Pipe burst in property, due to T not having heating on. Thoughts please.

clutton_2

off course he is going to be nice.... you have let him off a £500 damage bill !!!!

JPS29

Yes, I've let him off with a £500 damage bill and saved myself 2 or 3 months rental void if it would have turned sour, hassle constantly checking on an empty property until relet, costs not covered by deposit such as fair wear and tear, cleaning/checking house over from top to toe before new tenancy commences, and then the possibility of a bad T or a short stayer.

What's the point of cutting my nose off to spite my face

clutton_2

because he will never learn to be responsible for his own actions if there are no consequences....

he would almost certainly have signed a liability letter as i suggested .... as he wont have another £500 deposit up his sleeve for a new landlord anytime soon - which probably means he would have stayed on anyway.

JPS29

Clutton I do see where you are coming from but sometimes the black and white route isn't always the best.

I didnt need the liability letter, it's in the tenancy agreement, he didn't adhere to it, he's liable. Lets say i did get him to sign the letter. Ok I've got the money from the deposit, happy days. He stays on, happy days.

When he knows he is going somewhere else he then couldn't care less about the property as the deposit wont be coming back. I'm not saying he would have but he could have turned malicious and caused thousands of pounds worth of damage before leaving. The deposit wouldn't cover this and taking someone to court who has no money would be a waste of time.

He could just abandon the property and leave it unsafe.

I'm not made of money and £500 is a lot of money for me to bear. but I'm thinking of the bigger picture. I have had terrible tenants who couldnt care less, have trashed properties and left with no trace, been in arrears on the rent etc etc. This tenant is ok really, just a bit dim and I'm 100% sure he wont do the same again so he does now know the consequence of his actions.

Errata

You sound like a decent LL and you have a decent tenant. However - the rent that will be coughed up is for the greatest part paid by taxpayers, not the tenant. That needs pointing out to him.

By the end of our chat he saw where I was coming from and I'm sure the rent will be coughed up at the end of the week with no Q's asked.

tbs624

Errata wrote: »

You sound like a decent LL and you have a decent tenant. However - the rent that will be coughed up is for the greatest part paid by taxpayers, not the tenant. That needs pointing out to him.

That's irrelevant. Do you read the Daily Mail?

The T will probably have been a taxpayer himself in the past and may be likely to be one in the future.

Not all those who are in receipt of HB/LHA are wastrels:

"The number of people working part-time because they could not find a full-time job increased by 46,000 to 1.16 million, a record high."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jobless-total-rises-for-first-time-in-six-months-2160889.html

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

.....i have been housing benefit tenants for many years, and most of them are really nice people, and good tenants. However, because the rent is not "their" money - they seem to accept no responsibililty for it and seem to want to be "nannied" by both me and by the council.

You perhaps encourage the idea that you will "nanny" them as you have posted on here about how you instruct them to manage their LHA payments in a specific way, telling them they must open a separate bank a/c, taking them to HB offices and involving yourself in the completion of their LHA forms and so on.

clutton wrote: »

The same generally applies with repairs... most benefit tenants dont seem to understand that they have a Duty of Care to the property and that THEY have to report repairs and not rely on me being psychic. I simply dont get this with most working tenants.

Many of us *are* familiar with Ts who similarly fail to act on reporting repairs and yet are supposedly intelligent "middle class" professional people

The bottom line is though Clutton that LHA claimant tenants must prove to be profitable for you otherwise you wouldn't have continued to let in that sector.. It enables you to cheaply buy, and let out, properties in areas which would not be attractive to Ts with more disposable income and you get to make a pretty good return on your outlay. If you're not doing then you're doing something wrong.

The "taxpayer" is of course effectively funding your private pension pot, so perhaps "the lady doth protest too much"

Errata

Why is it irrelevant? The tenant can hardly ask the LA to not pay him HB for a week because he doesn't wish to pay it to the LL.

bratz81

JPS29, I think you are indeed being more than fair to the tenant, and I also see why you are being so fair. Getting a decent tenant can be a problem for landlords I imagine.

I rent a house, and it's also in my agreement to take reasonable precautions in winter etc, though this is something I would do anyway as to me it's common sense. I do, however, know someone else who rents and didn't and has wondered why they have a burst pipe. Some people just don't have common sense I guess.

If this happened to me I would expect my landlord to charge me the costs of sorting it as it would be my negligence, though my landlord seems decent to might not charge all of it who knows. But I certainly would expect to pay for my own stupidity. At least now though your tenant seems educated for future reference

Wings

Morglin wrote: »

JPS29,

If I ever have to rent privately, I hope I get a landlord as nice as you.

There are so many bad landlords, it makes a real change to read something from someone who treats tenants so well.

Lin

Agree, good to read.