Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
One of Britain's biggest landlords could face legal action after kicking out four single mothers with newborn children.
Fergus Wilson, 69, has blamed 'strict' council rules for his decision, claiming he would face a hefty fine if he failed to fix faulty heating systems within four days in homes where a baby lives, and he has vowed to evict any single women who fall pregnant while living at one of his properties.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rties.htmlI am trying to decide if this helps understand more regulation is counter productive or just more bad publicity for landlords.
This may explain why Fergus cannot rely on getting plumbers to carry out repairs within four days -
Britain’s biggest landlord has banned “batteries wives” and plumbers from his properties.
So the council have stipulated boiler repairs should be completed within 4 days? BG other than in the snow this February have always been round within 4 days!
Funny how this LL is always the one featured in the papers....
Delicate as always :-)
I wonder if he could spare an hour to negotiate a Brexit deal?
The Europeans would kick us out before March 2019
The comments - generally - are more supportive than you would expect.
That's because it's the Daily Fail, not the Guardian!
This landlord is really not helping the sector with his newspaper grabbing headlines.
Manchester based investor. I buy, sell, renovate and rent investment property in East/North Manchester email: email@example.com Call: 0161 681 3724
Surely the status of a tenant is IRRELEVANT!
IF the boiler is defective then surely it must be fixed as soon as reasonably possible.
If the LL is unable to do so then the LL has to make alternative arrangements.
The tenant is paying for a service.
The service should be provided.
The tenant is only requesting what is contractually required to be provided.
LL should NOT even be attempting to evict because the tenant wants the service they are paying for!!
Evicting for any reason is valid but not because of a disrepair issue.
Getting rid of single mothers is perfectly OK if that is what FW wants to do.
No tenant has the right to remain in a rental property.
There is no way I would take on a single mother if unable to pay the rent I required or if they became a mother and unable to afford the rent.
It is NOT the status of the tenant that is important.
It is their ability to pay the required rent.
If a single mother can afford the rent then why would a LL seek to evict!?
I don't quite get the business decision here.
Rent payment ability NOT domestic status is the only thing I'm interested in.
I could understand the additional wear and tear that children could cause.
If so then just take more deposit.
I think FW needs to present his case for his business decisions in a more understandable way.
He may be regrettting having plumbers as tenants they may have blacklisted him no wonder he is struggling
In 2014 he was convicted of assault and fined £1500 fot guess what a dispute over a boiler
Wasn't that with an estate agent?