Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
HMOs
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Nonsense! See page 4 of this which came into effect May this year.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachella on
-
This is worrying.
According to Miles Joyce, Haringey council's interpretation of the regulations is that a home is not considered an HMO unless more that 6 unrelated adults live in a property. This came up because I have a constant churn of between 5-7 unrelated adults living next door to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
In terms of doing something about HMOs - see this post for an area where you can push for action through your local councillors. I am already in touch with Cllr Canver about it, but the more people that write to their councillors the better.
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
I've received a consultation document about the new licensing requirements and you can fill it in online.
-
Permalink Reply by Peggy Savage on
-
Oh dear, more anti-HMO sentiment on this site. Why HMOs? Please take a look at the Housing Emergency Campaign: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/campaigns/event/housing-emergency-mass-l...
Help make sure we all have somewhere decent to live.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
It's not anti HMO Peggy, it's anti Rogue landlords illegally subdividing houses then ripping people off by charging exorbitant rents for slums. We support decent housing, cramming people into unsuitable housing which creates a strain on the local infrastructure isn't the answer to the crisis in housing, it's more council housing, more control of who gets to be a landlord and safety enforced on existing HMOS. Enforcement recently found windowless rooms barely big enough to swing a cat being rented to people on Green lanes. Should we really settle for members of our community including families being forced to live like that whilst enriching absentee landlords?
I think you have misread entirely the sentiment behind the HMO campaigning on this site and making massive assumptions about why people are discussing it. For example, this post has no anti-HMO sentiments merely information sharing. Having HMO in the title doesn't make it anti-HMO.
The key word is decent, most of the illegal conversions are anything but.
-
Permalink Reply by JJ on
-
But it is anti HMO's. The post that Hugh links to is about how it's now easier for landlords to establish HMO's and how you should write to your local council to get them to make it difficult to establish HMO's.
What's wrong with HMO's? Presumably because they're full of those bothersome poor people who annoy their owner occupier neighbours. This site is full of posts that portray HMO's as a problem. If people's concerns are about poor quality unsuitable housing in a state of disrepair then these problems are by no means exclusive to HMO's, the sector with the largest amount of disrepair is the owner occupied sector and the owner occupied sector also has many overcrowded and unfit properties. I await a campaign on this site to reduce the numbers of owner occupied properties in the area. Everybody supports decent housing but this site constantly associates HMO's, and HMO's only, with overcrowding, disrepair and anti social behaviour, why pick on HMO's exclusively?
The tone of it all is smug and patronising, a kind of middle class fascism.
-
-
First of all, is it really a good idea to start throwing words like fascism about in a post about poor quality housing. Do you think that helps your argument? Why do you feel you need to end your perfectly valid points with a jibe at the 'smug and patronising middle classes'. Are you playing the ball there JJ or the man?
But to deal with your points, I'm not sure why you think that the issue is disrepair of properties, the issue is the exploitation of the housing shortage by creating slum conditions and then expecting people to live in them without adequate facilities, adequate safety and often at very high rents while enriching absentee landlords.
As I said above, when enforcement went into illegal HMOS on Green Lanes they found windowless rooms and poor safety. Note the term illegal, it's important. A landlord who wants to do things properly will happily comply with regulations regarding safety and licensing. Good landlords are important. With the running down of council housing and the placing of many people into the private rented sector, more than ever we must guard against Rachmanism and exploitation.
Bad ones need to be dealt with. They start by illegally converting houses into tiny bedsits, and then they continue by not having adequate tenancy agreements, rent books or complying with regulations. They often finish by withholding deposits if someone wants to leave. Since they are not bothered by how they treat people, you can be sure that properties are neglected and they are not too bothered about how they get rid of rubbish left behind by tenants.
There are a large number of HMOS on the Ladder, of the 9 houses nearest me, 5 are HMOs. They have a mix of people from young professionals to families, living in them, some may be poor who can say. All but one are in a good state of repair. The one that isn't, has a bad landlord who won't deal with the issues raised by people who live there. Like any form of housing, there are good and bad.
You may not agree with some of what is said on the site about HMOs, in a community of over 3000 there are bound to be opposing views, but I think you need to come up with better arguments (and maybe some linked stats) than the sector with the largest amount of disrepair is the owner occupied sector and the owner occupied sector also has many overcrowded and unfit properties and why that is significant in the fight for decent housing (the important points surely is that properties are too expensive and there should be controls on house prices, or that we as a nation should be less tied to the idea of owner occupation in the first place by ensuring a good supply of fair rented decent houses?) plus you're all a bunch of middle class fascists.
-
-
Hello-
I have to add to this, since I'm the one who started the conversation here. I agree with Liz 100 per cent. My original post was in no way a reaction against people who live in HMOs. My problem is with the landlords who jam people into small living spaces like rats, for the sole purpose of making money.
For example: In my neighbourhood a landlord actuallly lowered the ceiling on the top floor so he could add more rooms in the attic and cram more people in so he could extract more rent. He did this without planning permission, tearing out original architectural details, such as sash windows and adding dormer windows so residents would have a space to stand upright--both prohibited in the conservation area the house stands in. No this is not a grand house, but a small one in Noel Park that was specifically build to provide decent housing for working families, to get them out of the crowded conditions of the slums.
Next door to me, seven adults live in what was meant to be a three bedroom house. The landlord has turned the living and dining room into bedrooms to maximise profit. The only communal area the residents have is their kitchen and one small bathroom -- for seven adults. Is that a pleasant way to live? The landlord recently replaced the toilet and left the old one in the front garden untill one of the tenants took it upon himself to pay the council to come and pick it up.
You ask what's wrong with HMOs? I ask: Isn't it "smug and patronising" to expect people to live in such conditions perpetuated by those who only want to make as much money as possible from their property? These landlords usually don't live in the area and therefore don't care about the quality of life of their tenants. They subdivide their properties without regard for esthetics, blighting the neighbourhoods they're located in--and that's before we talk about maintenance issues.
In my opinion, the only way to stop this is for the council or maybe the greater London Authority to impose strict rent control for all landlords -- not just social landlords. This sort of dodgy buy-to-let investment wold be less appealing to exploitive landlords and we'd all have better housing options.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
JJ, when you've had 7 years of living opposite one as well as next to one, with all the noise, various infestations as well as being woken up every single night by people screaming, shouting, fighting, being afraid to go outside your front door because a mentally unstable person is currently acting crazy outside, or not daring to unload your car because the local pimp is on the street beating up one of his hookers who lives next door to you, being woken up by police drugs raids, the list goes on and on..THEN come back with your frankly, smug and patronising oh so PC comments and we can talk. Until then, quite frankly, just shut it - you have NO idea what you're talking about.
-
-
Re 'anti HMO sentiment'.
I think its a valid point to distinguish between legal and illegal HMOs. Houses that have been illegally converted and do not adhere to regulations can be a safety hazard not only for the tenants but also for neighbours. The house next door to me was changed from being a family house into 8 so called en suite rooms+ 1 bedroom, no bathroom and one shared kitchen however as the landlord maintained that there was a single family living there it ducked the regulations even though to all intense and purposes it functions as a hostel. Just to list some of the problems I have experienced over a period of three years with this HMO which may be an extreme case but illustrates the problems that can occur. (I'd like to make it clear that the present tenants are quiet and respectful however because of past experience and the nature of the house I cannot feel secure that this will always be the case.)
At times there have been several people living in every single room and the noise level, which I can't escape from, can be horrendous. Huge amounts of rubbish piled up in the front and back gardens including food and nappies, with rubbish also regularly thrown into my garden. There are so many 'en suites' that raw sewage regularly escapes the pipes and flows down the back wall collecting 3 feet from my kitchen. Infestations of mice and prolonged infestations of bed mites (costing me over £1000 to eradicate). At times it has felt like a full time job getting the landlord to act on these problems, and also contacting the council and other agencies, however as there are often young children living there it has been a great concern. I have also been concerned that with so many tenants there is an increased fire risk.
Because of the turnover of tenants I never know who my neighbours are and because they are short term some have no interest in establishing good relationship with other neighbours so I have had verbal abuse, intentional banging on the wall all night until 6 a.m., nuisance knocking on my door day or night, DIY with hammers and drills at 2 AM, all night gambling parties, six dawn raids by police looking for stolen goods, loud arguments and fights, and I have witnessed and reported an assault. So ok this may also happen if a family had bought the next door house however if you have eight family rooms with so many people living in a single house the chances are that tension, noise, nuisance etc will be increased.
There is a desperate need for affordable accommodation however it needs to be regulated so that unscrupulous landlords don't re create slum conditions in order to squeeze as much profit as they can from tenants with total disregard for the well being of tenants or neighbours.
-
Permalink Reply by VIX on
-
Wow what a mixed view of HMO's we seem to have on HOL. Live next door to one of them for over three years, be forced to live their druggy dimented violent lives, be sleep deprived, have racial insults shouted at you over the garden wall, experience drug dealers taking over the house the next door to you, then make your clever comments.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
