plan to remove and reuse (depending on condition at the time) when we move out, we wouldn’t leave it

That's a good idea niceandwarm. This combined with a disclaimer would give people a choice. People could still choose to move into a bare property if they wanted to but could choose to buy the coverings too.

If the carpets are decent it would still be cheaper to treat fleas than get a new carpet.

That’s my local authority btw. No idea what others do.

It seems like it should work in theory! I wouldn't extend it to electrical items etc left by previous tenants, because people need to be safe and you can't expect tenants to check that, but for carpets and soft furnishings, why not let incoming tenants check and form a view on whether they want to buy or not.

Someone I knew had a father in law who passed away and they had to take down the conservatory which he had had added to his property, (with the council's permission), because the council refused to maintain it for the next tenant. They also wouldn't give the tenant the choice of maintaining it themselves. They said that if the council had to take down the conservatory they would send a bill for the work to the father in laws surviving relatives! .

What an unbelievable waste of time and effort. Even worse than taking up perfectly good carpets.

if they don't strip them then the council is liable for and broken floorboard underneath, infestation, the risk of needles/glass etc. health and safety I suppose. they cant do right for wrong really. and even with out carpets being given a council home is an extremely fortunate position.

I guess the "no win, no fee" suing culture is really to blame for this.

My DD lives in a HA property, and they were "gifted" the carpets and fitted wardrobes from the previous tenant but she had to sign to say she accepted them and that the HA had no responsibility to maintain them. Think it included the garden fence down one side too.

here tinty you have to get permission for everything. if you leave they recompensate you some of the cost. so that sounds as tho permission wasn't sought tbh. wich isn't the councils problem unfortunately

Yeah, what shotsfired said.

The condition/quality of living of the property you end up with is a lottery enough as it is. Whilst councils can't do much quicker about the inequality of houses vs flats, or new builds vs older properties that are still waiting for new kitchens or windows or whatevs, they can at least all be supplied in the same bare state.

It might seem a waste to throw away the small percentage of perfectly nice carpets, but I bet you a tenner it would create even more resentment and stress for tenants and housing officers in the long run to leave them down.

My council like to paint walls a horrible shit coloured brown, even if it’s all white before, they will paint it shit-brown.

When I moved into my HA house 18 and a half years ago, there was a carpet on the stairs and landing, which I was thrilled about. I did mean to replace it fairly quickly, but have never actually got round to doing it.

We had a good quality carpet fitted in the living room the day we moved in and that still looks immaculate. The bedrooms had cheaper carpets fitted over the years and they look good.

I think it would be a shame if I moved out to rip them all out. I have no plans to leave though.