Tenants not moving out

ViolaLass

DragonQ wrote: »

Who knows, with a landlord like the OP it may be ages until you get it back!

However, even excluding the deposit, there are plenty of moving costs. £300 on agency fees, £150 on professional cleaning (which most agents require upon moving out), £50 on moving van, plus all the time spent actually packing, moving and unpacking.

Those costs add up to £500, which is well shy of your previous figure.

Out of 7 landlords, I've never had one require a professional clean.

jellie

chris_m wrote: »

So have I - but it won't be the same that you have. They didn't make the abusive posts 46 & 47.

I have as well.

Carl31

G_M wrote: »

This thread has long-since outlived its usefulness.

I disagree. This thread should serve as a lesson to anyone looking to make an easy buck as an amateur landlord. There's far too many people in this country that fail to understand the reality of providing an essential commodity such as housing, and step into it far too lightly, and for the wrong reasons

Guest101

DragonQ wrote: »

Exactly, and if it was professionally cleaned before you move in, you pretty much have to do the same when moving out. The last place I was in, we cleaned it ourselves and still ended up having to pay £50 because of dusty light switches etc.

I'm pretty sure it was in our contract too.

doesnt matter if its your contract or not, you just need to make sure YOU do a good enough job. Not obliged to pay anyone else

Guest101

joolsybools wrote: »

I would disagree with this. A property I rented a year or two ago stipulated this in the contract. When we moved out we did not do it (we did clean!) and the deposit went into dispute with the TDS for that amongst other things. One of the things they upheld was that the contract said it needs to be professionally cleaned and we had to pay the spurious amount on the quote the LA had for professional cleaning.

Obviously i dont know your case, but could they have upheld, it was not cleaned to the standard required by the inventory and therefore you must pay?

dktreesea

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I don't want to get into an argument with anybody on here but the tenants must have been pretty desperate to accept a tenancy on the basis that it would only be for six months while knowing they would have to go through all the holding-deposit, referencing charges, moving-costs, changing utilities, getting their deposit back palaver etcetera all over again.

The one way the OP could guarantee the tenants consider moving out at the end of their AST is to provide some financial inducement to do so. Like covering their costs in finding another rental.

Seriously?! If I rent to you for a six month lease then why is it unreasonable for me to expect that is all I have rented the property to you for, six months? It may well be, if I don't want to extend the tenancy, that two months prior to the end of the lease I have to give you notice that I don't intend to renew the lease, But given after six months the lease has finished, AND I have advised the tenant I don't intend to enter into either the default once a lease has expired ( a one month rolling tenancy?) or a new lease, why shouldn't the tenants be evicted on the day after the sixc months is up?

The fact that the tenants may want to be evicted, so they can jump the queue for social housing, is the government's fault for allowing such a stupid set of rules to exist. The alternative, that the tenants become homeless and their children are taken into care, may not be palatable, but at least it would get the tenants very focused on finding somewhere else to live.

dktreesea

Carl31 wrote: »

I disagree. This thread should serve as a lesson to anyone looking to make an easy buck as an amateur landlord. There's far too many people in this country that fail to understand the reality of providing an essential commodity such as housing, and step into it far too lightly, and for the wrong reasons

Surely the main reason to become a BTL landlord, if you are doing it as a business - and you ought to be treating it as just that - is to make a profit? It's the government's responsiblity to provide social housing, not the private individual's.

BitterAndTwisted

dktreesea wrote: »

Seriously?! If I rent to you for a six month lease then why is it unreasonable for me to expect that is all I have rented the property to you for, six months? It may well be, if I don't want to extend the tenancy, that two months prior to the end of the lease I have to give you notice that I don't intend to renew the lease, But given after six months the lease has finished, AND I have advised the tenant I don't intend to enter into either the default once a lease has expired ( a one month rolling tenancy?) or a new lease, why shouldn't the tenants be evicted on the day after the six months is up?

It's not that they should be evicted on the day after the fixed-term expires: it's that they can't be. I seems that the OP didn't appreciate that but I think she does now.

The OP could apply to the court on the 1st of December for an accelerated possession hearing but that won't get the tenants out on that day. They might not be able to get a court date for weeks or months after that.

I dunno the facts here but it could be a case of the agent not being candid with the OP about how to ensure it's vacant on the 1st of December, so it could be the wrong party getting all the blame for this part of it. I know from experience just how blithely an agent can respond to the question about ending a tenancy, as friends of mine discovered to their dismay some time ago.

Guest101

dktreesea wrote: »

Seriously?! If I rent to you for a six month lease then why is it unreasonable for me to expect that is all I have rented the property to you for, six months? It may well be, if I don't want to extend the tenancy, that two months prior to the end of the lease I have to give you notice that I don't intend to renew the lease, But given after six months the lease has finished, AND I have advised the tenant I don't intend to enter into either the default once a lease has expired ( a one month rolling tenancy?) or a new lease, why shouldn't the tenants be evicted on the day after the sixc months is up?

The fact that the tenants may want to be evicted, so they can jump the queue for social housing, is the government's fault for allowing such a stupid set of rules to exist. The alternative, that the tenants become homeless and their children are taken into care, may not be palatable, but at least it would get the tenants very focused on finding somewhere else to live.

Itsnot unreasonable to want the property back, and if notice is served correctly, there's every chance that can happen.

BUT the law doesnt work like that, and thats what this thread is about.

Its a business and the LL should be aware of the correct procedures

DragonQ

ViolaLass wrote: »

Those costs add up to £500, which is well shy of your previous figure.

Out of 7 landlords, I've never had one require a professional clean.

My previous figure? Check the posts' authors again.

Firstly, £500 is not nothing. Spending that once or twice a year to move is a big deal for most. Secondly, finding money for a deposit is still annoying because there's almost always an overlap before you get your old deposit back. Finding that kind of money is not easy for everyone.

People on this forum seem to think that everyone just has a few grand lying around, it's weird.