Renters rights

David49

“They're the landlords who grumble about paying out for anything and don't accept that there will be fair wear and tear.”

Fair wear and tear isn’t a problem a good clean touch up here and there, that’s fair after a few years, some tenants can trash the place after 6 months, you give them notice and they don’t pay anything for the 6 months it takes to get them out.

I bet most aren't like that.

PS. Fair wear and tear is going to require more than a touch up. For example, all my carpets are more than ten years old. I know that because they haven't been replaced since I've been here and they weren't new when I moved in. I keep them hoovered and shampoo them twice a year. However, to be honest, it wouldn't matter what I did to them now because the whole lot will need to be replaced when I leave - I could throw red wine all over them. There are some landlords who seem to think they should be in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.

The only reason people buy properties to let is to make money. Landlords are not into running charities. I don't have a lot of sympathy I'm afraid. The word landlord says it all for me.

A while ago I had the option to rent out my house. I engaged a housing trust to manage the letting as they were running as a charity. They found me a tenant pretty quickly.

The day before the agreement was to be signed someone turned up and gave me a cash offer for the house and I accepted it. I didn't want the responsibility of it all.

No going back, but there are times I think I should have become a landlord. I would be so much better off than I am now...

keepigquiet No one goes into any business if they are not going to make money from it. That applies to doctors and nurses, window cleaners and carpet cleaners. Doing something because you get an income from it doesn't mean that you do not do a proper job and charge a fair price.

Rogue tenants and rogue landlords get all the publicity, but for the majority, both landlords and tenants, both fulfill ther side of the agreement and the relationship works well, so no one ever talks about it.

When you considered renting your property out, letting it to a housing charity would not have put you on any kind of moral high ground above other landlords. Not everyone qualifies for social housing, but those who do not qualify for it have as much right to decent housing and a fair rent as those who do.

I remained a landlord for 5 years because it was a time of rising prices and I wanted to maximise the return on my capital investment. Once the market slowed down I sold the property and took my profit.

I do my best to be a conscientious landlord particularly in complying with all the safety checks which is why I use a managing agent to make sure my property is fully compliant and rectify any issues asap, I've spent at least a £2,000 both this year and last on plumbing issues and other problems, not a complaint I know that is a landlord's obligation.. I don't buy any of the excuses offered up by the Labour MP at all and it is such people who give landlords a bad name, of course he knew the state his properties were in. He says they were managed but who by, his mate?

When we first started letting the flat, it was a very different landscape, the tenant could pick and choose there were a surplus of flats and so to all intents and purposes, the responsibility of being a landlord didn't weigh so heavily on one's shoulders. Tenants could quit and move on with ease. Not the case anymore, George Osborne in his infinite wisdom when Chancellor put paid to that which saw plenty of landlords sell up. I didn't put the rent up with my tenants for the first three years of their tenancy and the flat is still £200 per month below the market price of the cheapest 2 bedromed flat in the area it's in. My tenants are from abroad, it is feasible that they may go back to their home country, if they do, I will be inclined to sell up. Simply because I just don't want to feel the increased responsibility for anyone else's welfare if I wasn't prepared to renew the lease, given rental stock has been drastically reduced, which wasn't the case a while ago when there were a glut of rental properties.

M0nica

keepigquiet No one goes into any business if they are not going to make money from it. That applies to doctors and nurses, window cleaners and carpet cleaners. Doing something because you get an income from it doesn't mean that you do not do a proper job and charge a fair price.

Rogue tenants and rogue landlords get all the publicity, but for the majority, both landlords and tenants, both fulfill ther side of the agreement and the relationship works well, so no one ever talks about it.

When you considered renting your property out, letting it to a housing charity would not have put you on any kind of moral high ground above other landlords. Not everyone qualifies for social housing, but those who do not qualify for it have as much right to decent housing and a fair rent as those who do.

I remained a landlord for 5 years because it was a time of rising prices and I wanted to maximise the return on my capital investment. Once the market slowed down I sold the property and took my profit.

I was a nurse for 20 years and never considered it a business. People provide services in the public sector- for which they get no bonuses or perks. You don't even get a decent pension anymore.
I didn't consider being a landlord a proper job at all. The rent would not have provided me enough to live on, so I had to 'work.' As I was being made redundant whilst having treatment for breast cancer I felt the best thing was to sell.
It wasn't moral high ground but sheer survival.
However, if I had have kept the property I could have sold it later for a much bigger profit.
That's why people invest in property. It could have provided me with a bigger pension but life is risk. My health became my wealth. Glad it worked out for you.

keepingquiet

The only reason people buy properties to let is to make money. Landlords are not into running charities. I don't have a lot of sympathy I'm afraid. The word landlord says it all for me.

A while ago I had the option to rent out my house. I engaged a housing trust to manage the letting as they were running as a charity. They found me a tenant pretty quickly.

The day before the agreement was to be signed someone turned up and gave me a cash offer for the house and I accepted it. I didn't want the responsibility of it all.

No going back, but there are times I think I should have become a landlord. I would be so much better off than I am now...

Of course they do, but, as you point out, it is a big responsibility.

Some people run it as a business, some were advised to invest in property during those years when there was a crisis in the money markets and future pensions were at risk. They may only rent out one property and there is not much profit to be made from that.

if no one bought and rented out property, where would all those who cannot buy live?

Lots of us started our adult life living away from home and renting property. Then their are students, people with peripatetic jobs, temporary foreign residents ets etc.
DH and I both spent several years renting property, severally and together, so did AC and many friends. Social Housing cannot provide for every housing need, there is a need for well=regilated private renting sector.

Be glad of those people who do decide to invest in the private rented sector or end renting out property more by accident than design. We could not manage without them.

Now who's taking the moral high ground?
Of course there is a need for private rentals, but I don't know many people who would choose to rent if they could afford a mortgage. I think that's where the difference lies.
I was lucky to be of a generation that could get mortgages- but we had to save for a year and my husband take two jobs.
We bought a house but had no carpets and a few items of second hand furniture when we moved in.
We had lived in a privately rented flat where the mould was so bad it damaged my lungs for life.
Not all in the garden was rosy then and it certainly isn't now.
People need to get real.

We started in a flat with a shared bathroom and when we bought our first hosue also bought or had donated most of its contents second hand. We still have som of that furniture or we have replaced it with better second hand furniture.

I do not know anyone of our generation (late 60s-early70s) who didn't do that. But things dont change, my children setting up home in the 90s did much the same. DD prided herself on furnishing a 2 bedroomed flat for less than £500 and for several years when we visited our god daugter she had a very nice plastic garden set in her dining room, until she could afford proper furniture.

If lots of rental properties came on the market, the sudden surge of stock, might well bring down the cost of an entry level property.

M0nica

keepigquiet No one goes into any business if they are not going to make money from it. That applies to doctors and nurses, window cleaners and carpet cleaners. Doing something because you get an income from it doesn't mean that you do not do a proper job and charge a fair price.

Rogue tenants and rogue landlords get all the publicity, but for the majority, both landlords and tenants, both fulfill ther side of the agreement and the relationship works well, so no one ever talks about it.

When you considered renting your property out, letting it to a housing charity would not have put you on any kind of moral high ground above other landlords. Not everyone qualifies for social housing, but those who do not qualify for it have as much right to decent housing and a fair rent as those who do.

I remained a landlord for 5 years because it was a time of rising prices and I wanted to maximise the return on my capital investment. Once the market slowed down I sold the property and took my profit.

I think we could see a bigger role for housing charities in the future. It's not really an issue of taking the moral higher ground. Housing charities take responsibility and pay the owner a fair income, which gives the owner a profit (but not an excessive one). The charity itself makes a profit, but rather than having shareholders, the charity then ploughs any "profit" back into buying more housing and maintaining its existing stock.

The advantages for the overall housing market are that the owners are investing their own capital, but don't have the responsibility of letting, while still making a profit. For tenants, the landlords (housing charities) have to stick to the law, so are likely to be professional and rents will tend to be lower.

What I find difficult to reconcile is when landlords say they 'have to' put up rents because mortgage rates have risen. They make profit from the rent, and from any rise in the value of the property. Why should the tenant also pay the mortgage?

Doodledog Normal business practise is to put prices up when costs go up. Mortgages are a business cost. I see no reason why someone who earns a living by running a business owning and letting out property, should be expected to run the business any differently to someone who runs a window cleaning, building or manufacturing business.

M0nica

Doodledog Normal business practise is to put prices up when costs go up. Mortgages are a business cost. I see no reason why someone who earns a living by running a business owning and letting out property, should be expected to run the business any differently to someone who runs a window cleaning, building or manufacturing business.

It seems logical.
We've noticed the price of so many services and goods rise and the commodities needed to produce these goods have risen extremely rapidly.

Mortgage rates do fluctuate so should rents follow that trend or not, bearing in mind that the cost of maintenance of property has risen quite drastically recently.

M0nica

Doodledog Normal business practise is to put prices up when costs go up. Mortgages are a business cost. I see no reason why someone who earns a living by running a business owning and letting out property, should be expected to run the business any differently to someone who runs a window cleaning, building or manufacturing business.

Because the costs of a business don't usually include passing on the price of paying for the set up to the customer. If you buy a shop you charge for the goods, not the building and the shopfitting. Yes, you have to factor in staff costs and things like heating and lighting, but if you expect your customers to fund your investment in the premises by paying more for your wares they will go elsewhere.

The sad thing is that living costs are essential, so people are being forced to pay for others' investments before they can spend on themselves, resulting in some people doing without fairly basic things in order to allow others to prosper.

I really hope the government can redress that balance.

The problem of shortage of housing has been greatly exacerbated since George Osborne's time as Chancellor, I know this from my experiences as a landlord, prior to that when tenant/s gave notice, there would sometimes be a wait between changeovers, maybe a couple of months before the flat was let again. Tenants could move on easily.. All that's gone out the window, the shortages are now dire and rents have risen exponentially.

I feel so angry with bad landlords, more often than not they are the ones with multiple properties who don't give a damn about their tenants and who are only interested in their returns. Yes! I'm talking about you Labour MP for Ilford.

My son, when at university had such a landlord who'd have taken anyone's breath away with his audacity for law breaking.
Consider this scenario, four 2nd year students, rent a standard 3 bedroomed house comprising 3 upstairs and one downstairs in the back reception room used as the 4th bedroom. A couple of weeks after they'd moved in, the landlord had instructed builders to turn up, with heavy machinery including cement mixer, kicking off early morning 8ish. Boy in the downstairs room was told that would be uninhabitable, downstairs extension was going in to provide a couple more rooms for more students. Totally illegal to enter the property without tenants' permission let alone carry out building works, he knew what he was doing, he just thought, "they're kids I can pull the wool over their eyes" he thought he could bribe them with beer and pizzas, not only a crook but a fool too. The upshot was that we got a solicitors letter off pretty sharp, the solicitor advised the landlord he was in breach of the contract and he would be dragged to court if the work didn't stop right away. The builders were also told to vacate the garden and take their machinery with them.

So that was resolved, at a later stage an electrician had to come out to the house to do something or other, at which time he advised the kids that the electrics were lethal could have killed someone. Thankfully they were in the throes of moving out for that year and had a different property lined up.

Such landlords make me sick, they know full well what they're doing, they have the lives of their tenants in their hands and give the rest of us a bad name. They don't take their responsibilities seriously. The Labour MP is an example of a couldn't care less landlord, he should resign. He compromises his integrity as an MP, it simply isn't good enough to have people like that in public life.

Terribull we don't have such a dreadful experience as that to tell, but certainly the landlord of DD's student house would not put anything right which went wrong even if it was potentially dangerous. It was quite dirty when they moved in and had to be thoroughly cleaned especially the kitchen.
DH, DD, another girl and her parents and I emptied and cleaned that house thoroughly from top to bottom but he refused to refund their deposit as he said it was left messy and dirty (a usual trick, I understand).
Sadly for him, the University relocated its campus a couple of years later so there were no students to rent his large property. I couldn't feel sorry for him.