Who speaks for the taxpayer?

[TheBigShort]

I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict

Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction

As a form of protest, they refuse to pay their rent to the LA.
In your world, this is a straightforward case of eviction as per the law - I dont disagree,

If, by your definition, a rent adjusted LA tenant is automatically "wont pay", I have already stated that an eviction should be invoked in such circumstances.

If someone is capable of paying rent but refuses they should be evicted. I have said this plenty of times.

Tenants who can afford to pay their rent but refuse to do so should face eviction.

I have repeatedly said - if someone CAN pay, but REFUSES to pay, invoke an eviction order.

After all that, this nonsense still continues

The prospect of eviction" is different from eviction. Please edit 4 above for clarity, then it

You only suggest that they should face the prospect of eviction.

You can't just answer the question then?

I did answer, and tried to elaborate somewhat on the idiocy of what is being proposed.
But you like to simplify complex issues, so I will simplify my answer for you.

A homeless family refusing an offer of accommodation has nothing to do with a LA tenant refusing to pay rent when they have been assessed as being capable of doing so.
Why do you ask?

 

[Purple]

You get a Gold Star for effort BS, if nothing else

 

[Leo]

A homeless family refusing an offer of accommodation has nothing to do with a LA tenant refusing to pay rent when they have been assessed as being capable of doing so.
Why do you ask?

I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent. Thanks for confirming it's just another rabbit hole.

 

[TheBigShort]

I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent. Thanks for confirming it's just another rabbit hole.

There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.
Considering my very last post contains details of the numerous occasions where I say the complete opposite, how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?

 

[Leo]

There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.

You can go down multiple rabbit holes at will when challenged, yet I'm a joker when I point out an argument you're putting forward makes no sense

You'll note I didn't offer a view, just pointed out your flawed argument.

 

[TheBigShort]

You can go down multiple rabbit holes at will when challenged, yet I'm a joker when I point out an argument you're putting forward makes no sense

You'll note I didn't offer a view, just pointed out your flawed argument.

I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).

So using your own words,

You can't just answer the question then?

 

[Leo]

I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).

Firstly, I doubt you have a good understanding of my view in general. Secondly, any such speculation in this thread would be very much off topic and yet another rabbit hole.

 

[RETIRED2017]

I was referring to your views in general, not specifically in this topic (if any).

So using your own words,

I suspect you will be moving from the rabbit hole to the sin bin,

The biggest problem is people with plenty of money buying out there houses at a large discount I can never under stand why we do not have the same system for local authority houses as we had in the land commission where there was a Land Purchase annuity which had to be paid,

Land could be Inherited transferred or sold and the annuity followed it untill it wes paid off ,

Banks did not have a problem giving you a loan for land with an annuity on it in the early years of an annuity land would sell for less because of the annuty still owed to the government,

 

[Purple]

There was me thinking Leo was someone who at least offered reasoned rationale for his views whether I agreed with them or not.
Turns out your every bit the joker like the rest of them.

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is a joker, anyone who sees flaws in your logic is absurd.

 

[TheBigShort]

Firstly, I doubt you have a good understanding of my view in general. Secondly, any such speculation in this thread would be very much off topic and yet another rabbit hole.

Fair enough.
So can you just answer the question I put to you then?

 

[TheBigShort]

Yep, anyone who disagrees with you is a joker, anyone who sees flaws in your logic is absurd.

Not at all Purple, but anyone who accuses me of trying to justify refusal of rent payment when you know only too well that I have said on numerous occasions the opposite.
Anyone purporting to say otherwise, when my quotes are in front of them, and then has the arrogance not to answer a question put directly to them even though they themselves persisted with wanting a direct answer to their question is, to me, a bare-faced joker.

 

[Sarenco]

anyone who accuses me of trying to justify refusal of rent payment when you know only too well that I have said on numerous occasions the opposite

You're joking right?

taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation

 

[Leo]

So can you just answer the question I put to you then?

OK, so I believe the pertinent question was:

how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?

Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.' Just go back to the post I quoted:

You are constantly making the simplistic assumption that the 15% of arrears is nothing more than a bare faced refusal to pay where there is means to pay.
You ignore all other possible factors despite repeated reports of substandard accommodation, homeless families refusing accommodation, social disorders and deprivation.
Why?

 

[TheBigShort]

You're joking right?

To which I replied what exactly, Sacrenco?

If you need a Lady bird, baby step clarification, here it is;

You are totally correct Sacrenco, the law (as I understand it) requires the contunued payment of rent regardless of any dispute the tenant may have with landlord.

I would have thought that much was clear when I replied to your subsequent comments with;

Admittedly im not too au fait with the law concerning the grounds upon which not to pay rent.
But refusal to pay can be a likely prospect where a landlord is failing to provide adequate repairs

Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...b

I then went on to point out to you that just because the law says one thing, it doesn't mean

that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay.

Does it?

So where tenants feel they have a genuine grievance (and in the context of EU Social Committee findings, it would appear that some do have genuine grievances, dont you think?
In such circumstances, is it really beyond your comprehension to not figure that some LA arrears may refuse to pay rent because of unresolved landlord/tenant disputes (regardless of the legalities)

Clearly it is.

As I said later, by all means evict those tenants, but for what purpose? Who in their right mind would accept accommodation with contaminated water???
Did it ever dawn on you, that the only reason there are LA tenants living in such squalor in the first place is because they have nowhere else to go??
Has it ever occurred to you that such tenants may be victims of domestic violence? May be single mothers trying to put food on table for kids, trying to get them through school?

Or do you think, like Purple, that "they probably" have goods incomes and simply gaming the system?

I have asked you repeatedly, if you evict tenants from substandard accommodation, where will they live?
You refuse to answer, citing 'rabbit holes'! As if in a discussion about housing, wondering where a family might live after being evicted is a 'rabbit hole'!!
Dont make me laugh. Go back to your school books where everything is put out for you in black and white.

 

[TheBigShort]

Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.' Just go back to the post I quoted:

You truly are a joker.
The quote of mine that you highlight, nowhere do I try to "justify" the refusal of non-payment of rent.
My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents and the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.

Are you denying that factors other than a straight refusal to pay are not contributing to the arrears?

All of these factors and many, many more, make the homeless and housing crisis a complex matter.
No of those complexities will ever be addressed by the half-baked, kindergarten proposals spouted out here.

 

[Sarenco]

So you appear to have changed you mind. You no longer think that a tenant may legitimately refuse to pay their rent on the grounds that the property requires renovations. Right?

In that case, what point exactly are you trying to make on this thread? Please give us a succinct answer without any further deflection.

 

[Purple]

Or do you think, like Purple, that "they probably" have goods incomes and simply gaming the system?

Where did I say that?

 

[Purple]

No of those complexities will ever be addressed by the half-baked, kindergarten proposals spouted out here.

I think that's the crux of the matter; the rest of us just aren't as smart as you. How could we be, otherwise we'd all be socialists, right?

 

[TheBigShort]

So you appear to have changed you mind

I haven't changed my mind at all, I acknowledged your point as being in fact correct from 4 pages back

Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...

And I have repeatedly asserted time and time again that if someone is capable of paying, and refuses to, then they should be subject to eviction. Im done repeating myself.

In that case, what point exactly are you trying to make on this thread? Please give us a succinct answer without any further deflection.

Say the guy who is deflecting from the questions I have put to him,

is it really beyond your comprehension to not figure that some LA arrears may refuse to pay rent because of unresolved landlord/tenant disputes (regardless of the legalities)

 

[Sarenco]

Thank you. So you now agree that a tenant cannot legitimately refuse to pay their rent because a property may require renovations.

I still have no idea therefore what point you are trying to make on this thread, you're just going around in circles.

Good luck.