x

andre trepel

822 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

andre's Recent Activity

Like with modern technology 5g if we are going to know every car movement in the world at the press of a button, we should know every tenant's movement in the PRS from the year dot. In Japan, you get a Gold driving licence (no points) after 10 years. A tenant could build a good renting record with incentives. There has got to be incentives for both LL and tenants to buy in to the scheme ( lower insurance premium etc). Tenants' reporting could be simplified, made less expensive and completely accurate.

From: andre trepel 07 May 2019 16:33 PM

You are right and I am wrong.

From: andre trepel 07 May 2019 15:06 PM

Put money on Southwark thinking I'm H in Line of Duty

From: andre trepel 07 May 2019 10:42 AM

sorry guys that should "you can't give a bad reference"

From: andre trepel 07 May 2019 10:05 AM

What no landlord wants is tenants who take the Michael. Why not find a bullet proof system that both landlords and tenants (even couples/family) exchange a card similar to an id card and they receive their ast, registered with a DPS number. The tenant pays the admin cost.The tenant moving on is required to give the registeredcopy of his last ast to a future LL and does not get his card until he has clearance from his past landlord. Alternatively, the tenant's card could pass between LLs and is never handed back to a tenant It needs Councils to mandate, if they are taking on an evicted tenant, that a tenant has a debt clearance plan so that he does not toffee nose his LL If landlords are going to eventually be completely registered and rated, what is wrong with tenants being rated from gold to zero. The credit card providers would latch on to this pretty quickly. Obviously you can't give a back reference but nobody has said you can't give a rating or a score.

From: andre trepel 07 May 2019 10:03 AM

whoops. I knew it you are under cover for Southwark!! All the buildings are for the next generations albeit. Goodnight Paul and thank you - watching Man City & Leicester

From: andre trepel 06 May 2019 20:06 PM

From having an average of 25 tenants at LBS, I have 3 now having asked Southwark what they want me to do with the building in planning terms. I am past my sell by date I know and ultimately Southwark want me gone. Just do a google search of London Bridge Street My building is my legacy for my children and grandchildren and I am not going anywhere except feet first. I have tenants at other properties who have been with me 20 years Sorry I do put my tenants first. I have given grants for the children's further education as for my grandchildren. Stay with renting Paul it is not just the money but it helps somebody. Article 8 Ehcr – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

From: andre trepel 06 May 2019 19:45 PM

Sound advice. Paul Totally agree if a Council wants to follow their own HMO standards. From 2015, planning applications have been refused. One would expect a Planning case officer assigned to an application to decide it on its merits not refer it to a Senior Enforcement Officer who can foresee a hefty POCA payout, See Michael's point above on conflict. Strangely the same Enforcement Officer Salah Kettani in my original case was found by the judge in Knightland to be " confused and confusing". His enforcement notice gave me 21 units to be returned back to three flats - you do the maths. I had 5 flats. The judge said of Kettani that he interfered with the planning process :- an abuse of process to get POCA. Your comments above are exactly how a judge would view my case. It would have gone nowhere referring to their planning refusals, a planning officer asking me for a bribe in 2000 which was reported to 2 councilors and the knowledge that the Shard in my road was given planning by a dodgy 4 to 3. With all my properties in Southwark, I have had to go to appeal. In the end, I just gave all the rent I had received and one is not allowed to deduct any expenditure from the gross amount which included council tax to Southwark - double bubble. I want closure and at 74, the clock is against me. "Cramped bedsits" poetic licence or libel. See what Carter Ruck think.

From: andre trepel 06 May 2019 18:52 PM

Thanks Paul I can take the fine just for not obeying the Enforcement notice twice and keeping long standing tenants in their homes for up to 12 years (average 4). My mistake was to put in en suite shower rooms and 400mm kitchenette. Any tenant could buy a two electric hob and stick in their bedsit/room from argos. Would they also buy a fire blanket and extinguisher? The room sizes were those approved in planning applications in 1993 with the additions above.

From: andre trepel 06 May 2019 17:07 PM

Michael Foley is spot on the money. APP/A5840/W/18/3199179 Southwark Council's statement "The Council has caused confusion though for which it apologises because at the same time it has complained that bedrooms are undersized" Notwithstanding the large number of bedrooms in the flat, the bedroom sizes, the bedroom sizes as a whole equate to double bedroom size" The Planning Inspector allowed the appeal. She noted in her decision that the rooms all complied with Southwark BC's HMO standards in relation to room sizes. The communal kitchen also complied. She could find no conflict with policy 3.5 of the London Plan, Strategic Policies 7 and 13 of the Southwark Core Strategy 2011 and Policies 3.2, 3.11 and 4.2 of the Southwark Plan 2007, which Southwark BC had relied upon when refusing the application. She also found that it complied with the National Planning Policy Framework and that it would not conflict with guidance within the Residential Design SPD and the HMO Standards. I have had tenants living at this property for as long as 12 years - no complaints or section 21. All wrote to Southwark Planning with the applications which were refused hence the appeal. Were their views taken into consideration? I had 5 flats not 3 see Southwark Optimised Planning Archive p74 before, weary of not knowing how many residents as opposed to tenants I had in each I took the decision to add an en suite shower room and kitchenette. This made them self-contained. It is strange that the draft London Plan 2017 at 4.18.6 recommends "The private units should be appropriately sized to be comfortable and functional for a tenant’s needs and may include facilities such as en-suite bathrooms and kitchenettes limited cooking facilities. There are currently no minimum space standards for these units" I was born in IOW after my French commando father was killed on V2 mission. My widow mother brought me up in rented Key flats for most of life. I believe I put the welfare and dignity of my tenants above my own. Southwark saw very deep pockets, refused numerous planning applications because of the lure of POCA andre@trepel.co.uk

From: andre trepel 06 May 2019 15:13 PM

Breaking News