More uselessness from DBC

[Jarndyce]

3 minutes ago, BriT said:

Have you not got the guts to snipe directly? 

Yes.   But you know the old saying: never argue with a drunk or an idiot.

On that basis, I’m putting you on ignore for a bit - life’s too short to waste time “sniping” at a one-track mind.   Bye for now.

[BriT]

2 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Yes.   But you know the old saying: never argue with a drunk or an idiot.

I’m guessing you know a lot about drunks with your nasty bitter passive aggressive sniping. 

[Banker]

8 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Yes.   But you know the old saying: never argue with a drunk or an idiot.

On that basis, I’m putting you on ignore for a bit - life’s too short to waste time “sniping” at a one-track mind.   Bye for now.

It’s as if he’s in a tag team with the other notorious DBC hater offshore Manc although not sure if they’re different people 😂

[Declan]

19 minutes ago, BriT said:

Why do you think that relates to your previous post? You’re clearly just pathetic. 

Grow up.

[Roxanne]

 

31 minutes ago, BriT said:

Just pointing out that the disputed statement above was based on facts from the court list.

It wasn't disputed, just that it was inaccurate. The court list neither confirms nor denies.

[BriT]

5 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It wasn't disputed, just that it was inaccurate. The court list neither confirms nor denies.

Oh it’s you answering me now that the other one has apparently blocked me 😂

The Court list is a statement of fact that DBC is pursuing 9 possession orders through the courts in the next 3 months. The tenants are even named. 

[Roxanne]

3 minutes ago, BriT said:

Oh it’s you answering me now that the other one has apparently blocked me 😂

The Court list is a statement of fact that DBC is pursuing 9 possession orders through the courts in the next 3 months. The tenants are even named. 

Yes, but there might be more! 😂

[hissingsid]

So where do these tenants go especially if they have children ?    They will probably be placed in a private rental paid for by Social Security , this is what I have been told it may be incorrect information but there is a particular block of apartments in Douglas that houses a lot of DHSS clients.     So what is gained in the long run ?   A tough one to solve.

[english zloty]

3 hours ago, Roxanne said:

Completely agree. 60k sounds a lot and @Amadeus is very probably correct when he says the headline stating such is clickbait. But when you read the report and discover that, 

then the 60k is put into a bit of perspective.

People are struggling and they will struggle more as prices increase. There are going to be rent arrears. DBC are being up front about it and its a shame that IOM newspapers would choose to make it into a story designed to inflame views - but again - probably not that unexpected.

i think not that upfront - but i suspect because the Councillors' aren't asking the right question - which would be 'what is the total in arrears and across how many tenancies?' 

[Dirty Buggane]

1 hour ago, Amadeus said:

I cant comment on individual cases but I think you know yourself that your statement might not be accurate. Also, we have over 2300 properties. Again, bigger picture. 

DBC have Zero properties, they are a management company for the IOM Government.

[Mistercee]

2 hours ago, Amadeus said:

I cant comment on individual cases but I think you know yourself that your statement might not be accurate. Also, we have over 2300 properties. Again, bigger picture. 

I presume it is my post you are referring to when asserting a statement might not be accurate - if so, for the record kindly prove that my statement to the effect that there are currently 9 cases before the Courts is in any way inaccurate.   

Your starting point is here:

civil.pdf (courts.im)

[Amadeus]

59 minutes ago, english zloty said:

i think not that upfront - but i suspect because the Councillors' aren't asking the right question - which would be 'what is the total in arrears and across how many tenancies?' 

We have that information in committee but it’s not public. 

[Amadeus]

2 minutes ago, Mistercee said:

I presume it is my post you are referring to when asserting a statement might not be accurate - if so, for the record kindly prove that my statement to the effect that there are currently 9 cases before the Courts is in any way inaccurate.   

Your starting point is here:

civil.pdf (courts.im)

You’re accusing DBC of not managing the portfolio well. I beg to differ and I have the inside view. I don’t have to prove anything to you. That’s all. 

[P.K.]

26 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

We have that information in committee but it’s not public. 

Why not?

[Mistercee]

37 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

You’re accusing DBC of not managing the portfolio well. I beg to differ and I have the inside view. I don’t have to prove anything to you. That’s all. 

I did not accuse DBC of anything - I merely questioned whether the 9 cases before the Court reflect a well managed portfolio given that, in my experience, possession cases by Local Authorities and Government in the Courts are usually the tip of a very big iceberg. 

Possession cases in the Manx Courts are a nightmare procedurally and there appears to be a number of hurdles for a claimant to actually get a Possession Order. There is one claim by a Local Authority that has been shown in the listings for nearly 2 years.