FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Cladding

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

And as a taxpayer, do I like to see my taxes having to do this work, when these are private dwellings with the legal obligation on the Landlords?

As stated by some of the Grenfell families, there's an awful lot of amnesia out there on what some of the legal obligations were and are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another example of the rich folks keeping their ill gotten gains and the public picking up the bill

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

The work needs to be done ASAP just to give piece of mind but I would rather this £200 million be a loan, chargeable with interest, and not be passed onto tenants.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ave 42Man
over a year ago

pontefract


"Another example of the rich folks keeping their ill gotten gains and the public picking up the bill "

Greedy landlords need to pay it themselves

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

No surprise at all. The Tories aren't going to penalise their voters because other people who don't vote for them might burn to death - again.

Remember who we're dealing with here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

It is standard Tory ideology - privatise the profit and nationalise the risk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"It is standard Tory ideology - privatise the profit and nationalise the risk.

"

You beat me to the answer Sara.

Can't have Tory slumlords or Russian party contributors paying when the 'magic money tree' can be given a good shake. (Costs plus extra to fund more tax cuts for Tory contributors to be recovered out of the NHS and DSS welfare budgets.)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? "
These are from completely different budgets so it is difficult to see how one correlates to the other .

Chris Gayling had no option but to make contingency plans for a no deal Brexit .

The government are already collecting a lot more in revenues for landlords. The As a which was a standard 10 % relief on fixtures and fittings has been withdrawn and tax relief on interest will be removed completely by 2021

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? These are from completely different budgets so it is difficult to see how one correlates to the other .

Chris Gayling had no option but to make contingency plans for a no deal Brexit .

The government are already collecting a lot more in revenues for landlords. The As a which was a standard 10 % relief on fixtures and fittings has been withdrawn and tax relief on interest will be removed completely by 2021 "

I think some would call it a pr exercise, others vote rigging, and possibly even a cover up to divert attention away from a government that is so absolutely inept and has no regard for parliament. Do you honestly believe that the government is not in the middle of a good will pr exercise because they are in such deep shit? You really must be completely blinkered to the reality of what is happening!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? These are from completely different budgets so it is difficult to see how one correlates to the other .

Chris Gayling had no option but to make contingency plans for a no deal Brexit .

The government are already collecting a lot more in revenues for landlords. The As a which was a standard 10 % relief on fixtures and fittings has been withdrawn and tax relief on interest will be removed completely by 2021

I think some would call it a pr exercise, others vote rigging, and possibly even a cover up to divert attention away from a government that is so absolutely inept and has no regard for parliament. Do you honestly believe that the government is not in the middle of a good will pr exercise because they are in such deep shit? You really must be completely blinkered to the reality of. what is happening! "
There is no legal requirement to remove cladding. All the government are doing is encouraging landlords to remove it. Public authorities have already received grants to remove there's . Are you saying that you would prefer tenants to pay for the removal.

It is an open and transparent offer .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? These are from completely different budgets so it is difficult to see how one correlates to the other .

Chris Gayling had no option but to make contingency plans for a no deal Brexit .

The government are already collecting a lot more in revenues for landlords. The As a which was a standard 10 % relief on fixtures and fittings has been withdrawn and tax relief on interest will be removed completely by 2021

I think some would call it a pr exercise, others vote rigging, and possibly even a cover up to divert attention away from a government that is so absolutely inept and has no regard for parliament. Do you honestly believe that the government is not in the middle of a good will pr exercise because they are in such deep shit? You really must be completely blinkered to the reality of what is happening! "

It appears that many of these private dwellings do have the legal obligation on the tenant to pay. Whether right or wrong, it does form part of the lease agreement.

Obviously many tenants don't have the large sums needed, and it's further compounded by some having freehold and leasehold in the same block.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"It is standard Tory ideology - privatise the profit and nationalise the risk.

You beat me to the answer Sara.

Can't have Tory slumlords or Russian party contributors paying when the 'magic money tree' can be given a good shake. (Costs plus extra to fund more tax cuts for Tory contributors to be recovered out of the NHS and DSS welfare budgets.)"
What a load of crap it is totally different finaning

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"What a load of crap it is totally different finaning"

Oh. I did not know that, being I thought all government spending came from the public purse. But I bow to your superior knowledge. Now having admitted my mistake can you tell us all where this different financing comes from? Is it the 'magic money tree' you tories go on about or have you a hidden well or stream of cash? and can we all have a little out of it or is it only used to help the tories (like when it was raided to buy DUP votes) and their rich foreign mates.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

Can’t see £200 million being anywhere near enough to fund what is needed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? "
A condition of the grant to which you refer is that landlords must take reasonable steps to recover the costs .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? A condition of the grant to which you refer is that landlords must take reasonable steps to recover the costs ."

Perhaps the tenants would have been better off taking out a class action against the manufacturers of the cladding or the specifiers or the architects? The point being that the circumstances have not substantially changed in the last year so the only reason this grant (which is inadequate for the work required btw) is being made is to try and make the tory party look good after the drubbing it received in the local elections - the same goes for the increased Nhs funding! Its all about the timing not the content

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People that have cladding on their house are wankers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"People that have cladding on their house are wankers. "

Thanks for that contribution

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it any coincidence that the government are stumping up £200 million to help tenants of privately owned properties to have their dangerous cladding removed at this time? Is there any connection between this, the local elections and forthcoming european elections I wonder? Perhaps if Chris Grayling had not wasted at least £80 million of public money on brexit ferries and the subsequent eurotunnel court case this could have been agreed to three years ago rather than causing stress and anxiety to the general public? A condition of the grant to which you refer is that landlords must take reasonable steps to recover the costs .

Perhaps the tenants would have been better off taking out a class action against the manufacturers of the cladding or the specifiers or the architects? The point being that the circumstances have not substantially changed in the last year so the only reason this grant (which is inadequate for the work required btw) is being made is to try and make the tory party look good after the drubbing it received in the local elections - the same goes for the increased Nhs funding! Its all about the timing not the content "

The private owners of any hi rise building should pay for the cladding removal especially if they agreed the cladding specification,or the principal contractor.

Just to be clear the problem was the rain screen facade was not fire rated and as we saw went inferno in seconds

Also no fire breaks had been installed so allowed a chimney type affect.

The PIR cladding behind actually carried out it's fire resistant duty so to speak,it charred and did not go on fire which is what it is meant to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

From having seen Theresa May's and the government's response after the fire until now, this action shrieks of it being done for PR purposes, rather than compassion and humanitarian reasons.

As others note, with austerity measures forced to continue for a few more years for many, it's likely that the less well-off in society will be made to feel deeper cuts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

My house is made of wood ....van i have some money please

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"My house is made of wood ....van i have some money please"

If the fucker who built it used a highly flammable substance as a preservative then I would say "yes". Context is everything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel sorry for lease holders who live in blocs of flats that are not maintained by the landlords (freeholders). I’ve seen it a lot in downtown accommodation in Brighton. It doesn’t matter how much they spend doing up their property, the price will be affected by the state of the exterior.

So why is it that privately owned high rise buildings are to be made safe at the expense of the tax payer? Someone owns these buildings, and should be paying for it out of the ground rent that is charged to tenants and lease holders alike.

£2000000 is enough to find shelter for a lot of homeless people for some time. In fact there are many more deserving things that could have been done with it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top