"Wear and tear" in a rental property

Zara33

Also what happens if you have a property and you dont want kids/DSS/Smokers/dogs..... and they go on DSS during their tenancy or get pregnant??

Hold on can anyone else spot the belter here :rotfl:

Give you a clue it's the bold part :rolleyes:

missk_ensington wrote: »

I feel partly responsible because they tenants were friends of mine, or rather acquaintances, and I felt sorry for them because their flat was disgusting with no central heating, no carpets, no double glazing.... and because she was pregnant no one would give her anything better. I was moving out and so I asked my mum to give her a chance (Id been in the same situation - pregnant and nobody will give you a chance in a rented flat so I empathised with her) and anyway my Mum relented even though she doesn't accept kids. They were professionals however, and they vowed not to let me down but have done. Needless to say we dont speak anymore.

Ms_Chocaholic

missk_ensington wrote: »

all this regulation its made her hate the rental business and she's selling up and closing down the business. I wanted to take to same career path and get loads of rentals, but seeing the stress she's had I don't want to anymore!!

I'm confused !!! This thread is so contradictory.

You say your mum now hates the rental business and she's selling up and closing down the business, yes, well then why does she want the sofa to be clean when she shows new tenants round the property !!!

Rick62

My understanding is that, not withstanding fair wear and tear, the tenant has a duty to keep the place clean (and a contractural obligation). Also if the agreement says 'no smoking' then i would take that to mean 'no smoking' or if the tenant does smoke then they must expect to meet the cost of removing the cost of the smoke.

If I was your mother I would get the sofa covers professionally cleaned and the curtains and carpets. I would try and avoid having to repaint as it would be difficult to prove that was necessary to remove the smell, and chances are most the smell is just lingering in the soft furnishings. I would then expect the tenant to pay these cleaning costs.

The tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment, not to trash the place.

Storm

Fair wear & tear is an awful phrase IMHO to use on contracts, simply because everyone has different definitions of what it means.

As a tenant I've been deducted several times over the years for things that I considered to be completely trivial, however, I am happy when the landlord or agent supplied copies of the invoices so that I can see exactly what has been paid out. Having said that, I take pictures when I move in & am really rough when doing the check-in (my current place was filthy - oven hadn't been cleaned, floors all needed washing etc) I'm the sort of person that always cleans around last thing before I leave, but there's plenty out there who don't, and I think paying for professional cleaning is therefore fair.

I'm sure I've read posts on here before saying that re-decorating shoudl be expected a minimum of every five years in rented properties, and if this is a luxury flat then I would agree that between every tenancy should be expected.

With the sofa, before & after pictures are what is really needed, otherwise there's no comparison. A pale colour was perhaps not the wisest choice however, so some deterioration should have been expected over 15 months.

I can't remember who said it before, but the important thing here is for your mum to talk to the tenant - if an amicable agreement can be reached so much the better as then there's not the thought of potentially going to court hanging over your mum's head.

As for the vase - if it's only got sentimental value then I don't think there's much really you can do - just don't leave things like this in a rented property!

Wings

Storm wrote: »

Fair wear & tear is an awful phrase IMHO to use on contracts, simply because everyone has different definitions of what it means.

As a tenant I've been deducted several times over the years for things that I considered to be completely trivial, however, I am happy when the landlord or agent supplied copies of the invoices so that I can see exactly what has been paid out. Having said that, I take pictures when I move in & am really rough when doing the check-in (my current place was filthy - oven hadn't been cleaned, floors all needed washing etc) I'm the sort of person that always cleans around last thing before I leave, but there's plenty out there who don't, and I think paying for professional cleaning is therefore fair.

I'm sure I've read posts on here before saying that re-decorating shoudl be expected a minimum of every five years in rented properties, and if this is a luxury flat then I would agree that between every tenancy should be expected.

With the sofa, before & after pictures are what is really needed, otherwise there's no comparison. A pale colour was perhaps not the wisest choice however, so some deterioration should have been expected over 15 months.

I can't remember who said it before, but the important thing here is for your mum to talk to the tenant - if an amicable agreement can be reached so much the better as then there's not the thought of potentially going to court hanging over your mum's head.

As for the vase - if it's only got sentimental value then I don't think there's much really you can do - just don't leave things like this in a rented property!

What a very good post, and one being a landlord I entirely agree with.

barnaby-bear

missk_ensington wrote: »

black-saturn - Thanks I can see where you're going but they knew everything was expensive, they could see that when they viewed it and they must have known there was a reason why the rent was £200 a month more than something else of its type.

So over 15 months you've got £3k extra for the 'level of decor' above the basic flat rental, and the sofa was £700 and there's a cream rug (made out of an offcut of carpet), think your mum's already had her moneys worth from the sofa.

missk_ensington

Ms_Chocaholic wrote: »

I'm confused !!! This thread is so contradictory.

You say your mum now hates the rental business and she's selling up and closing down the business, yes, well then why does she want the sofa to be clean when she shows new tenants round the property !!!

Just because that is what she wants to do, doesnt mean it is viable for her to do so since she is going to need a wage to live off and I'm not sure if there's enough profit after CGT to live off for perhaps 50 years or more!

Here is ANOTHER example of something not being black or white, thus must be a) a lie b) a contradiction c) an exaggeration on my part. See below.

missk_ensington

Zara33 wrote: »

Hold on can anyone else spot the belter here :rotfl:

Give you a clue it's the bold part :rolleyes:

Are you thick? What is the relevance of the two quotes? :rolleyes: THIS is exactly ehat I mean about people desperately trying to make me sound like I'm contradicting myself when I am not. First quote, "what is A tenant..." perfectly hyperthetical questions broqadly speaking about rentals in general, for all people, not specifically to my mums.

Second quote, girl in flat has a baby. Yes we knew about it, and bent the rules as a favour. She OBVIOUSLY didn't come under "no children" rule did she. There is some flexibility here, my Mums business isn;t a huge corporation it is one woman who owns a lot of property and rents them out and for tax reasons puts it all under the name of a business, she can change her mind as she see's fit.

I'm quite flattered though that people spend such an awful lot of time analysing posts to find a teeny possibility of a contradiction, however pedantic. People here must think the world is black and white and everything is categorically one thing or another, and anything a little bit grey is me contradicting myself.

black-saturn

I must admit I've had some of the same problems as Miss K has had with people contradicting and picking holes in things on this board. So I can see where she is coming from here.

missk_ensington

Thanks black saturn, this all stems from a thread about Direct Payment for an au pair. The thicko's on here cannot understand the logic in using direct payments to pay an au pair to do a carers role (Their title not mine) when she is already here until October and is cheaper on the tax payer than an agency at £12 an hour. Apparently, people would rather I employ a separate carer at £200 a week cost to the taxpayer to come into my home and sit there in the same room as my au pair doing the same job as her, at the same time, thus paying two people at the same time to watch over me Me trying to explain this has resulted in my apparently contradicting myself every farts end.

Anyhow, not going into that again. I was in hospital for 10 days (sorry 9 nights, 10 days in case anyone suggests I'm contradicting myself) after that thread and I dare say the bullying on here went some way to contributing to it so I dont want to go on about it again.

After much consideration, It's occured to me what's going on here. I think psychologists call in deindividuation - it's the out of character things people do under the cover of anonymity. Think people get a buzz from picking on someone when there are no comebacks on them, sat in their home with no one knowing who they are. I dare say people would speak to me very differently if I knew who they were and where they lived.

That's how bullies and cowards work isn't it?