Ants are everywhere': Labour MP's tenants reveal condition of flats

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

That property management can be scum isn’t in dispute. They’re not “at fault” because the story is about what a Labour MP chooses to do.

[Sid Bishop]

I’m saying that the property management company should be getting just as much stick as the MP is (correctly) getting. They are both at fault.

Well, no, that’s obviously nonsense.
“Property management companies can be scum” is a constant ongoing issue. “Labour MP is a slum landlord” is news. If the Labour MP wants to not be news, he could do due diligence on the properties he owns. Giving “stick” to a property management company outside of a campaign for legislation to enforce higher standards would be useless. The MP is the focus, and rightly. It’s totally bizarre to suggest that his decision to pay someone else to manage his homes means that he should only be considered partly to blame.

It’s “obviously nonsense” that the property management is at fault at all here?

Note that I did not say “equally at fault”

Correct.

[The Reverend]

That property management can be scum isn’t in dispute. They’re not “at fault” because the story is about what a Labour MP chooses to do.

Surely you agree it’s possible for the following to be true:

A. The Labour MP is ultimately accountable for this. Deserved all the scrutiny and criticism he is getting

AND

B. The property management company is also at fault. They were hired to manage the properties and did not do that to an acceptable standard. There have also been claims that they were threatening to tenants who said they would complain, which is obviously also unacceptable

Yes or no?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Jesus Christ.
Again. It is not in dispute that this property management company is scum. They are not “at fault” because the fact that the Labour MP hired a scummy property management company *IS* the story. He chooses to rent out properties, he chooses to use a property management company, and he chooses which one he uses and how much of a sh*t he gives.

By all means separately call for greater scrutiny of those companies, but “ playing devils advocate” to do the thing of “not saying this excuses but we should be talking about the company he hired to!!” is in practice to distract from the fact that every aspect of this is a choice of the property owner.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Almost zero sympathy for landlords.

But strange to see the Tories on here come out against them.

To play devils advocate here, the guy did pay a “management company” to run these properties for him. Not excusing accountability, which ultimately sits with the landlord, but these property management & lettings companies can be utter scum of the earth. Even lower than normal estate agents, and that’s really saying something!

Here. You replied to LSN who said he had almost zero sympathy with landlords, with a post that sees you make a case for less condemnation. “Not excusing accountability BUT these companies can be utter scum” is, to an English speaker, mitigation of the landlord’s level of responsibility.

A more accurate phrase would be “I’m not excusing accountability BECAUSE these companies can be utter scum”

The former reads as if the poor landlord got unlucky and could maybe do with learning from this mistake, while the latter recognises that the landlord is responsible for how he manages his property.

[The Reverend]

Jesus Christ.
Again. It is not in dispute that this property management company is scum. They are not “at fault” because the fact that the Labour MP hired a scummy property management company *IS* the story. He chooses to rent out properties, he chooses to use a property management company, and he chooses which one he uses and how much of a sh*t he gives.

By all means separately call for greater scrutiny of those companies, but “ playing devils advocate” to do the thing of “not saying this excuses but we should be talking about the company he hired to!!” is in practice to distract from the fact that every aspect of this is a choice of the property owner.

It took you two long winded posts of angry waffling to say “yes, Rev, I do agree with your fundamental position on this topic”

Try to be more succinct in future if possible. Cheers.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

No, I disagree with your fundamental position. The fact that you don’t know what a devils advocate is (clue - if you’re actually arguing your actual argument, you aren’t playing devils advocate), and don’t seem to know that a public figure recruiting a scummy company obviously does not result in the company sharing responsibility for the issue when the public figure is exposed, is your own fault.

[The Reverend]

No, I disagree with your fundamental position. The fact that you don’t know what a devils advocate is, and don’t seem to know that a public figure recruiting a scummy company obviously does not result in the company sharing responsibility for the issue when the public figure is exposed, is your own fault.

So you disagree that a property management company hired to manage properties is remotely at fault for failing to maintain the properties it was paid to manage.

Think you might find yourself in quite the minority there.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Again. Context is key, and your nonsense of stating a different point as if it’s your original point is tedious.

[The Reverend]

Again. Context is key, and your nonsense of stating a different point as if it’s your original point is tedious.

The context here being that you came steaming into this looking for an argument without actually understanding what I was saying.

It’s ok, we all have our off days. Better luck next time, champ.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

What do you think Devil’s Advocate means, and who was the metaphorical devil when you advocated for him?

[The Reverend]

What do you think Devil’s Advocate means, and who was the metaphorical devil when you advocated for him?

And you have the cheek to call other people tedious.

So we can draw this to a close because it has trashed the thread:

Do you or do you not agree that the property management company is at fault at all for failing to adequately manage the properties it was paid to manage?

It’s a simple “yes I do agree” or “no I don’t agree” will do. Cheers.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

No, they are not “at fault” in any way for the situation in which the landlord finds himself.

[Dunners]

Allow me.

An agent is an agent by virtue of the fact that they are duly appointed by their client to act on their behalf. So, whenever an agent does or says anything, it is doing so as if it were the landlord himself doing or saying that thing. The landlord does not get to hide behind the fact they have an agent.

The agent is not party to the tenancy contract so, should the agent be crap, the tenant cannot sue them. Instead, they would sue the landlord as it is with him that they have the contractual relationship. The landlord may have the option to counter-sue his agent if they are in breach of contract, but that is a separate matter and would have no impact on the initial proceedings.

And, if the crappness was due to the agent's performance, then that would be the landlord's problem and not the tenants. Because the landlord was responsible for undertaking all due diligence to ensure the agent's performance was to an acceptable standard. And if the landlord failed to do that then he deserves everything he gets.

[BoniO]

And................ they're off!

[The Reverend]

Allow me.

An agent is an agent by virtue of the fact that they are duly appointed by their client to act on their behalf. So, whenever an agent does or says anything, it is doing so as if it were the landlord himself doing or saying that thing. The landlord does not get to hide behind the fact they have an agent.

The agent is not party to the tenancy contract so, should the agent be crap, the tenant cannot sue them. Instead, they would sue the landlord as it is with him that they have the contractual relationship. The landlord may have the option to counter-sue his agent if they are in breach of contract, but that is a separate matter and would have no impact on the initial proceedings.

And, if the crappness was due to the agent's performance, then that would be the landlord's problem and not the tenants. Because the landlord was responsible for undertaking all due diligence to ensure the agent's performance was to an acceptable standard. And if the landlord failed to do that then he deserves everything he gets.

Very well explained. Thank you!

[Give it to Jabo]

think I read that he is the largest landlord in Westminster. throw him out starmar..disgraceful.