Need help finding a firm with a legal aid franchise in housing work

[the-smiths]

What is the cause of the damp? Structural failure? how is cavity injection likely to do anything other than make this worse?

Cavity insulation would help if the problem was condensation - though may not cure it

[MrJohnnyB]

But if its penetrative damp it would make it significantly worse. Furthermore, filling the cavity with foam may have a detrimental impact and make penetrative damp appear if it wasn't there before. The purpose of a cavity is to allow water to run down the interior face of the external brickwork. If you fill it with foam this cannot happen. Both bricks and blocks are semi permeable.

When a house is built the only contact between the external wall leafs are wall ties. These are designed to prevent the connection of water between the external wall and the internal wall with bends to create drips which will then vent at the bottom of the cavity or at a cavity closer.

[the-smiths]

I agree - but just pointing out it may not be structural, only condensation - I'm also aware that EHO should know that cavity fill may make structural defects worse - but may improve condensation - and they are the ones that have seen it.

[mk1fan]

why should we leave,

I note your Rent Act tenants which changes things but.......

Ultimately, if you are that concerned about the dangerous state of the property and the LL refuses to act, then why stay in occupation? Stubborness? There are many, many more good landlords with good properties in the market than bad ones.

The regularity that a tenant posts on here about how terrible, dangerous horrible their rented property is and how it's making them ill or ruining their possessions and yet they flatly refuse to move.

One of the reasons why bad landlords get away with being bad landlords is that tenants stay in these poor properties thinking they can 'change the LLs ways'.

You state that the property has been the in disrepair for many years and yes, your LL should be fixing it but they aren't.

If your only option is to remain in the property (which I don't think is the case) then you have only a few limited options;
1. to be badgering EH continuously to act against the LL.
2. to carryout works yourself.
3. to accept it and live with it.

Asbestos is a nasty product but actually very easy and straight forward to deal with. Wear a dustmask and a paper all-in-one romper suit. Wetting the asbestos down and keeping it wet during removeal will stop it crumbling into dust (which is the danger bit). Double bag it (with the dust masks and romper suits) and clearly mark it asbestos and take it to your local tip. Your council will have a tip that will take domestic asbestos waste.

You could apply and get the cavities filled for £100 by your energy supplier. You may even get this waived if you're on benefits. You may have to be a bit economical with the truth regarding ownership but the whole reason for the subsidised scheme is to help people like you out so no harm no foul as far as I'm concerned.

I know that you shouldn't have to do these things but if you're determined to stay put and no one else is helping and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the, no wait I've gone off track there.

All I'm saying is that you should take a step back and look at things less personally. Is your idea of home really a damp, mouldy, asbestos ridden building?

[westminster]

There is a procedure, established by case law (Lee-Parker v- Izzet [1971] 1 WLR 1688) whereby a T may carry out repairs and deduct the cost from the rent.

The procedure must be strictly followed, and copies of all correspondence etc carefully kept, otherwise you may face eviction for unpaid rent.

You should also be 100% certain that the repairs are the LL's liability (I dimly recall a thread on here about a Rent Act T who initially had, I think, a longer lease, and it made him liable for repairs).

For further details of the procedure, see http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad..._doing_repairs

[jta]

Ultimately, if you are that concerned about the dangerous state of the property and the LL refuses to act, then why stay in occupation? Stubborness? There are many, many more good landlords with good properties in the market than bad ones.

There are no 'rent act' tenants that are voluntarily going to give up their low rent for another property costing 3-4 times as much as they are paying, I had to wait until mine died before I had mine back after buying it, I was patient, but frustrated.

[mk1fan]

I agree that low rent is a consideration but not the only one. True, I'm positive that no one in their right mind would move to a property in similar condition and pay 4x the rent.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here is a property the OP considers to be in a hazardous state and a LL who is refusing to act (assuming it's his responsibility). When all is considered - money, health and well being - is it the right decision to stay in residence? Afterall, I could offer rotten meat very cheaply. It doesn't mean it's the right decision to buy it and eat it.

I feel for the OP, hence my advice to step back and take an un-emotional view on matters.

[palmer11]

I note your Rent Act tenants which changes things but.......

Ultimately, if you are that concerned about the dangerous state of the property and the LL refuses to act, then why stay in occupation? Stubborness? There are many, many more good landlords with good properties in the market than bad ones.

The regularity that a tenant posts on here about how terrible, dangerous horrible their rented property is and how it's making them ill or ruining their possessions and yet they flatly refuse to move.

One of the reasons why bad landlords get away with being bad landlords is that tenants stay in these poor properties thinking they can 'change the LLs ways'.

You state that the property has been the in disrepair for many years and yes, your LL should be fixing it but they aren't.

If your only option is to remain in the property (which I don't think is the case) then you have only a few limited options;
1. to be badgering EH continuously to act against the LL.
2. to carryout works yourself.
3. to accept it and live with it.

Asbestos is a nasty product but actually very easy and straight forward to deal with. Wear a dustmask and a paper all-in-one romper suit. Wetting the asbestos down and keeping it wet during removeal will stop it crumbling into dust (which is the danger bit). Double bag it (with the dust masks and romper suits) and clearly mark it asbestos and take it to your local tip. Your council will have a tip that will take domestic asbestos waste.

You could apply and get the cavities filled for £100 by your energy supplier. You may even get this waived if you're on benefits. You may have to be a bit economical with the truth regarding ownership but the whole reason for the subsidised scheme is to help people like you out so no harm no foul as far as I'm concerned.

I know that you shouldn't have to do these things but if you're determined to stay put and no one else is helping and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the, no wait I've gone off track there.

All I'm saying is that you should take a step back and look at things less personally. Is your idea of home really a damp, mouldy, asbestos ridden building?

Unbelievable posting by mk1fan. Don't know what to say really.

[westminster]

Unbelievable posting by mk1fan. Don't know what to say really.

And what about my comments in post #15?

Personally, I thought the information I gave was potentially rather helpful.

[palmer11]

And what about my comments in post #15?

Personally, I thought the information I gave was potentially rather helpful.

Westminster, thank you once again for the good advice.
We were hoping a chatter here might give us the actual name of a firm they have previously used that has a good understanding of Housing and Rent Act stuff.