Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

Not defending Bruce but there's different levels of notification and clearing with landlords isn't there. It could have been 'we're going to litigate against a tenant who's just been in hospital because the property is in such a bad way it made them ill' or it could have been 'we're going to litigate as they haven't paid rent in months'. We don't know the level of detail that was passed on to Bruce and can only assume that he should have acted better. We do know the tenant was made ill and has been treated badly and that the property management company should have acted better. 

Of course we don't know what information was passed onto Bruce. I'm just big on personal responsibility. If he invested in a fund that owned the properties its a different story altogether. 

I also work in the industry so it's one of the few things I can speak with some authority on and some of the defences are amusing to me as they're so wrong, however nice it might be to jump to his defence. 

Apologies to @fruitvilla for being righteous! I have opinions on the matter because it's something I understand and I've done pro bono work on similar cases.

I'll take @bannedfromHandVs word as gospel on recruitment issues, but I struggle to see how saying there is no evidence and still creating theoretical defences for him is the evidence based route. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Apologies to @fruitvilla for being righteous! I have opinions on the matter because it's something I understand and I've done pro bono work on similar cases.

There's nothing to apologize for ... but thanks anyway. I suspect we all do at times. But end of the day we are expressing opinions about Bruce with minimal information. I could be wrong here of course, but I would be interested in what Bruce did or did not know.

ps keep up the pro bono work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

There's nothing to apologize for ... but thanks anyway. I suspect we all do at times. But end of the day we are expressing opinions about Bruce with minimal information. I could be wrong here of course, but I would be interested in what Bruce did or did not know.

ps keep up the pro bono work. 

I appreciate there isn't much information, I'm just saying from my point of view it's enough information for me to dislike it as I think hiring a scumbag company and ignoring how they treat your tenants is just as bad. 

I just find it slightly annoying when it's always assumed the starting point to criticise someone is because you dislike them which, full disclosure, I do! If I was criticising the rumours about training ground bust ups I accept its 100% speculation. 

I've only done pro bono work a couple of times and not for a while, so I'm afraid I'm no great warrior for justice. Unfortunately the reality is it's always at the whim of a current employer and I'm not someone whose selfless enough to pack in the corporate world yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I appreciate there isn't much information, I'm just saying from my point of view it's enough information for me to dislike it as I think hiring a scumbag company and ignoring how they treat your tenants is just as bad. 

I just did a quick search regarding the property managers. I could not find a definitive answer, but as the picket was around SmartHomes, for the moment I will presume they are the property managers. Now a very quick preliminary search has not identified any obvious "scumbag" activity. 

If it turns out this is not as bad as it looks, will we be sending a note of apology to the folks at SmartHomes, being big on responsibility 'n all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

I just did a quick search regarding the property managers. I could not find a definitive answer, but as the picket was around SmartHomes, for the moment I will presume they are the property managers. Now a very quick preliminary search has not identified any obvious "scumbag" activity. 

If it turns out this is not as bad as it looks, will we be sending a note of apology to the folks at SmartHomes, being big on responsibility 'n all?

I have no reason to believe they're a dodgy company. The point is if Bruce had no idea, which a surprising amount of people seem to find likely, then the company are the arseholes and Stevie gets a free pass.

I don't believe that's at all likely to have happened, which means the landlord is the one making the decisions. Which takes us full circle.

p.s. "a very quick search" is far from definitive anyway. I'm aware of plenty of immoral or criminal behaviour that Google can't tell you about. Either way, it looks like we're in agreement that the management company are unlikely to have been at fault.

Edited by Sam-AVFC
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I have no reason to believe they're a dodgy company.

cf

4 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

for me to dislike it as I think hiring a scumbag company

 

3 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

"a very quick search" is far from definitive anyway.

Agreed ... But it is marginally better than an off the cuff opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

cf

 

Agreed ... But it is marginally better than an off the cuff opinion.

I don't think you understand that it was theoretical based on the defences being made that they could have acted without him knowing. I'm sure you understand that though as it's pretty obvious, so  not sure why bothering. 

I've explained it enough times and said more than enough on the topic anyway so I'll leave it there. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
On 03/05/2021 at 13:37, rodders0223 said:

He's been in football for 40 sodding years why does he need to buy up cheap property. Bloody tory arsehole.

what utter contemptible rubbish....He/they is providing a home for someone to live in.....In the same way as industrialists create jobs.....Lets not condemn Landlords, before a case is heard properly.

Its the conditions that are central to the issue here, and every responsible Landlord, should ensure their premises are fit for purpose....No premises is fit for purpose, if the Landlord themselves wouldn't live in it.

No premises, is fit for habitation, if black Damp and algae is present.

Legislation should be in force to ensure, habitable conditions are attached to every property.....The NHS ought to have a big say in this, as thats where the Tenants are likely to end up, costing the NHS money.

In the same way as cars are confiscated, property should be demolished, if Landlords fail to suitably maintain them....but tenants too should aid and abett Landlords in their efforts to maintain good standards....its a partnership.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
5 minutes ago, TRO said:

what utter contemptible rubbish....He/they is providing a home for someone to live in.....In the same way as industrialists create jobs.....Lets not condemn Landlords, before a case is heard properly.

Industrialists don't create jobs out of kindness, it's just a side effect of their need to make profits. The minute they can replace those workers with robots, you can bet your life they do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â