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.

My cousin got a HA host. It still had carpets, unfortunately they were disgustingly filthy and had to be pulled up. The floors underneath was so dirty it had to be scrubbed clean. Her mum helped out and my parents helped as well because the whole place was disgusting.

So the carpets aren't always dumped before new tenants move in.

It sounds wasteful and expensive but it is undoubtedly a consequence of the legal culture. The actions of a tiny minority and their bloodsucking ambulance-chasing lawyers have led to this. Negligence claims are extremely expensive to defend, and can incur really high liability. Courts are happy to disregard disclaimers and the likes when the poor little old lady has tripped on the stairs and is blaming the carpet - did she really understand the disclaimer, did she have independent legal advice before signing it, etc? When faced with poor old granny with her broken hip, the courts will go for the deep pockets of the insurance company or council or whoever. Then add the potential for claims for discrimination - Jimmy got the house with the new carpets but Jonny next door got nothing, without objective criteria, you're back open to another lawsuit if Jonny is an ethnic minority or another protected characteristic and claims discrimination etc. Multiply all that on a large scale and it is way more efficient and risk-proof for the council to provide an equal bare minimum. There is no fair comparison between the private sector (a single transaction between two individuals where all parties have their own independent legal advice) and the public sector (owner of hundreds of properties, need to comply with conditions set by their insurers, etc).

It's silly, unfair, wasteful but its unfortunately not necessarily inefficient from the Council's perspective. And that is the fault of the courts and the lawyers who will purse every loophole until all common sense must be abandoned to inconvenience the vast majority for the tiny few.

What you say makes a lot of sense *sycamore". It's a shame though. I detest people who sue for anything thry can. It spoils things for everyone else

There was a thread years ago of someone moving in a council property,had men in to replace the bathroom lino and they pulled it up. She found a needle in some obscure place like behind the toilet or sink pedestal that had been dislodged when the lino had been lifted. Cue lots of fuming,drama,panic ,my daughter could've died ,who knows what the needle is infested with etc.
Title? "Can I sue the council?".

All of the stuff with furnishing flats for the homeless is an absolute bloody racket. It’s bloody appalling what goes on and no government has even tried to deal with it (usually because somewhere along the line politicians are making money).

When people on benefits are given council or HA homes they are given grants/loans which can only be spent with specific dealers who charge overinflated prices for substandard goods. They end up with reconditioned second hand white goods which cost more than new but are unreliable with no warranty which puts them in danger of getting into even more debts. Furniture is usually second hand from ‘not for profits’ which nevertheless have management on whacking salaries. The ‘charity’ which does this in my local area basically forces them to buy second hand IKEA furniture for three times the price of new. I went to look around it when looking for a new sofa and couldn’t believe the prices they were charging and how they kept going. Until people who’d been housed from homeless told me that they were forced to buy stuff from there and wouldn’t even be allowed to pick what they had beyond being able to say they needed a sofa or table.

It’s appalling, they often have to pay it back from their benefits and where they don’t the taxpayer is basically scammed out of money for overpriced goods. It’s yet another face of our dubious ‘charity’ sector.

If I'd have found a needle I'd have kicked off as well, even if it was 100 bedroomed.
Hardly drama, given that Hep C lives on dried blood for ages. You know that disease common in injecting drug users which causes liver cancer and death.

I don't think anyone is saying they would love to find a used needle under their floorboards. I think what they are saying is the Council can't win - if it rips up perfectly good flooring to ensure no needles or nasty surprises, then it's wasteful and inefficient. If it leaves the flooring intact, then the potential for situations like hidden needle remains. So if you are the Council and have hundreds of properties to transact, it's far easier (and requires much lower-skilled workers) to simply implement a "rip it all out" policy. Even if that means beautiful new kitchens, bathrooms, carpet and flooring are wasted in the process.

Because the previous tenants are scum and trash their free homes hence the cleaning crew come in and strip the house back to the bare bones. It’s not rocket science. Speak to the tenants supervisor or the health & safety team.
I have seen things you wouldn’t believe as a housing officer. Scum pure scum. Kids and all. I use 3 bottles of bleach a week now because I can’t get the images out of my head.

Yep You are a housing officer all right Using the phrase "free homes" is a bit of a giveaway that you passed the criteria to be one

Council houses are not free, rent is payable on them either directly to the council/HA or via Housing Benefit payments (and even then housing benefit may not cover the whole rent in which case the tenant will have to cover the shortfall).

Free homes righto Obi1kenobi my house isn't free ,where are these free homes ?

It feels a bit like exploitation though.
I've rented houses with quite grotty carpets and bought houses with totally minging flooring.
I've put up with both for ages as flooring is expensive.
It does seem undlfair and mean to rip up perfectly good flooring for someone without spare means to have to replace. Or they can just move their family into no floors and be uncomfortable.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/09/grenfell-tower-uk-may-have-breached-human-rights-says-un?CMP=share_btn_tw

“Residents told me they feel the government’s position is that they should feel lucky that they are going to be rehoused and that they should feel lucky that they had social housing. That doesn’t suggest residents feel the government recognises them as rights holders.

“The fact that so many residents have said to me they are not being treated as human beings is suggestive of a society that is structured in a way where those in social housing are viewed perhaps as counting less. And that is deeply troubling."

I moved into a council house when I was 12, it was 2008/2009, my parents had recently broken up and we lost our family home.

We had a choice of location, which at the time my mum was and still is very grateful for.

However, when we moved in to the council property - there was no kitchen. We used a camping stove for months and the bathroom was a wreck. It took months to get sorted.

My mum lived there for perhaps 10 years, and when finally moving out she was asked to strip the house back to its original state. She could not believe the request and refused, they did it anyway. I will never understand why.

Because people in social housing are scum and don't deserve such luxuries.

Wouldn't pass the criteria here. It's "free dwelling units" you are paying to rent. Actually told not to refer to them as our homes by SH estate officer. They are the SH "landlords properties, and your allocated dwelling units."
Tbf they only call the tenants "scum" behind their backs.

....

We're self maintenance agreements, so no implied responsibility, but floor coverings, tiles, kitchen units, cookers etc, and bathroom cupboards, bath panels etc, curtain rails etc, all stripped out.

Grateful for any roof; I got a sink on legs and a gas pipe connector in the kitchen, and sink, bath (no side panels) and loo (no seat) in bathroom. When I go/die, it must be returned to exactly that.

I really hope that was said tongue in cheek

I’ve been in my council property for 20 years now. It was completely bare when I moved in. They gave us a decorating allowance as the house was in desperate need of being decorated. I don’t think the last tenants had been great ones. They also put in a new kitchen prior to us moving in.

I’ve always been on a low income and much of the time in the house I’ve been a single parent. Next week the hall and stairs will have a proper new carpet for the first time! We’ve had rugs on the landing and my ex nailed off cuts to the stairs when we first moved in and I’ve never had the money to change it. Even now it is going on a credit card! But we’ve just decorated the hall way and living room so it was the right time to get one. I’m so looking forward to it being finished at last!

Why has a 2018 thread suddenly come back to life 🧟

Still relevant I guess. It was actually my thread from 6 years ago but I didn't revive it. I just discovered it in my threads you are on this morning

It was 🙂

Phew 🫣