Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm a landlord. Just a little flat but a landlord. I do not allow smoking as part of the tenancy agreement. It ruins the furnishings and is a devil to get out if tenants change.


I, along with all of you, also own massive Council Estate properties all over Southwark. I'd like to suggest that we, as landlords, ban smoking inside our properties.


If those living there want to smoke than can a) go outside b) move to a rental where the landlord chooses to allow smoking.


Sounds reasonable.

Interesting bit about schools - should we allow smoking inside them? What's the difference?


So perhaps all of you if landlords wouldn't have an issue with your renters smoking inside. Fair enough. But shouldn't we as collective owners of Council flats have a say?


And if you argue they have few choices to afford living elsewhere - then great - think of the money they'll save not smoking and can more quickly get on their feet and move on. Isn't that the point of council housing: a short term fix to allow folks to get on their feet again and move on?

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're effectively banning the poor from smoking

> inside their homes till they can afford to rent or

> buy privately.


It will help them start saving-up.


I love that way that a number of fag brands attempt to sound loosley associated with the blue-blooded classes (Rothmans, Superkings, Royals). The Proles must lap that sort-of thing up.

No but if, for whatever reasons, they damage said property, they must pay to repair/clean it (if they didn't clean it themselves). Is that not reasonable?


Are you all suggesting that landlords should not be able to stipulate whether smoking is allowed when drawing up a lease agreement?

Have a ciggie and chill out.


I have one of those rental agreements that tells me I can't smoke. He also tells me that I responsible for the drains and lots of other things I couldn't give a hoot for. In my mind, as long as I open the windows, there's not really a problem. We are in a financial arrangement, he's not my lifestyle coach.


Do you spend much time in Council properties? If people want to light up, scratch their arse or lots of other unmentionables. All in the comfort of their home, none of my business.

Rico Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And if you argue they have few choices to afford

> living elsewhere - then great - think of the money

> they'll save not smoking and can more quickly get

> on their feet and move on. Isn't that the point

> of council housing: a short term fix to allow

> folks to get on their feet again and move on?


Mmm, and if only we banned them from drinking alcohol or even soft drinks as well and only let them have tap water, think how much that could save. Oh, and if they only ate lentils and pasta too. No fresh veg or meat - waste of money. Then they could gratefully join the rest of us in the delight that is the home-owning democracy. Hurrah!

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bagsy sex monitor.

>

> GigGirl, surely you meant:

>

> "If there is hope... it lies in the profiteroles"



But PGC - these are proles with tenants extra and beer bellies and fags. You wanna watchem get jiggy with it? Surely not. They live in council houses and must be punished.

I'm happy for them to merrily smoke themselves to death if they live in a shithole in Mitcham with smashed windows and have to listen to drum and bass through poorly insulated walls all night.


But I do get angry when I see them smoking away in council-owned properties which are in parts of London I can't afford to live in myself. That just doesn't seem right.

Rico Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They don't have to buy a home. Renting is fine.

> But subsidised renting thanks to my Council tax

> means I should have a say...or maybe not. Silly.

> They can wreck the place and stay for generations

> (like that would ever happen).


Yeah let?s get them out of council flats and into somewhere where they have no security of tenure and their money can be properly contributing to the second incomes of private landlords.


*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I do get angry when I see them smoking away in

> council-owned properties which are in parts of

> London I can't afford to live in myself. That just

> doesn't seem right.


I know what you mean. The people who clean the restaurants, and homes, cook the food and clean the streets in those areas should live at 30 miles away.


Don?t know they?re born.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I read elsewhere that somebody was stabbed,  but I have no idea how reliable that information is.
    • Hello Did anyone see an accident about 15 minutes ago at the junction of Goodrich and Friern Road. A black car driven by a lady ran in to the side of my car as I was coming up Friern Road- instead of pulling over she drove off without providing her insurance information. If anyone happened to see this or has her license plate details please pm me. Thanks 
    • Hi everyone,  I have a few slots for next few days, if anyone need  a tidy or one off, please feel free to call, text, or WhatsApp as well. Thanks very much Fernando Pinto 
    • On what basis do you object to the economy spend numbers in the report and describe it as "extremely unlikely"? Is that objection based on data or is it vibes-based? Where does this estimate of "50-100 vehicles" come from? The objectors:supporters ratio doesn't speak volumes. Planning applications of this sort always receive objections from various curtain twitches and NIMBYs. It doesn't mean those objections are well-founded or sensible. The planning officers and councillors need to consider the issue objectively, not just count the letters. It's not a public vote. Saying the building is "out of character" is meaningless out of context. It's an unusual building on an unusual infill site. It's not supposed to be a model for future development across Dulwich as a whole.  We are in the middle of a housing crisis. London desperately needs more housing units. This is an opportunity to get a whole bunch of them on a small, unloved industrial site on top of a transit hub. Not building it because people like the Dulwich Society complains it's "visible" is crazy.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...