Renting - the good, the bad, the ugly

busymum26

I've had my property up for sale since last May. Not a huge amount of interest and have put the price down twice. Have recently put the house on the rental market on advice from various people. I have had a couple of potential Tennant's come over and look at the property in the week it has been put on as available to rent and one is very keen.

My main concern is that the house is immaculate and I'm worried about how much damage Tennant's can do to a property in a 12 month let.

The house is on for over £1000 per month and the deposit the agent is suggesting is the rent plus £100.

Has anyone out there any advice?

drc

I'm a renter and we pay about the same amount in rent and our deposit was the same as you are proposing.

With regards to potential damage to your property, isn't that why you take a deposit and have insurance for?

You cannot expect to rent out your property and get it back in immaculate condition. Someone will be living in your property and that means it will see use, wear and tear etc. They will also be paying you for the priviledge of living in your property.

If you are really concerned about not wanting any damage then perhaps renting it out is not a good idea and not fair on the tenant to expect them to keep it in pristine condition.

Daisies

Deposit is usually 4-6 weeks rent - the one we're currently disputing with our ex-landlord was for 6 weeks rent.

The tenant is meant to return the property in the condition they found it. So they would have to pay for damage, but not wear and tear. I let out my old house when I moved down here for work and had a tenant in for nearly a year. She was single, but had a dog. Caused no problems and she got the full deposit back - but I also had an excellent letting agent.

Although there was an extra year's wear & tear on the house (I let it unfurnished after living in it for 18 months myself) I didn't have any problems selling it last year - found a buyer within a week of it going on the market.

Don't forget you'll also need to tell your mortgage company and the buildings insurer you're letting it out - I had to switch to a different insurance company when I let mine.

Jowo_2

You are an accidental and novice landlord. If you've no appetite for the risks involved, then don't rent the property out, particularly as its your 'home' rather than an investment so you have an emotional attachment.

Also, many tenants get frustrated when they wish to an extend a contract but the landlord wants to sell the property and expects them to let people into view it while they are living there.

Tenants are obliged to hand back the property in the same condition, less fair wear and tear. Some don't. A signed inventory/schedule of condition helps protect a landlord to a degree as it provides proof about the condition of the property. Some agents/landlords don't bother and then lose their case in court as they can't justify the deductions they make from the deposit. It is standard to take between a month and 6 weeks rent as the deposit - there are legal reasons why it is unwise to take a higher sum than that.

Join a landlord association to increase your knowledge. Buy a book about being a landlord, such as the dummies guide. Landlordzone is an excellent source of info

You may have already missed the first step to being a successful landlord if you've chosen an agency that doesn't belong to a professional body. Are they finding the tenant for you or managing the property?

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/agents.htm

busymum26

I guess what my main concern is not a little wear and tear but any potential damage to more expensive items that the deposit will not cover. For instance, the living room has an oak floor. The deposit in its entirety will not cover the cost of replacement of just this one item.

I'm not saying that any Tennant's will purposely cause harm to my property but am just concerned that as accidents do happen, the cost of bringing the property back to its current condition will far exceed the cost of the bond. What then?

I'm sure that the vast majority of Tennant's will look after their short term home as I would but I guess there are some that aren't that cautious.

Can I ask for a much bigger deposit without scuppering the whole idea?

Jowo_2

busymum26 wrote: »

...the living room has an oak floor. The deposit in its entirety will not cover the cost of replacement of just this one item.

Some professional landlords stay well clear of hardwood/laminate floors for this reason - easy to scratch when an occupant is careless (and a tenant is more likely to be).

My friend rented out her property and got it back with huge scratches in every single room, across laminate, engineered boards and original floor boards.

You can probably get each room carpetted for a hundred quid or so each if they are so precious (Carpet right does carpets about £5 per square meter and you might get an independent carpet fitter to lay it down for £100-£200, though you'll need to take advice as to whether the fitting could damage the floor underneath and how much underlay would cost on top versus its benefits).

busymum26 wrote: »

Can I ask for a much bigger deposit without scuppering the whole idea?

No, firstly tenants are used to paying around a months rent for their deposit and few will like the idea of doubling this - it will scare off most tenants.

secondly, if a landlord accepts two months rent or more as deposit, there is a negative repercussion. Can never remember why, I think it involves inadvertently granting them extra rights and is classed as a premium. another poster will know the legal problem from taking a larger deposit.

drc

busymum26 wrote: »

I guess what my main concern is not a little wear and tear but any potential damage to more expensive items that the deposit will not cover. For instance, the living room has an oak floor. The deposit in its entirety will not cover the cost of replacement of just this one item.

I'm not saying that any Tennant's will purposely cause harm to my property but am just concerned that as accidents do happen, the cost of bringing the property back to its current condition will far exceed the cost of the bond. What then?

I'm sure that the vast majority of Tennant's will look after their short term home as I would but I guess there are some that aren't that cautious.

Can I ask for a much bigger deposit without scuppering the whole idea?

Unless you put a carpet or some sort of protection down, you will have wear to your wood floor, this is just a normal part of life and a floor sees a lot of usage. You can't expect the tenant to float across the room. Remember that this will be the tenants home for a period of time and they will have a right to quiet undisturbed enjoyment of it as long as they are paying the rent. You sound like you want all the benefits of renting out your property (£££) but none of the disadvantages. Unfortunately that will be part and parcel of being a landlord and why you pay to get insurance - so that if a tenant were to do a lot of damage, the insurance would cover it.

poppysarah

"I've had my property up for sale since last May. Not a huge amount of interest and have put the price down twice."

Ask the EA what price it's going to sell at.
Consider how much damage tenants could do, the hassle etc - and sell the house.

Houses sell at the right price.

busymum26

Thank you all. Food for more thought. The problem with the insurance aspect is that I'm guessing they will not cover mistreatment of things like flooring and kitchen/bathroom fitments? Where does fair wear and tear end and malicious damage begin?

coper

Hi,

In over 10 years of renting out various places to a wide range of tenants, I've always found that you get what you give.

I've rented out some newly refurbished properties and got them back in as good a state.

I've only had one group of 3 young male colleagues who didn't clean one of my nicest properties properly when they left and they were happy for me to deduct the relevant costs from their deposit.

I always look for decent, established Letting Agents and I've never had any major problems - maybe I've just been very very lucky in which case long may it continue!

Cheers,

Coper

Jowo_2

busymum26 wrote: »

Where does fair wear and tear end and malicious damage begin?

This is a poorly understood concept with some tenants thinking if they've stayed in a property for quite a long time, they can hand it back in a shabby condition, and with some landlords not appreciating that they have to factor in the age/condition of the damaged item when calculating the deduction (namely, they can't get new costs for an old item and must avoid 'betterment').

For example, some tenants are surprised when they've had deductions for cleaning/redecoration because 'the landlord knew I smoked and had pets and children so why are they surprised the ceiling is yellow and there's a few scratches from the animal and finger prints across the walls'. some tenants think landlords are responsible for the costs associated with mould, not appreciating it was their lifestyle that caused it in the first place (not opening windows, heating the place properly, etc).

There's also no definate legal definition on FW&T, i believe. Basically, FW&T is about natural deterioration under tenant like usage so it covers furnishings fading through sunlight, items breaking down under normal use (i.e. a washing machine that isn't broken through being misused by being overstuffed), carpet thinning around doorways.

Anything that the tenant has impacted through negligent or accident, such as stains, burns, scratches, dirt and so forth are excluded.

In the case of your beloved expensive flooring, the thinning of varnish from walking patterns isn't going to count, but it getting churned up by stilletoes and dragged furniture, does. You perhaps can't expect to get the full cost of its restoration back.