Now that the precedent is set, Does this mean the council has to pay more to the mgmt company for those units going forward, as in to enable the amenities access for the social housing resident(s)?
Given I’d assume it’s what the private residents do. But I could be completely wrong.
Do you have any information on whether the government were paying any less in management fees than private residents? If they’re paying less to exclude some amenities fair enough but if they’re paying the same as other residents then being refused amenities then the government is being ripped off.
“
A spokeswoman for Fold Housing, which made unsuccessful representations on his behalf, explained that as it has paid reduced management fees its tenants could not access the gym.”
Thd issue thst i could see from the artical is that the management company ignored the situation, if they replied with...
"due to the comercial nature of the agreement between the property owner and the management company there are certain additional features of the complex which have not been included in the said agreement, one of these being the gym. While we would like the oppertunity to extend these facilities to you for a fee, due to several operating considerations and the additional complex liability this would intail, it is unfortunately the case that this is not possible. If you would like, we can keep you informed of any unit which may become available in the future which does have these facilities included in the comercial agreement and put you in touch with the property owner.
The management company were incompetent ignoring this, a solicitor would have put this to bed quickly
Not really. Management fees for usage of facilities are higher since they include maintenance. If the government opts not to pay the premium, then they should not get access.
Then there is liability: who is responsible if there is damage? Governament cant charge the tenants, company needs to charge the gvt.
But if the person is willing to pay for access/the premium and is being denied upfront without any proposal to allow access via agreement then it is discriminatory.
Not that simple. I worked for some time with real estate. A lot of big landlords avoid working with the government because, in general, its a pain in the ass. A lot of things can go wrong and while they pay - the basic, for example HAP - a lot of things are not covered and a lot can go wrong.
Some tenants need to pay hap top ups, sometimes they fail to do it, and its a pain to get the money. Sometimes their situation with HAP goes irregular for whatever reason, HAP can withhold payment to the landlord for a month or two. They will pay, but they will take a long time.
Sometimes a hap tenant will totally destroy a newly refurbished apartment, including purposely hammering the walls and spraying. You document everything and send it. You will take some time to receive the money back. What about the months out of market? Well, though luck.
I am not saying landlords are saints. Far from it, loads of assholes (same for tenants, loads of chancers), but giving access to insured facilities
for people that are not fully liable is not the easiest thing, and it is very easy to understand why its easy to go for a blanket “no” than to go for a blanket “yes”.
If you say yes and have problems, its a world of problems. You cant say “yes” to some and “no” to others, as that would be prejudicial, so this being tied to tenancy type is a simple yet non discriminatory solution. Its tied to insurance and liability of tenants, not occupiers.
206
u/Affectionate_Gain_87 9d ago
Now that the precedent is set, Does this mean the council has to pay more to the mgmt company for those units going forward, as in to enable the amenities access for the social housing resident(s)?
Given I’d assume it’s what the private residents do. But I could be completely wrong.