Lancashire TelegraphEast Lancs landlord brands areas of Burnley ‘lawless’ after thefts (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

East Lancs landlord brands areas of Burnley ‘lawless’ after thefts

Lancashire Telegraph: East Lancs landlord brands areas of Burnley ‘lawless’ after thefts East Lancs landlord brands areas of Burnley ‘lawless’ after thefts

A LANDLORD is fighting a costly battle against thieves who keep ripping out metal and flag stones from his homes across Burnley and Pendle.

Copper pipes and electrical cables have also been stolen from 10 homes being renovated by Robert Cainer.

He branded some areas of Burnley ‘lawless’ as he was losing ‘thousands and thousands of pounds’ in repairs and lost rent and Burnley Council said it was up to landlords to get responsible tenants to live in them. And police said empty homes were easy targets for scrap metal thieves.

But Mr Cainer has appealed for other landlords to come forward to put pressure on the councils and police to tackle the issues.

Mr Cainer, who met with Pendle Council officials to discuss problems at his properties in Brierfield, said: “We’ve got properties all over the country but I’ve never known anything like the problems we have up here.

“It is, without a doubt, the worst area we have to deal with. It’s verging on lawlessness up here. We have houses in Burnley Wood that were nearly finished and now they’re being repaired again because they have been broken into recently.

“At the moment we have nine houses boarded up. I dread driving down the M65 most days.

“Each time a house is broken into, I’m losing around £2,000 replacing stolen stuff and £4,000 to £5,000 a year in lost rent.”

Mr Cainer, of Manchester-based ER Properties, said he planned to set up a pressure group to ensure empty properties are given better protection.

He said: “Not only are crime and vandalism clearly on the rise, but also the effect that this is having on communities is damaging the desire of outside developers and entrepreneurs to invest within the area.

“The existing landlord base is subjected to a crazy policy which allows the local authorities on the one hand to fail abjectly in controlling crime and vandalism to properties, while on the other hand charge empty property rates (for long-term unnoccupied properties) at 150 per cent of the usual tariff.

“Such madness results in an outflow of investment and the local authorities should be condemned for not stamping down heavily on the situation before it worsens further, and in addition should be creating a culture of inward investment from local businesses, rather than creating policies which make businesses run from the area.”

A Burnley Council spokesman said: “Burnley Council operates an empty homes loan scheme which supports private landlords by helping fund work to bring empty houses in disrepair back into use.

“Empty homes can attract anti-social behaviour and it’s in the interest of landlords and the surrounding communities to get responsible tenants into them.”

Pendle Council said it was ‘working hard’ with police to tackle anti-social behaviour and that its officers regularly patrolled problem areas.

Philip Mousdale, Pendle Council’s deputy chief executive, said: “We work with owners of empty properties to help them bring them back into use.

“Where properties are left unoccupied we advise landlords on how best to secure their backyards to try and avoid rubbish being dumped there.

“If there are cases of fly-tipping, with the permission of landlords, we’ll look for evidence of who’s responsible and take up the case on their behalf.”

Lancashire police said they were ‘committed’ to catching those who steal and trade stolen goods.

A spokesman said: “Empty premises can be easy targets for scrap metal, copper, radiators and boilers, as well as coping stone and we want to reassure the public that we are taking action against those responsible for this type of crime and we will continue to pursue burglars and bring them to justice.”

Mr Cainer urged landlords with similar problems to contact him at egrrentals@gmail.com.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:00am Sat 12 Apr 14

Bluelizzy says...

That is why those properties were cheap in the first place. They are in bandit country. Move them to a nicer area and bulk landlords would not want to pay the price.
That is why those properties were cheap in the first place. They are in bandit country. Move them to a nicer area and bulk landlords would not want to pay the price. Bluelizzy
  • Score: 22

9:25am Sat 12 Apr 14

TONY WALES says...

Anybody who thinks about improving empty property in East Lancahire should have their heads examined.
Look at the crime figures, and poorly maintained run down property in the area.
Fifty years ago the area was a good place to live with decent people and the people had more respect for other people.
Now you have criminals and drug users who have no values and no respect for anybody.
It's hard on poor hard working families who need houses, and their are plenty still left, but they will be the one's who suffer with no homes to rent.
My advice is to buy property in area's of the country with low crime figures, and look at the standard of the existing property.
Maybe pay more for it, but you will able to get a higher rent
Anybody who thinks about improving empty property in East Lancahire should have their heads examined. Look at the crime figures, and poorly maintained run down property in the area. Fifty years ago the area was a good place to live with decent people and the people had more respect for other people. Now you have criminals and drug users who have no values and no respect for anybody. It's hard on poor hard working families who need houses, and their are plenty still left, but they will be the one's who suffer with no homes to rent. My advice is to buy property in area's of the country with low crime figures, and look at the standard of the existing property. Maybe pay more for it, but you will able to get a higher rent TONY WALES
  • Score: 28

9:26am Sat 12 Apr 14

bow1974 says...

Sorry that's the price you pay being a landlord the houses are cheap for one reason only nobody respectable wants to live in them.
Sorry that's the price you pay being a landlord the houses are cheap for one reason only nobody respectable wants to live in them. bow1974
  • Score: 18

9:56am Sat 12 Apr 14

phil kernot says...

It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;)
It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;) phil kernot
  • Score: 9

10:14am Sat 12 Apr 14

Colneclaret says...

phil kernot wrote:
It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;)
Where is it you live ?
[quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;)[/p][/quote]Where is it you live ? Colneclaret
  • Score: 10

10:32am Sat 12 Apr 14

befuzzled says...

Here's a novel idea... If the properties are nearly complete and have all mod cons like electricity... Why not install one of them new fandangled contraptions called a burglar alarm??? Surely the cost of installation and paying the electricity bill until tenants move in outweighs the cost of repairs??? Or is that too sensible a notion... I know a lot of people don't pay attention to burglar alarms sounding these days, but its still enough to put off the burglars entering and ripping the guts out of the property... Just a thought. Ultimately, ensuring the security of your properties is no one else responsibility except yours.
Here's a novel idea... If the properties are nearly complete and have all mod cons like electricity... Why not install one of them new fandangled contraptions called a burglar alarm??? Surely the cost of installation and paying the electricity bill until tenants move in outweighs the cost of repairs??? Or is that too sensible a notion... I know a lot of people don't pay attention to burglar alarms sounding these days, but its still enough to put off the burglars entering and ripping the guts out of the property... Just a thought. Ultimately, ensuring the security of your properties is no one else responsibility except yours. befuzzled
  • Score: 18

10:58am Sat 12 Apr 14

Interocitor says...

There is no excuse for criminality. However, far too many property speculators jumped on the bandwagon and thought they were in for easy pickings when they could buy a two bedroom terrace for 20K in a rundown area and rent it out to any old scumbag and watch the money roll in.

Many of these buy-to-let absent landlords only made matters worse by filling up their 'investments' with anti-social tenants.

If I was involved in this business I would insist on references from previous landlords etc. I would also interview people before handing over the keys. I certainly wouldn't be living hundreds of miles away in the naive belief that I could just sit back and watch the money roll in from the lettings agency.
There is no excuse for criminality. However, far too many property speculators jumped on the bandwagon and thought they were in for easy pickings when they could buy a two bedroom terrace for 20K in a rundown area and rent it out to any old scumbag and watch the money roll in. Many of these buy-to-let absent landlords only made matters worse by filling up their 'investments' with anti-social tenants. If I was involved in this business I would insist on references from previous landlords etc. I would also interview people before handing over the keys. I certainly wouldn't be living hundreds of miles away in the naive belief that I could just sit back and watch the money roll in from the lettings agency. Interocitor
  • Score: 23

11:13am Sat 12 Apr 14

useyourhead says...

there are plenty of easy to install motion sensor alarms that will text a nominated mobile number, they could even remove them to be used on the next property so the outlay would be minimal. granted it may not stop them getting in but the damage and theft would be greatly minimised. As others have said, the owners are responsible for this and can't expect to simply let the cash flow their way, particularly if they choose to buy in bad areas. I have a little sympathy, but not much.
there are plenty of easy to install motion sensor alarms that will text a nominated mobile number, they could even remove them to be used on the next property so the outlay would be minimal. granted it may not stop them getting in but the damage and theft would be greatly minimised. As others have said, the owners are responsible for this and can't expect to simply let the cash flow their way, particularly if they choose to buy in bad areas. I have a little sympathy, but not much. useyourhead
  • Score: 15

12:25pm Sat 12 Apr 14

doomchanter says...

Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets.
Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay.
The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity.
Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job.
Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother.
At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior.
Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords.
High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings.
Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos.
Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on.
Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets. Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay. The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity. Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job. Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother. At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior. Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords. High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings. Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos. Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on. doomchanter
  • Score: 23

12:37pm Sat 12 Apr 14

phil kernot says...

Colneclaret wrote:
phil kernot wrote:
It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;)
Where is it you live ?
I live as a human being , but if were in a 3d dimension do with live at all :)
[quote][p][bold]Colneclaret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil kernot[/bold] wrote: It's not because the houses are cheap ,, it's because the people are ,,, welcome to burnley ,, I'd rather invest my money in making chocolate fire guards than houses over there ;)[/p][/quote]Where is it you live ?[/p][/quote]I live as a human being , but if were in a 3d dimension do with live at all :) phil kernot
  • Score: 2

2:37pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Excluded again says...

I can't be bothered securing my properties because it costs too much. The state should step in and pay for it instead.

Where does the state get its money? From taxing everyone else.

So, if you are a taxpayer, Mr Cainer wants you to subsidise his business. Form an orderly queue.
I can't be bothered securing my properties because it costs too much. The state should step in and pay for it instead. Where does the state get its money? From taxing everyone else. So, if you are a taxpayer, Mr Cainer wants you to subsidise his business. Form an orderly queue. Excluded again
  • Score: 7

4:00pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Steven Seagull says...

doomchanter wrote:
Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets.
Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay.
The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity.
Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job.
Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother.
At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior.
Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords.
High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings.
Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos.
Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on.
Bang on the money there doomchanter.
[quote][p][bold]doomchanter[/bold] wrote: Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets. Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay. The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity. Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job. Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother. At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior. Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords. High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings. Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos. Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on.[/p][/quote]Bang on the money there doomchanter. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 8

4:02pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Timefor says...

'course Excluded is correct when he says that, "a taxpayer, Mr Cainer wants you to subsidise his business". It's likely that this is what he wants from rents too ie another Housing Benefit subsidised business with no responsibility to contribute or help develop the local area. I ask you what sort of business model are these guys running on? Oh aye, I remember that supported by the main parties Sheesh!

Just wish that Councillors would seize the horns, develop letting agencies, introduce rent caps and build Council Houses.
'course Excluded is correct when he says that, "a taxpayer, Mr Cainer wants you to subsidise his business". It's likely that this is what he wants from rents too ie another Housing Benefit subsidised business with no responsibility to contribute or help develop the local area. I ask you what sort of business model are these guys running on? Oh aye, I remember that supported by the main parties Sheesh! Just wish that Councillors would seize the horns, develop letting agencies, introduce rent caps and build Council Houses. Timefor
  • Score: 15

7:18pm Sat 12 Apr 14

2 for 5p ridesagain says...

1. 2. 3. Aaaaaah poor landlord
1. 2. 3. Aaaaaah poor landlord 2 for 5p ridesagain
  • Score: 3

12:31am Sun 13 Apr 14

Doctor44 says...

A couple of properties in burnley that appeared on homes under the hammer had both got broken into and had the copper piping stolen.
A couple of properties in burnley that appeared on homes under the hammer had both got broken into and had the copper piping stolen. Doctor44
  • Score: 2

10:15am Sun 13 Apr 14

DoggydogNo1 says...

Modern day robin hoods some of these landlords but taking from the poor in these cases. The council dont monitor some landlords now and the places they rent out for over 120 quid a week due to them being on benefits and its easy money as we the tax payer dont mind! These places are no better then houses waiting to be knocked down so that slums can be built on them. Ok the crime is wrong, but you get wot you pay for and a bike will never be a rolls royce when your buying places for peanuts. Sell up and get out of town as some landlords want the cream without paying for the milk!
Modern day robin hoods some of these landlords but taking from the poor in these cases. The council dont monitor some landlords now and the places they rent out for over 120 quid a week due to them being on benefits and its easy money as we the tax payer dont mind! These places are no better then houses waiting to be knocked down so that slums can be built on them. Ok the crime is wrong, but you get wot you pay for and a bike will never be a rolls royce when your buying places for peanuts. Sell up and get out of town as some landlords want the cream without paying for the milk! DoggydogNo1
  • Score: 6

6:58pm Sun 13 Apr 14

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 says...

doomchanter wrote:
Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets.
Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay.
The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity.
Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job.
Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother.
At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior.
Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords.
High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings.
Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos.
Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on.
so very true,nobody gives a S--t about the man in the middle its all about tenants and councils never about the people who live next door to these skank tenants,,we in Nelson have a fool councillor who says the majority of tenants are happy with their landlords
[quote][p][bold]doomchanter[/bold] wrote: Another slum landlord expecting the taxpayer to line his pockets. Lets have this straight the tennants who are attracted to renting these properties are all on benefit which the taxpayer has to pay. The landlords dont give a F**K who lives there as long as their extortionate rents get paid and they dont care about the local comunity. Once upon a time you had to be working to rent from a private landlord, now they target those unwilling to get off their arses and find a job. Their rents are too high for working people to rent so the dont bother. At least people on council estates will eventualy get evicted for antisocial behavior. Many people who do own their properties around these streets have to put up with scumbags moving in and out, and cant sell their properties because of blight of slum landlords. High time that the whole issue of benefits paying for substandard housing was looked in to, they inflate the price of basicaly slum dwellings. Market forces would bring the price of these properties down to where they should be and working people will start to show an interest in buying, renting and moving back into these ghettos. Till then, tough luck, feel free to sell up and move on.[/p][/quote]so very true,nobody gives a S--t about the man in the middle its all about tenants and councils never about the people who live next door to these skank tenants,,we in Nelson have a fool councillor who says the majority of tenants are happy with their landlords ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123
  • Score: 1

7:28pm Sun 13 Apr 14

noddy57 says...

update the security on your properties that,s if you have security,,if not then you should have,there are many opportunists out there just looking for easy pickings,,
update the security on your properties that,s if you have security,,if not then you should have,there are many opportunists out there just looking for easy pickings,, noddy57
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree