"Wear and tear" in a rental property

polly7_2

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Funny, it's your attitude that makes me sick. Tenants are not guests in your home, you are providing a service for your tenant & they pay you for it. In addition you receive such benefits as tax relief.

Of course, tenants shouldn't damage your property, but you shouldn't get involved in your tenants' lives - how would you feel if your mortgage lender told you you couldn't have children or pets in your house, because it might reduce the value?

they don't pay sufficient to make it acceptable to disregard peoples belongings. If someone states no pets or no children it is for a reason and the tenant should look for somewhere that will accept children and pets. Personally I prefer pets to children. they are much better behaved,

barnaby-bear

polly7 wrote: »

they don't pay sufficient to make it acceptable to disregard peoples belongings. If someone states no pets or no children it is for a reason and the tenant should look for somewhere that will accept children and pets. Personally I prefer pets to children. they are much better behaved,

So raise the rent to a level that is sufficient to cover costs. Or will the market not take it.

Or lobby the government to tax BTLers more to pay for more social housing so people have the option to rent somewhere that accepts kids and pets. Where do you expect people to go when all the private landlords only offer furnished, no pets and no kids as in my area? If a few people want to own multiple properties and dictate the occupants lifestyles then maybe the same set of people should be paying the costs caused by the social mess they are causing.

You can't argue you are charging more for having expensive furnishings and then complain that the furnishings are getting worn and you have to redecorate..

pingu79

Our flat is managed by a big LA and i'm pretty sure in our contract it doesn't allow smoking or pets, i think this is fair enough and many contracts state this because of the excessive wear & tear damage both can cause.

It also states than no blue-tack should be used on the walls, but we are allowed to put picture hooks up. A previous landlord stated that nothing should inserted into the walls. In every place i have rented i have expected that if i damage/stain anything while living there that it will probably be knocked off my deposit, not wanting to lose the deposit keeps most tenants tidy!
We had to paint parts of my OH flat to cover marks on the wall, however they deducted a large amount of money off for a chipped looseat that was like that when they moved in and in all fairness could of been replaced for a fiver, the cleaning a washing machine powder drawer that we missed and also charged for professional cleaning and his flat was in fairly good nick.

I think that your within your rights to chage some money towards replacing/re-covering sofa but not really buying a new sofa as its dirty not broken. I'd get soft furnishings professionally cleaned, allow the flat to be aired and pop some plug-in air freshners in.

Perhaps in future consider more wipeable/stain resistant items, leather sofas are fab and if your mum is unable to do inspections that she arranges for someone else to. Our LA uses a seperate company to do its inspections.

seven-day-weekend

Why do people hate private landlords? Most are OK, only have one or two properties and provide a service for those people who can't/don't want to buy and who will not be eligible for Council housing. Where would those people live otherwise?

sanfrancisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why do people hate private landlords? Most are OK, only have one or two properties and provide a service for those people who can't/don't want to buy and who will not be eligible for Council housing. Where would those people live otherwise?

If those LL didn't exist young couples and families WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY those houses.

milkydrink

missk_ensington wrote: »

Brazilian - Sure accidents happen I know that, but I lived there from before my son being born until her was about 12 months old and I managed to keep it clean, I spilt things but I cleaned them . Obviously she wouldn;t have actively bought a peach couch knowing there'd be a baby but it was already there when she moved in. The flooring is laminate, so there's only really the couch that is a bit delicate, and a creme rug but that's not valuable since it was only made from the off-cuts of some carpet.

To give another example, would it be wear and tear if a tenant p1ssed the bed every night and didn't clean it up just left it for the Landlord on vavation of the property?

£600 rent (PM) x 15 months = £9,000

As a landlord/lady your mother will be paying tax on her profits, the IR allows 10% of rent as "wear & tear", so thats £900.

So as the IR give an allowance for this, it is only reasonable that landlords/ladies ACTUALLY spend that allowance on wear & tear.

To be honest laminated floors, a rug made from off cuts & a peach sofa do not sound very luxury cutting edge apartment style to me.

Try a real hardwood floor, a leather sofa & a sheepskin/lambs wool rug & you might be more in the luxury market. Laminate flooring & peach sofas wouldn't cut much mustard in the Docklands.

Leaving a crystal vase which had sentimental value in a rental property was just silly, it can't have had that much sentimental value. Again crystal vases do not make me think of luxury apartments, more grannys semi's (are you sure you are aiming this at the right market?).

Anyway the £900 wear & tear tax allowance will have to be used as it was intended by the IR.
Buy a dark (black) coloured leather sofa.
Get a decorator in between lets to paint it cream & white everywhere, this SHOULD be done anyway if your are charging a premium for luxury.
DON'T put personal items in there.

But if your mother is a lawyer in this field I really can't understand why you are asking on here?

seven-day-weekend

sanfrancisco wrote: »

If those LL didn't exist young couples and families WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY those houses.

But in that case they could have bought them instead of the landlord!

For example, several years ago, we bought a flat on a mortgage. We were going to rent it out until we retired and then we were going to live in it ourselves (this didn't work out, we rented it for five years, it is now sold).

Anyway, that flat was on sale on the open market. It wasn't only for sale to 'investors'. We bought it to rent out, but anyone else could have bought it to live in. We didn't pay over the odds or have any sort of perks to buy it. So how did the fact that we were going to rent it stop a family from buying it?

Am I missing siomething here?

milkydrink

Out of curiosity I read the Au Pair thread mentioned here.

The reason you have such argumentative replies is that you constantly contradict yourself.

On the Au Pair thread I think you said you claimed £200 allowance from the DHSS (social) for having an Au Pair of which you gave her £50 pocket money & claimed £150 was for board & lodging?

Then you said you couldn't afford to keep buying cartons of juice at £2.25 for three in Asda as yoo only have a £45 a week shopping budget for 3!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

So if you allow £15 for feeding her where does the other £135 you claim from the DHSS go???

Also if your blackouts are as bad as you say they are, should you be driving, do DVLA know about this????

Also you complain you come in & she has had the heating on ALL DAY. Do you expect her to NOT HAVE THE HEATING ON WHILE YOU ARE OUT??????
Surely you do not want your son sitting in a cold unheated house while you are out?

Hmmmmmmmm all of this seems a bit odd

Midas

Fair wear and tear – this means making an allowance for: -
1. The original age, quality and condition of any item at commencement of the tenancy
2. The average useful lifespan to value ratio (depreciation) of the item
3. The reasonable expected usage of such an item
4. The number and type of occupants in the property
5. The length of the tenants occupancy
It follows therefore (and is an established legal tenet) that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for having any part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, “…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy.”

From the Association of Residential Letting Agents

http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_with_deps_disps_dams.pdf

thesaint

Could all those people who have a problem with the O.P. 'Take it outside'?

This board is supposed to give advice, not carry on a witch-hunt from another place, it was mildly amusing, but it's getting ridiculous now.

There is some good advice getting lost in amongst the nit-picking that has been going on. The board guides won't bother to sort out the silly posts from the informative ones, and will probably delete the thread altogether if it carries on.