Renting my house to the council - anyone done this?

Maz

I really want to move from the area that I'm currently living in and given the parlous state of the housing market, this is something I'm thinking of doing and wondered if anybody else has done this?


I guess what I'm really asking is -
What are the advantages if any?
Any pitfalls?

I'm trying to gather as much information as I can so that I can make as educated a decision as possible!

As there's also a huge housing problem in my area (like most others I guess) it would also be my way of freeing up a 3 bed family sized home.

Anyone's experiences would be most welcome. I appreciate that councils in different parts of the country will most likely have different policies etc but any POV and advice would be very welcome.

jamie11

Maz wrote: »

I really want to move from the area that I'm currently living in and given the parlous state of the housing market, this is something I'm thinking of doing and wondered if anybody else has done this?

Plenty of people have done it Maz, most of them regretted it at the end of the contract. The council is likely to put the worst of it's tenants in your property, safe in the knowledge that it's you that will be paying for the repairs. Seriously, think again.

00ec25

as you would expect experiences vary enormously

the rate you will get is lower than if you rented it directly yourself to tenants (even if, in the latter case, you used a LA as well)

your contract may well state the council wil repair any damages done by the outgoing tenant - at least one person on here found they did not and faced costs of £000 to make good what the tenants had done

you lose control over who the council places in the property as the contract is between you and the council, not you and the tenant, therefore you cannot evict when you find they are systematically ruining the property, neighbourhood or both

some have reported that the council places the "worst" type of person in this sort of housing since "typically" the house is not on an active social hosuing estate and therefore the council can relocate their "problems" off the estate where they are currently causing the trouble

once the contract ends one thread on here was from a LL where the council then said the tenant has not moved out, we no longer have a contract with you, so eviciting our ex tenant is now your problem, bye bye

others have had trouble free experiences and simply counted the (reduced) money coming in without any of the hassles associated with being a LL of a directly tenanted property

Hump

You don't say which area you live in, outside of london and a few other 'high demand' areas you might find that your council will not be interested in 'leasing' your property. They might offer a 'free' tenant finder scheme and there may be guarantees around bonds and deposits but do look at any paperwork/ agreement very carefully. The one's I've seen tend to put most of the risk on the landlord. Regardless of the scheme I agree the prospective tenant is likely to be on a low income and with kids - they may not be so keen on repainting the property and professionally cleaning it at the end of the letting as more 'well to do' tenants and a fair proportion of landlords expect - good luck though.

pjran

Hi Maz

We looked into letting to our local council and jumped through hoops to deliver all the test certificates including an asbestos one. So the outlay is quite a lot before you even let it. Also the cost to insure the property as a council let was horrendous! and the cost of insurance whilst empty was rather high too.

You are guaranteed the rent which was the most appealing aspect for us but in the end (much to my relief) we sold the property.

Pj

Ps. some friends let a house via a local letting agent. What a nightmare, paid first few months rent only and damaged the property. Its a minfield out there so I wish you good luck.

BitterAndTwisted

Those Local Authorities which do make use of these sorts of arrangements generally seek to put tenants in the properties to whom they do have a legal obligation to house but are not prepared to give a secure LA tenancy to. You do the maths.

One of the regular posters on here has a pal who did this and they had to shell out (I think) about SEVEN GRAND on the property to put it back to the condition it was in at the start, such was the damage the tenants caused. Council didn't want to know.

jamie11

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Those Local Authorities which do make use of these sorts of arrangements generally seek to put tenants in the properties to whom they do have a legal obligation to house but are not prepared to give a secure LA tenancy to. You do the maths.

This is an interesting question though.

Why is it that letting to councils is such a minefield for private landlords? Surely it should be possible to let to them with a contract that forces them to put the property right after they have had their destructive tenants in there.

It might make them be a bit more choosy about which tenants they put into private lets if they have to repair the damage.

Isleman

I am just applying for consent to let from Northern Rock .
Reading through their application guidance notes I found this :
"The request is not to let to local Councils/Authorities and Housing Associations"
Obviously they don't like local Councils for a reason

BitterAndTwisted

Presumably because it's the tenants who do the damage and not the council, and the only party who the LL has a contract with is the tenant. I suspect the contract has the council acting as some sort agent/facilitator for the tenant.

jamie11

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Presumably because it's the tenants who do the damage and not the council, and the only party who the LL has a contract with is the tenant. I suspect the contract has the council acting as some sort agent/facilitator for the tenant.

But we're talking about the council having the right to put various tenants in there, that means they must be the landlord, even if it's not an AST but a contractual relationship with the owner. So why should they not be required to put the property back in order when their contract ends?

Maz

OMG it sounds like a minefield!

I guess all councils are different but it was my understanding that, generally, I could expect the following -

The rent would be paid over to me regularly even if there were any voids.
After the contract period, the property would be returned to me, in a good state of repair.

Hmmm....................might give this one a miss, thought it sounded too good to be true!