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.

I can't understand this anglo-saxon mindset that carpets must be fitted to make a house habitable. This thread is a good illustration of all the problems they can bring. They're great in the right circumstances, but rugs are better in other circumstances.

'Anglo saxon mindset
Hahahahahaha
What are you? a Viking?!!!!
Britain is cold. British houses downstairs often have concrete cold floors.
Some people like laminate, but is dearer than carpet.
Moving into a house with concrete floors is homelier if nice warm carpet is down.
Rugs on concrete floors look shit.
.

CoatTit
Part of it is a noise problem, it would be unbearable in flats without carpets. We also love terraced and semi-detached properties, where the noise travels too. It would be so much cleaner and healthier for people to have cleanable floors at least downstairs, but we do love carpets and people seem to think they would freeze to death if they didn't have their dusty carpets everywhere.

Starlight, "anglo -saxon" is a term used by various nationalities to refer to the British and north Americans at the same time. I didn't realise it wasn't well known in Britain.

Ok sorry!
Here it's only used in history lessons! You learn something every day.

I ways thought it was so each house was let equally?

Surely it would be unfair if one tenant got beautiful, clean carpets, the second got cat urine stained ugly patterned carpets (which they then had to pay to dispose of) and a third got a clear empty property?

I'm in my third council property and have gone into all expecting to decorate and buy flooring. I've done it bit by bit over time, it's part of making my home my own. I thought it was the norm.

As I said, fitted carpets are great in the right circumstances. In the wrong circumstances they trap dirt and provide habitat for insects such as fleas.
If it weren't for the idea that a decent home requires fitted carpet, councils could have forbidden fitted carpets and provided wood or laminate flooring, which tenants could put their own rugs on. I think maybe that would be very controversial in the UK, but I know reasonably well-off people in fairly cold parts of Europe who live very well in flats with wooden floors and lots of rugs.

I understand that HA's and councils have to let properties that are equal. But really how equal are They? The stock is so varied that they simply are not equal at all. For example I have 2 family members who were affected by demolition and were each allocated priority housing. One was allocated a brand new house on a new estate, the other was allocated a draughty maisonette in a not nice area at all. This was a while ago and my (different) local council now works on a bidding system. But even with this system, properties vary hugely and people often end up having to bid on properties or areas they would not ordinarily choose.

I got the option of keeping all flooring and even a few bits of furniture, this was in December.

"This really happened? If you have the money to add a conservatory you shouldn't really be in a council house?"

The original purpose of council housing was affordable housing for all. Not everyone aspires to, or is in the position to be a home owner. Building a conservatory is not in the same league as taking on a mortgage.

First two council places I lived in were stripped back and b&q vouchers given. Current place also stripped of carpet but wood laminate floor left in place at my request.

Our council leaves carpets if they don't need to do any work on the flooring beneath, they also leave wallpaper and if they do need to strip any off to complete repairs before the property is let then they provide a decorating pack. Any adjustments made by the previous tenants e.g., fireplaces, fitted wardrobes, bathroom suite, fitted blinds are left so long as they're in safe condition and you understand that the council accepts no responsibility or liability for them. You view the property, you tell them if you want x, y, and z left or removed, the the council does whatever reapirs need doing and once it's finished you get the keys. You are responsible for the repair and upkeep of the inside and the gardens, council are responsible for gas/electricity/plumbing and any structural repairs.

They operate a choice based lettings system where they advertise the available properties, you register your name against the ones you are interested in and whoever is top of the register for each individual property usually gets offered it. If that person turns it down or has already been offered one of the other properties they registered for that week then it filters down the list until someone does accept it. You can refuse as many as you like and you can only register an interest in houses that you meet the criteria for (e.g., a family of four can't register for a one bed property, a single person can't register for a three bed property, and so on). At the end of each year the council updates all of their housing stock, last year it was new kitchens, the year before it was new bathrooms, this year it's new roofing and putting in driveways to reduce congestion from on-street parking. They even have new builds on their books, a lot of land here is still owned by the local Lord and when it's sold there is a condition of sale that the developer has to give over a percentage of the houses to the council as social housing, a housing association manages these for them. Nearly all of the people I know who live in vou council housing have one or both adults in the house working.

Surely this is why the public sector is shockingly inefficient?

Every house I have bought has been carpeted from the previous owner. Quick go over with a vax or similar, and fine to use for years.

Why does the state infantilise people. Just let people move in, and if they don't like the carpets they can chuck them.

Laughing at the idea of trained carpet inspectors..

When we moved to our current HA house, it was a new build and because it was specifically built for a disabled person's needs, the builders company included the majority of the white goods in with the kitchen. This was great for us, so we enquired about leaving our old oven, fridge & washing machine for the next tenants to use as they were still in good condition. We were told in no uncertain terms, no. We would be charged for the disposal of them if we left them there. So we were quite annoyed with that. We managed to give them away to people who were in real need for them.
Only on reading this thread did I understand why the HA would not want them kept in the house, do to them having to take responsibility for the white goods otherwise.

Where do you live Mother. Your council sound so much better than most

When we moved to our bungalow last year we had an inspection prior to moving by our Housing Association we had lived in a 1st floor flat for 9yrs and it was immaculate we had done all the floors in wood and tiled the bathroom and kitchen to a high standard even the HA inspector commented how nice it was but they insisted we pay to have the flooring removed and the curtain fittings taken down,I was mortified that the person who was moving in (he had nothing) would loose all these fittings but the HA would not budge they said it was procedure and H&S regs,I have seen their vans coming and emptying out flats and bungalows of all manner of good furnture (all with safety certificates) and taken to local 2nd hand shops to be resold.!!! nice little earner for the removers me thinks.

In the North of England.

I naively thought all councils offered choice-based lettings but reading the thread I was obviously mistaken.

I think most do offer choice-based lettings, but the reality of that choice may be a flat on the 5th floor 5 miles away from your kids' schools, or a flat on the 1st floor 10 miles away.

This drives me insane! I recently moved out of a council house. I had to have an inspection of the house prior to leaving and I was planning on leaving behind the wooden flooring installed throughout the entire downstairs in great condition, all the light fittings and all the curtain poles and curtains and the over bath shower I had installed (with permission). I didn't need them in the new house and as they were all in good condition I thought the next person would make use of them at least in the early days of moving in and replace if they don't want them. I was told I would be fined if I left any of it and so had to remove it all and throw a lot away leaving bare concrete floors. Such a waste!

I work along side housing and I think unfortunately it’s the actions of the minority that affect the majority. For some tenants they don’t follow a lot of what the sign so they wouldn’t care if they signed a year ago they would replace the carpets it was there when they moved in so they want it replacing now. I’ve seen a tenant withhold rent for weeks and cause chaos in a housing office because he wanted the council to replace a light bulb, which is obviously a tenants responsibility.

So Council’s and HA’s put in a blanket policy to avoid this.

I must stress the majority of tenants don’t act this way and this wasn’t a bash against council tenants at all.

When I moved into my home 18 years ago, it had a new but very basic kitchen. My new neighbour asked to see it, out of curiosity. He was gobsmacked. The previous tenants had put in a new kitchen a year previously, at great expense. Their son was in the business and got them an amazing discount. The couple then won big on the lottery and moved to Spain, handing the property back to the Housing Association. It seems a silly waste of money to have ripped a great quality kitchen out and to replace it?

This is dh's job, he agrees that some flooring should be left as he goes to some immaculate properties but he also goes to some which are beyond belief, littered with needles, faeces and some where the tenant has died and hasn't been found for many months, the body had decayed right through to the floorboards so everything had to go and the entire floor replaced.
It is a blanket health and safety thing, it leaves the council open to people claiming they have hurt themselves on things left behind etc who knows what is safe by simply looking at it? Especially when drugs have been involved.

And with people putting in their own fixtures and fittings, it is the councils responsibility to keep them maintained so they have the same stuff for each property, they can't guarantee being able to source replacements for the fancy kitchen when they have their own range of stuff for every property.

Am I the only one wondering if that fancy kitchen made its way into some council official's house?

At my local council (south east) everyone that moves into a Council/HA property are given a £500 voucher to decorate as a blanket rule. Hard flooring was kept unless in a bad state, carpet usually replaced. For those in flats they’d put in new carpet. Seems a waste of money in some cases for sure!