16 Ship Street - What's that house all about?

[Lord Bracknell]

To have a local council "reposess" a place by redecorating and installing people in need of housing, before charging the owner, is completely different and I would be suprised if even Brighton Council could make that stick in Brunswick Square.....

If an owner of a property in Brunswick Square refused to comply with the repainting obligations, the Council would take legal action that could extend as far as obtaining possession of the property. They can "make it stick" because the law says they can.

Whilst a landlord would "create" a slum to then regenerate and then take profit, the best money a council could spend is to ignore the area and focus on regenerating another, leave him or her to their own stupid game...

Even if the property is in the middle of a historic conservation area? Like Ship Street?

I'm not sure why we've mixed these two issues in this thread - the cost of repainting periodically is spelt out on purchase - you like it you buy, you don't then you walk away...people wouldn't look at those places if they didn't like the colour, me I don't like the colour but I appreciate the restriciton...

The reason the two issues are connected is that they both take us into a realm where the community - acting through an elected council - can, IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, quite reasonably take action against an individual property owner. The fact that such action is very rare doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is always unreasonable.

In my view, Councils only step in and take repossession in circumstances where this has genuine community support and the property owner is without scruples.

Incidentally ... I never got the impression that Hoogstraten was creating slums "with a view to regenerating an area".

 

[Storer68]

Because it is mine, I paid for it and I shall dictate what happens to it (within reason). I didn't buy it to allow someone else to bodge it up and stick whomever they like in it....

But its not, becasue you haven't paid for it. It's the asset of the lender until the loan is paid off.........

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Pics?

 

[csider]

if it is the house a door or two up from the dentist by the alleyway...it is owned, or maybe rented by an antique dealer. black fella who drives round in quite an old black merc estate.

 

[Slowhand]

But its not, becasue you haven't paid for it. It's the asset of the lender until the loan is paid off.........

Wrong, it belongs to you.

The loan may be secured on the property but that still makes it yours. You just happen to owe a lot of money.

 

[tedebear]

If an owner of a property in Brunswick Square refused to comply with the repainting obligations, the Council would take legal action that could extend as far as obtaining possession of the property. They can "make it stick" because the law says they can.

Agreed but that is a covenant which you know about when you purchase it. So if you don't keep up your end of the bargain the council should insist and send the bill - I have no argue with that at all - a completely separate issue.

Even if the property is in the middle of a historic conservation area? Like Ship Street?

Yes.

The reason the two issues are connected is that they both take us into a realm where the community - acting through an elected council - can, IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, quite reasonably take action against an individual property owner. The fact that such action is very rare doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is always unreasonable.

In my view, Councils only step in and take repossession in circumstances where this has genuine community support and the property owner is without scruples.

Incidentally ... I never got the impression that Hoogstraten was creating slums "with a view to regenerating an area".

Extreme circumstances is the main point here. Each case on its own merits as well. In my view community and council rarely see eye to eye on all issues, so unfounded intervention which leads to poor execution is to be avoided at all costs.