On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:26:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

A kitchen is either fit for purpose or it is not. If not, the
landlord has a duty to fix it.

There's a huge gap between "unfit for purpose" and "functional but
depressingly dilapidated". Landlords are also prone to install very
cheap appliances, which are functional, but much less use than the ones
an owner occupier might select.

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord. The cost need not be
all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait
for a bargain.

--
Cynic

On Feb 17, 9:49*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:26:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

A kitchen is either fit for purpose or it is not. *If not, the
landlord has a duty to fix it.
There's a huge gap between "unfit for purpose" and "functional but
depressingly dilapidated". Landlords are also prone to install very
cheap appliances, which are functional, but much less use than the ones
an owner occupier might select.

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord.

It is quite common for a fitted hob and cooker to be provided by the
landlord, and I've known several landlords to offer fully-furnished
family-sized properties at the bottom end of the market.

You make it sound like appliances are a once-in-a-lifetime purchase,
that once you have them they follow you around for the rest of your
life. In reality they require removal when moving house, and often
require replacement within several years, so the poor do not
necessarily carry a full set of high-quality appliances around with
them.



*The cost need not be
all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait
for a bargain.

Lol. How long are you typically prepared to wait with an empty stomach
and dirty clothes? There is actually more of a market in my experience
for *landlords* to make the capital investment in reasonable second-
hand appliances, and then add it onto the weekly rent, because other
than eliminating the up-front cost for those who have little money,
landlords are usually in a better position to have contacts and
knowledge, easy transportation, etc.

In message 4f3ecae0.21919921@localhost, at 21:49:49 on Fri, 17 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
A kitchen is either fit for purpose or it is not. If not, the
landlord has a duty to fix it.

There's a huge gap between "unfit for purpose" and "functional but
depressingly dilapidated". Landlords are also prone to install very
cheap appliances, which are functional, but much less use than the ones
an owner occupier might select.

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord.

That depends on their circumstances, and what the landlord has provided.
For example, the dishwasher my landlord has provided is driving me crazy
(so that explains it - ed) but I can't bring myself to put it in storage
and buy a secondhand replacement when I know that in a year's time I'm
moving to a different house that has a very good dishwasher in it
already.

Similarly, the oven is cheaper than I ever knew ovens could be (it works
perfectly to specification, but that spec is minimal). But I don't think
I should be ripping it out of the cabinets and replacing it at my
expense.

The cost need not be all that great so long as you buy second-hand and
are prepared to wait for a bargain.

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:06:27 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord.

It is quite common for a fitted hob and cooker to be provided by the
landlord, and I've known several landlords to offer fully-furnished
family-sized properties at the bottom end of the market.

You make it sound like appliances are a once-in-a-lifetime purchase,
that once you have them they follow you around for the rest of your
life. In reality they require removal when moving house, and often
require replacement within several years, so the poor do not
necessarily carry a full set of high-quality appliances around with
them.

I know. Nor does the landlord carry a warehouse full of replacement
fridges and cookers. Perhaps you think he should?

I manage all my cooking very well in an inexpensive combination
microwave I acquired for free and a counter-top hob - though I
recently bought a small oven/grill (£27 Argos 883/3516) to make cheese
on toast. You can get second-hand microwave ovens and hobs for under
£10 each without waiting too long. If you don't have Internet to
look, Friday Ad is free.

=A0The cost need not be
all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait
for a bargain.

Lol. How long are you typically prepared to wait with an empty stomach
and dirty clothes?

Don't be such a drama queen. It's all part and parcel of preparing to
live in a new home. A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family) is sufficient to make meals, and the local
laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath
as people used to do if you're really stuck.

There is actually more of a market in my experience
for *landlords* to make the capital investment in reasonable second-
hand appliances, and then add it onto the weekly rent, because other
than eliminating the up-front cost for those who have little money,
landlords are usually in a better position to have contacts and
knowledge, easy transportation, etc.

If they did that, you'd be complaining about them profiteering from
the poor. You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying,
but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. Renting electonic
goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to
upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:01:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance. In any case those things can usually be tided
sufficiently to not be an eyesore, and do not make the place less
comfortable.

--
Cynic

On Feb 19, 3:56*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:06:27 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

IME most people over 25 have bought their own appliances and do not
live in accomodation furnished by the landlord.

It is quite common for a fitted hob and cooker to be provided by the
landlord, and I've known several landlords to offer fully-furnished
family-sized properties at the bottom end of the market.

You make it sound like appliances are a once-in-a-lifetime purchase,
that once you have them they follow you around for the rest of your
life. In reality they require removal when moving house, and often
require replacement within several years, so the poor do not
necessarily carry a full set of high-quality appliances around with
them.

I know. *Nor does the landlord carry a warehouse full of replacement
fridges and cookers. *Perhaps you think he should?

No, not particularly. My part in this discussion arose from pointing
out that the poor must typically accept the fittings provided by their
landlord, and those fittings will usually be of lower quality than
ones we here might select for ourselves. Your suggestion that
landlords actually have a legal duty to improve such fittings if they
are of low quality, has been refuted.



I manage all my cooking very well in an inexpensive combination
microwave I acquired for free and a counter-top hob - though I
recently bought a small oven/grill (£27 Argos 883/3516) to make cheese
on toast. *You can get second-hand microwave ovens and hobs for under
£10 each without waiting too long. *If you don't have Internet to
look, Friday Ad is free.

I'm not really sure what relevance this has to my position on the
matter. I must say I wouldn't be too keen in general to make use of
second-hand cookers and microwaves - the reason such second-hand goods
are cheap relative to new, is precisely because nobody wants them and
because they lack the quality (typically, in terms of appearance) of
new goods.

Nevertheless, I can think of several people who are making do with
second-hand kitchen appliances - in two such cases, I was called upon
to fit them purely out of the goodness of my heart (which I did not
begrudge).

In a further case, I was asked by the landlord of the property to
replace a cooker as a favour to him. When I did so, I found the wiring
of the old cooker in a dangerous state, and I indulged the boyfriend
of the tenant who was bragging that he had fitted the last one
himself; I return to my point about most people lacking the necessary
skills to fit appliances themselves.



=A0The cost need not be
all that great so long as you buy second-hand and are prepared to wait
for a bargain.
Lol. How long are you typically prepared to wait with an empty stomach
and dirty clothes?

Don't be such a drama queen. *It's all part and parcel of preparing to
live in a new home.

Cynic, exactly what class of people do you have in mind here? The
sorts of people I have in mind, are being forced to move around
involuntarily, and they are typically families who have been in long-
term receipt of benefits.



*A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family)

How many people do you know who have spare cookers or microwaves just
lying around? I'm clean and creditworthy amongst my friends, and I'm
not sure any of them could easily spare me a microwave or cooker. In
fact, it's more the case that I'd be called upon to spare one for
others, but I would be extremely reluctant to spare my relatively
expensive appliances to people who do not have the same standards of
cleanliness as I do (or security in their home, or honest social
circle, etc.), and it would be a pure act of charity which I'm sure
any reasonable person would be embarassed to grovel for.

I really do think you're living in a completely different world to the
one I live in Cynic. At the very least, you don't seem to be facing up
to the reality of life in poor *communities*, where it's not just a
case of isolated individuals suffering temporary hard times who can
survive for a while on the charity and goodwill of those who are
comfortable, but where the balance of those who are quite comfortable
in a social group is far too little to possibly subsidise all those
who are not, and where those who are not comfortable will, given the
general trends in society, probably become more uncomfortable with
time rather than less.



is sufficient to make meals, and the local
laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath
as people used to do if you're really stuck.

So we go back to what I said earlier, about the everyday life of the
poor being actually quite a bit more strenuous and demanding (at least
if they follow your prescriptions), but simultaneously less rewarding.
Even within your own terms Cynic, if a certain behaviour is harder and
less rewarding, you must surely agree it is less likely to be
exhibited.



There is actually more of a market in my experience
for *landlords* to make the capital investment in reasonable second-
hand appliances, and then add it onto the weekly rent, because other
than eliminating the up-front cost for those who have little money,
landlords are usually in a better position to have contacts and
knowledge, easy transportation, etc.

If they did that,

They *do* do that.



you'd be complaining about them profiteering from
the poor.

The biggest claim such landlords have is on the public purse via HB.
Nevertheless, I don't know many small landlords living the high life
today - the real beneficiaries, as always, are those who were richer
to start with, and the main losers those who were poorer, and with a
sliding scale between.



*You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying,
but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. *Renting electonic
goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to
upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.

It probably is not cost effective, but it solves people's problems in
the short term, at the expense of long-term finances. Normally what
people do in the long-term, is start giving up their social and moral
pretenses in order to shed stressors and shed financial costs. So for
example, people stop paying the rent and do moonlight flits, etc.

On Feb 19, 4:02*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:01:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. *I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.

It's often necessary to simply withhold the rent to get repairs done,
and people who I know in that position simply don't want the risk of
upheaval if the landlord decides they are too much hassle or too
demanding and so terminates their tenancy.

And from the other side of the coin, landlords are often loath to make
repairs to properties that the tenants do not take any real care of,
and themselves cause either careless damage or wilful damage in the
course of arguments/fights and such (though not necessarily the same
damage as the disrepair complained of), which the tenants themselves
are in no financial position to make good.



*In any case those things can usually be tided
sufficiently to not be an eyesore, and do not make the place less
comfortable.

Are you really as comfortable in a house with no doors on the kitchen
cabinets and tiles falling off the wall, as one with a sound kitchen?
Or is it just double standards?

In message 4f411c10.146911734@localhost, at 16:02:08 on Sun, 19 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.

Six months wasn't enough at a house I rented in 2005. The landlord was
living in Italy and the agent would do nothing without contacting him,
which appeared to be impossible.

In any case those things can usually be tided sufficiently to not be an
eyesore, and do not make the place less comfortable.

The current landlord allowed us to repaint the kitchen in magnolia
(instead of bright green). Whether bright green is "less comfortable"
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus
In message 4f411c10.146911734@localhost, at 16:02:08 on Sun, 19 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.

Six months wasn't enough at a house I rented in 2005. The landlord was
living in Italy and the agent would do nothing without contacting him,
which appeared to be impossible.

In any case those things can usually be tided sufficiently to not be an
eyesore, and do not make the place less comfortable.

The current landlord allowed us to repaint the kitchen in magnolia
(instead of bright green). Whether bright green is "less comfortable"
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.


Magnolia is the rented accommodation standard colour dontcha know;!...

--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:40:34 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

I'm not really sure what relevance this has to my position on the
matter. I must say I wouldn't be too keen in general to make use of
second-hand cookers and microwaves - the reason such second-hand goods
are cheap relative to new, is precisely because nobody wants them and
because they lack the quality (typically, in terms of appearance) of
new goods.

Rubbish! I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have
been very pleased with almost all of them. Obviously you have to pick
and choose and wait for the bargains. There are many reasons why
people want to get rid of perfectly good appliances. A common reason
is that they were given a new appliance as a gift (Christmas, birthday
etc.). Another is that they are rich enough to afford to buy the
latest appliances each year. Or perhaps they decided to replace a
unit with a bigger or smaller model. Or were conned into buying an
appliance that is more "green" than the one they had. People moving
house often sell their appliances and get new stuff for the new house
- and in that case they are frequently "free to collector" because the
person is really only looking for a free removal service. In other
cases a well-off householder had replaced a unit simply because it was
getting a bit grubby and it avoided a cleaning job.

Nevertheless, I can think of several people who are making do with
second-hand kitchen appliances - in two such cases, I was called upon
to fit them purely out of the goodness of my heart (which I did not
begrudge).

In a further case, I was asked by the landlord of the property to
replace a cooker as a favour to him. When I did so, I found the wiring
of the old cooker in a dangerous state, and I indulged the boyfriend
of the tenant who was bragging that he had fitted the last one
himself; I return to my point about most people lacking the necessary
skills to fit appliances themselves.

The skills required are minimal. If a person does not want to learn
some very simple skills, I put the blame squarely on that person.
besides, a cooker is about the only appliance that requires any sort
of skills at all - unless you count plugging a unit into the mains
socket a skill.

Don't be such a drama queen. =A0It's all part and parcel of preparing to
live in a new home.

Cynic, exactly what class of people do you have in mind here? The
sorts of people I have in mind, are being forced to move around
involuntarily, and they are typically families who have been in long-
term receipt of benefits.

Why should they be forced to move around involuntarily? I know
several families with all members on long-term benefits and was in
fact thinking of them when I wrote my post. The state pays for their
rent in very reasonable houses that they have lived in for well over a
decade. Apart from moving to more suitable accomodation due to a
change in the size of the family, or moving at the request of the
benefit receiptient themself, the main reason for being shunted from
place to place is if the family cause a nuisance wto their neighbours.

=A0A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family)

How many people do you know who have spare cookers or microwaves just
lying around? I'm clean and creditworthy amongst my friends, and I'm
not sure any of them could easily spare me a microwave or cooker.

Not even for a week or two to tide you over? As said, you can cook
everything you need to eat with just a microwave and a kettle (I've
done it). It's not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable while you
source other appliances.

In
fact, it's more the case that I'd be called upon to spare one for
others, but I would be extremely reluctant to spare my relatively
expensive appliances to people who do not have the same standards of
cleanliness as I do (or security in their home, or honest social
circle, etc.), and it would be a pure act of charity which I'm sure
any reasonable person would be embarassed to grovel for.

Yes, I can see that the sort of people who are dirty and dishonest
might have a more difficult time getting favours from friends and
relatives than clean, decent honest people. Now how are you going to
blame that on the nasty rish businessmen?

I really do think you're living in a completely different world to the
one I live in Cynic. At the very least, you don't seem to be facing up
to the reality of life in poor *communities*, where it's not just a
case of isolated individuals suffering temporary hard times who can
survive for a while on the charity and goodwill of those who are
comfortable, but where the balance of those who are quite comfortable
in a social group is far too little to possibly subsidise all those
who are not, and where those who are not comfortable will, given the
general trends in society, probably become more uncomfortable with
time rather than less.

Ste, I have actually *lived* in that situation, and so know *very*
well what I am talking about. Perhaps it is yourself who is placing
too much reliance on the veracity of hard-luck stories you have been
told. Whilst I am relatively well off now, I know quite a few people
of all ages who are out of work and have no assets. i know *very*
well what's possible and what's not.

is sufficient to make meals, and the local
laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath
as people used to do if you're really stuck.

So we go back to what I said earlier, about the everyday life of the
poor being actually quite a bit more strenuous and demanding (at least
if they follow your prescriptions), but simultaneously less rewarding.
Even within your own terms Cynic, if a certain behaviour is harder and
less rewarding, you must surely agree it is less likely to be
exhibited.

I was discussing the *temporary* situation after the person has just
moved in to a new unfurnished home. Yes, it will indeed be more
demanding during that time. Some people will sit on their arse, buy
some cheap cider and moan about how unfair everything is whilst not
bothering to wash the home or themselves properly, or even get out of
bed before noon. Others will see it as a challenge and get stuck in
to improve the situation for themselves.

=A0You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying,
but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. =A0Renting electonic
goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to
upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.

It probably is not cost effective, but it solves people's problems in
the short term, at the expense of long-term finances. Normally what
people do in the long-term, is start giving up their social and moral
pretenses in order to shed stressors and shed financial costs. So for
example, people stop paying the rent and do moonlight flits, etc.

I don't see "black" work as being immoral. Nor smuggling for tax
evasion purposes. Both are artificial crimes that have been created
due to the inadequacies of the state-imposed systems. HB rent is paid
direct to the landlord, so there is no opportunity to avoid paying it.

--
Cynic

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:48:44 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. =A0I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.

It's often necessary to simply withhold the rent to get repairs done,
and people who I know in that position simply don't want the risk of
upheaval if the landlord decides they are too much hassle or too
demanding and so terminates their tenancy.

In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with
a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.

And from the other side of the coin, landlords are often loath to make
repairs to properties that the tenants do not take any real care of,
and themselves cause either careless damage or wilful damage in the
course of arguments/fights and such (though not necessarily the same
damage as the disrepair complained of), which the tenants themselves
are in no financial position to make good.

Perhaps you should be taking issue with the behaviour of the tenants
in that case instead of moaning about the landlord?

=A0In any case those things can usually be tided
sufficiently to not be an eyesore, and do not make the place less
comfortable.

Are you really as comfortable in a house with no doors on the kitchen
cabinets and tiles falling off the wall, as one with a sound kitchen?
Or is it just double standards?

I have two hands and a brain, and would most certainly be able to
effect sufficient repairs to make a vast improvement.

In any case, I think it is yourself who is being completely
unrealistic in your scenarios, because I have visited many homes of
people who have no money and are surviving completely on state
benefits, and have not seen any homes in anything close to such a
state of disrepair. I concede that they no doubt exist, but put it to
you that they are very much the exception (except in places where the
people deliberately damage their own homes - to which I say nobody has
any duty whatsoever to make it better).

--
Cynic

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:28:10 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.

Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.

Six months wasn't enough at a house I rented in 2005. The landlord was
living in Italy and the agent would do nothing without contacting him,
which appeared to be impossible.

IIUC, after allowing a reasonable time for the landlord to do
something, the tenant is lawfully permitted to get the job done
himself and take the cost out of the rent. So long as the tenant has
reciepts to verify that the amount is accurate, the landlord/agent
won't be able to contest it.

In any case those things can usually be tided sufficiently to not be an
eyesore, and do not make the place less comfortable.

The current landlord allowed us to repaint the kitchen in magnolia
(instead of bright green). Whether bright green is "less comfortable"
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Some people like very bright primary colours, especially in a kitchen.
one person I know painted his bedroom completely black. I've not yet
come across landlords who have refused to allow a tenant to
redecorate, though I could understand it if a landlord was wary of the
tenant's DIY skills and feared that they would do more harm than good.

--
Cynic

In message 4f4245e8.223171531@localhost, at 13:19:06 on Mon, 20 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with
a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.

Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the
Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years
getting credit is more tiresome.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:17:17 on Mon, 20 Feb
2012, tony sayer remarked:
The current landlord allowed us to repaint the kitchen in magnolia
(instead of bright green). Whether bright green is "less comfortable"
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Magnolia is the rented accommodation standard colour dontcha know;!...

That's why we picked it, no possible reason for the landlord to
complain. If we'd picked dayglo purple (as a contrast to the dayglo
green) it might have been more dubious. Remember, I'm trying to avoid
conflict here!
--
Roland Perry

In message 4f424864.223808031@localhost, at 13:27:56 on Mon, 20 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
Six months wasn't enough at a house I rented in 2005. The landlord was
living in Italy and the agent would do nothing without contacting him,
which appeared to be impossible.

IIUC, after allowing a reasonable time for the landlord to do
something, the tenant is lawfully permitted to get the job done
himself and take the cost out of the rent.

I got quite close to that after the boiler had been out of action for
three weeks in February. But we must pick our battles, and there were
worse things going on.
--
Roland Perry