Tenants redecorated

Trebor01

I made it perfectly clear at the beginning of the tenancy that they could decorate on the understanding that it would be at their expense and returned to orig colours etc at the end of the tenancy. They haven't done this

nikkit72

Trebor01 wrote: »

There was a full inventory yes, and I intend to use the same company to do the check out report as well. My concern is the value of the changes they have caused, it amounts to many many thousands of pounds. Carpets removed (sizel) hall stairs and landing cost over £4000, but they have put in there own choice of carpets and colour that I don't like etc etc

£4000 for carpets, where do u buy yours ? Harrods?
When u let out a property u put in hard wearing corded carpets, buy from carpet right.

KatieDee

Goodness me, what a lively debate! This is what I come for...

I don't think I have ever had a tenancy agreement which doesn't state that permission is needed from the landlord in writing before making any changes to the property such as painting/wallpapering walls, knocking in nails or making any changes. I can understand why this is such a popular clause as I imagine it saves some landlords a lot of hassle!

I painted my previous privately rented property but only to cover up the botched job of the previous tenant. I don't for one minute think that every landlord spends thousands perfecting his/her home for potential tenants, but I would like to think that my investment was being cared for sufficiently and not being painted neon pink by tenants who planned to stay for 6 months!

Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I suppose it's all about the tenant is question and what their long term plans are. As long as the decoration is tasteful and the work carried out not too disruptive, I personally would not have an issue as long as any "personalised" decoration was returned to normal once they had left.

The issue comes with tenants who decorate (badly) on a whim and leave the property without sorting anything. A lot of deposits won't cover the amount it costs to redecorate so I imagine in a lot of cases, if the landlord wants to re-let, he/she may end up out of pocket.

I am surprised to hear that it is perfectly legal to make changes to the property as a tenant though!

jjlandlord

I don't think that the tastes of the landlord in regards to colour of carpets, etc. is relevant.
What is relevant is the landlord's loss:
1. Is the new carpet of lower value compared to residual value of old carpet.
2. Is quality of fitting poor?
3. Has the rental value decreased because of the new carpet. I guess colour could play a role here, if e.g. it was so outrageous that all potential tenants would not accept it.

Trebor01

nikkit72 wrote: »

£4000 for carpets, where do u buy yours ? Harrods?
When u let out a property u put in hard wearing corded carpets, buy from carpet right.

Big House = lots of carpet = expensive

Trebor01

jjlandlord wrote: »

I don't think that the tastes of the landlord in regards to colour of carpets, etc. is relevant.
What is relevant is the landlord's loss:
1. Is the new carpet of lower value compared to residual value of old carpet.
2. Is quality of fitting poor?
3. Has the rental value decreased because of the new carpet. I guess colour could play a role here, if e.g. it was so outrageous that all potential tenants would not accept it.

The carpet quality is poor compared to what was their. I know what they paid for the new carpets, and have quotes for replacement carpets re what was there before and if cost is an indicator, the fact remains they cost the ex tenant less than a third !

The fit is OK but the carpet is rubbish.

The rental value is the same, but that is irrelevant as I may move back in, and as such this is not to my taste and it was before.

Thrugelmir

Trebor01 wrote: »

The rental value is the same, but that is irrelevant as I may move back in, and as such this is not to my taste and it was before.

Don't let property as a business. If it causes you so much stress.

Trebor01

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Don't let property as a business. If it causes you so much stress.

Not very helpful

Pixie5740

Trebor01 wrote: »

The rental value is the same, but that is irrelevant as I may move back in, and as such this is not to my taste and it was before.

It is not irrelevant that the rental value is the same with these new carpets. It's a business and if you are able to rent the property out for the same amount of money that you could get with the original carpets then it doesn't really matter.

Is it irritating that the tenants got rid of your nice new carpets...yes. Does it matter that you want the property decorated in a certain way because you might move back one day...not really. You need to look at the property as a business and not your home. Besides if you rented out the property for several years and then decide to move back in there is a good chance you'd want to redecorate anyway.

CKhalvashi

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It is not irrelevant that the rental value is the same with these new carpets. It's a business and if you are able to rent the property out for the same amount of money that you could get with the original carpets then it doesn't really matter.

Is it irritating that the tenants got rid of your nice new carpets...yes. Does it matter that you want the property decorated in a certain way because you might move back one day...not really. You need to look at the property as a business and not your home. Besides if you rented out the property for several years and then decide to move back in there is a good chance you'd want to redecorate anyway.

This is a point I'd make, too.

We've lived in some properties we've then let out, and spent money on kitchen/bathroom/basic decoration but nothing else.

If a T has redecorated a property (with the exception of two 'wet' rooms), I've often knocked the approximate cost off the last (few) months rent and thanked them. The fact that some haven't been done in a way I'd be happy to live in them is neither here nor there IMO.

CK