Landlords need to be more realistic

sevvy_2

ianian99 wrote: »

ll's will probably welcome housing benefit / lha tenants in the future as their rent is guarunteed

Benefit is now paid direct to the tenant, not to the landlord or agent. If they decide not to pay, its your problem, they are not 'legally obliged' to use the benefit to pay the rent. :rolleyes:

Fred1_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I keep the tenants deposit in a seperate bank account, therefore it is easy to transact between the tenant and myself.
I do have an independany inventory carried out by a professional body to determine the state of the property upon return.

That's a prohibitively expensive option if you only have a few properties

I think Deposit Protection is a great idea, but it's just badly implemented at the moment. i would also be happy if landlords had to lodge a deposit too, so that tenants could get emergency repairs done when the landlord is being a git.

carolt

just22 wrote: »

I have to say, as a general rule, I do agree that I would be happier with my neighbours if the owners lived there. I live in a 6 flat stairwell, and when I moved in was the only owner living there. Since the other landlords didn't live their, upkeep of the stairwell, garden, entry system etc meant notihng to them, and the tenants living in their flats weren't too keen on paying for the upkeep of these things. Possibly as a result of this, most of the tenants moved on at least once a year, so I never really got to know anyone to lived here, by the time I had a name for them, they had moved out. The only exception is my immediate neighbour who's kids break the front door, have loud parties and make the stairwell stink of weed. (they also may be art of the reason that eveyrone leaves)

About a year ago, two of the landlords sold, and now the new owners live in their flats. Suddenly I'm not the only one who cares about all this stuff, although my next door neighbour is still renting and her kids and friends don't seem to care that breaking the entry door by bodyblowing it rather than buzzing actually costs money! I'm pretty sure if their mother was paying for it every time they did it, they wouldn't get away with it anymore.

I don't think this is a particularly snobbish view, it's just that people who have more invested in their home and the area around it are more likely to put the effort in.

I agree with you, as a tenant. We are the only tenants in our street (that I know of anyway) and our house probably does look shabbier. Put simply, when you have no security beyond a couple of months, why would you waste your time trying to make sure it is all immaculate? The kitchen, I noticed today, coming home, has curtains that look a bit tatty compared to the neighbour's neat blinds - but why would I shell out for blinds to fit a certain space, when it's not permanent - curtains will 'fit' in a lot more places.

If you want tenants to care more, then we need to return to longer secure tenancies - better for tenants, better for landlords and better for neighbours too.

Obviously, tenants who don't pay should lose their rights to secure tenancies - along with homeowners who don't pay either. :mad:

carolt

Fred1 wrote: »

That's a prohibitively expensive option if you only have a few properties

I think Deposit Protection is a great idea, but it's just badly implemented at the moment. i would also be happy if landlords had to lodge a deposit too, so that tenants could get emergency repairs done when the landlord is being a git.

Great idea Fred.

lostinrates

On issue of caring for, at each place we've lived I feel I've done a pretty good job of caring for. The last place we rented was a fantastic retro 1960s place with not only th original decoration and light shades etc (murano glass rather than tatty fabric) but all th original appliances and furniture too! (infact there was a 1990s washer, but it was miserable, I ended up handwashing almost evrything! ) Owner was moving in with his partner and loved that we loved it too, and despit him loving it he was thrilled when he cam to see we'd settled in alright (check we hadn't broken his flat) and found that things wer being cared for he ever properly and better than he had done, he asked me to write a list of what products I'd used and how to do certain things when we left. I also filled the balconies with window boxes and plants which he kept when we moved.

Some people like making homes, whether bought or rented.

IveSeenTheLight

Fred1 wrote: »

That's a prohibitively expensive option if you only have a few properties

I think Deposit Protection is a great idea, but it's just badly implemented at the moment. i would also be happy if landlords had to lodge a deposit too, so that tenants could get emergency repairs done when the landlord is being a git.

Why is it expensive? It's only carried out when there is a change of tenancy and is a valuable factor to ensure there is no disputes.
Worth every penny I'd say.

ericthelobster

Nick_Knock wrote: »

You would be surprised at the number of people who don't know that they have CCJ's (I thought it was impossible not to know - but there you are)

It's certainly possible if you deliberately try to avoid the matter, eg by moving house and keeping a deliberately low profile, but it's far more likely that they know full well they have a CCJ and take the view that if they own up to a prospective landlord/agent, they'll be rejected out of hand, whereas if they don't, there's a possibility that the credit checks won't actually be done, or of they are, won't turn up anything.

My own view as a landlord is that if an applicant owns up in advance to a CCJ or other previous money issues, there's a chance I may still accept them if there's a good enough back-story; but if I only find out during the credit check then they can forget it - as far as I'm concerned that means the landlord-tenant relationship has broken down before it's even begun.

kellybigboobs

ericthelobster wrote: »

It's certainly possible if you deliberately try to avoid the matter, eg by moving house and keeping a deliberately low profile, but it's far more likely that they know full well they have a CCJ and take the view that if they own up to a prospective landlord/agent, they'll be rejected out of hand, whereas if they don't, there's a possibility that the credit checks won't actually be done, or of they are, won't turn up anything.

My own view as a landlord is that if an applicant owns up in advance to a CCJ or other previous money issues, there's a chance I may still accept them if there's a good enough back-story; but if I only find out during the credit check then they can forget it - as far as I'm concerned that means the landlord-tenant relationship has broken down before it's even begun.

I can only speak for myself but it is very possible to have a CCJ wothout knowing,without avoiding or ignoring it,and even with a payment plan in place for the debt.I have hopefully sorted this out and will be able to be referenced in a week or so.My CCJ was due to a clerical error on the part of the Inland Revenue,and was issued without any correspondance to myself (I lived in the property for 15 months after it was apparently 'issued' so should have received something but didn't),and after a happy agreement had been reached.Sometimes people are innocent UNTIL proven guilty:rolleyes:

bekki007

neas wrote: »

markets always correct themselves. My local rent market is experiencing a downturn in rental prices.... property next door has been vacant for 3-4 months now... as they had rent too high (575 for a small 1 bed flat)... which 1.5 month ago they reduced to 495.... which still isn't shifting.

Good news for me, good argument when they try and put my rent up..

"Next door is pretty much identical and has more furnishings... and has been vacant for 3 months... and you want to put my rent up? pull the other one heheh... your serious....muwhahaha..."

£575 a month for a 1 bed flat, that's a complete ripp off!! I charge less than that for a 4 bedroom double fronted house with a garden and I have absolutly no problem renting it out. The trick is not to be greedy.

IveSeenTheLight

bekki007 wrote: »

£575 a month for a 1 bed flat, that's a complete ripp off!! I charge less than that for a 4 bedroom double fronted house with a garden and I have absolutly no problem renting it out. The trick is not to be greedy.

The rent per property type will vary depending on the area the property is available and demand for let.

I let out a 2 bed flat for £800 pcm and a 4 Bed house for £1,100.

the flat is about market rate, but due to its size and location is sought after when compared against others. I've only had 2 weeks void when one rental went from mid month term to the next being start of month term

The house is under rent value to be honest, but I make a good percentage and have a 0 days void.

I agree the trick is not to be too greedy depending on the market.
that said, if we all advertised under the market rate, we'd end up giving the properties away