Tenants redecorated

Halle71

CharlieRabbit01 wrote: »

I see your point but buying your own home is not always an option.

I totally get the OP's frustration with carpets and light fittings being changed but I see no reason why a tenant can't redecorate and put up pictures as long as it is agreed and returned to the original colours etc when they move out.

I think that is the problem though - reading between the lines it doesn't seem as if the tenants are going to rectify everything they have changed.

It's not the landlord's fault that the tenant can't afford/doesn't want to buy and therefore cannot have a house to their exact spec. The advantage of being a tenant is that they get a (hopefully) decent roof over their head and, unlike a homeowner, they don't have to worry about regular maintenance if the landlord meets their responsibilities. The advantage for a landlord is that they might make a bit of profit. A mutually beneficial agreement that this tenant appears to have abused.

CharlieRabbit01

Halle71 wrote: »

I think that is the problem though - reading between the lines it doesn't seem as if the tenants are going to rectify everything they have changed.

It's not the landlord's fault that the tenant can't afford/doesn't want to buy and therefore cannot have a house to their exact spec. The advantage of being a tenant is that they get a (hopefully) decent roof over their head and, unlike a homeowner, they don't have to worry about regular maintenance if the landlord meets their responsibilities. The advantage for a landlord is that they might make a bit of profit. A mutually beneficial agreement that this tenant appears to have abused.

Which is partly why tenants pay a deposit.

But that doesn't mean a tenant can't paint the rooms a colour that they like. Not everyone wants to live in a a white/magnolia (usual colours in rented) box with no photos on on the wall.

I agree this tenant has gone a bit too far, but I do think tenants should be able to decorate their home to suit their personal preferences on the proviso that they return it before moving out.

Halle71

CharlieRabbit01 wrote: »

Which is partly why tenants pay a deposit.

But that doesn't mean a tenant can't paint the rooms a colour that they like. Not everyone wants to live in a a white/magnolia (usual colours in rented) box with no photos on on the wall.

I agree this tenant has gone a bit too far, but I do think tenants should be able to decorate their home to suit their personal preferences on the proviso that they return it before moving out.

As I posted earlier there is a clause in my AST saying that tenants cannot decorate withot our agreement. While I am happy for them to put up pictures etc. I see no reason why they should paint over our newly painted neutral-ish (Malt Chocolate if you're interested!). We paid £2000 to create a lovely fresh, inoffensively decorated home and that is what I expect to get back at the end of the tenancy to appeal to a greater number of tenants.

19lottie82

Halle71 wrote: »

As I posted earlier there is a clause in my AST saying that tenants cannot decorate withot our agreement. While I am happy for them to put up pictures etc. I see no reason why they should paint over our newly painted neutral-ish (Malt Chocolate if you're interested!). We paid £2000 to create a lovely fresh, inoffensively decorated home and that is what I expect to get back at the end of the tenancy to appeal to a greater number of tenants.

You can put whatever clause you want in an AST, it doesn't mean the tenants need to stick to it! As long as its returned as you left it when you get it back.....

RobertoMoir

Halle71 wrote: »

'Come, in. Make yourself at home. Replace the light fittings if you don't like the ones currently fixed to the wall. Milk and sugar? I'll just fetch some biscuits and a screwdriver'.

We had a lot of house guests at Christmas and yes, I wanted them to feel at home. However, that hospitality did not stretch to allowing them to rip up and dispose of my nearly new carpets or lay cabling in my lounge wall. Funnily enough none of them tried this.

Possibly because your guests, apparently unlike you, undertood the different between living in your own home (which a tenant is) and being a guest in someone else's home (which a tenant is not).

Don't get me wrong, I understand why LLs would be concerned about a tenant that badly re-decorates the house they're renting, but equally I think you'll find they're also entitled to make themselves feel at home in their own home. Maybe there's some kind of middle ground between the two extremes.

Halle71

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Possibly because your guests, apparently unlike you, undertood the different between living in your own home (which a tenant is) and being a guest in someone else's home (which a tenant is not).

Don't get me wrong, I understand why LLs would be concerned about a tenant that badly re-decorates the house they're renting, but equally I think you'll find they're also entitled to make themselves feel at home in their own home. Maybe there's some kind of middle ground between the two extremes.

Precisely my point ( that you omitted when quoting me but here it is again: 'I don't think anyone who has responded would deny them the right to 'make themselves at home' but any damage they cause doing so needs to be rectified. There is a reason for the inventory - the house should be left in the same state as when they moved in less wear and tear').

I clearly said they should make themselves at home (although they are at home so that's a bit of an unnecessary statement), just that any change must be rectified as per the agreement signed by tenant and landlord. And some things can't be put back - for example I refuse to have a Sky dish in our period properly because I've seen such botched jobs in friend's houses.

And in reality I do practice the middle ground. Our tenants saw our BTL before we had completed and wanted it as was. It was in fair but not perfect decorative order so we told them that if they wished to decorate we would pay for materials. When we completed we decided a couple of rooms needed decorating but as we did those the others started to look worse, hence the £2k paint job. Our tenants were thrilled and we are proud of our house.

Anyway, back to the OP.
I do hope they make good the changes.

Halle71

19lottie82 wrote: »

You can put whatever clause you want in an AST, it doesn't mean the tenants need to stick to it! As long as its returned as you left it when you get it back.....

So there was no point me wasting my money and joining the NLA (as advised to do so by people on this forum) for access to current documentation because tenants don't have to adhere to the agreement they sign anyway?
As a landlord can I ignore everything that is not a legal obligation as well?

Risky business this rental malarkey. Luckily the capital appreciation in London makes it all worthwhile!

Mrs_Imp

Trebor01 wrote: »

Some poeple do make assumptions, where does it state they are staying a while. They are infact leaving end of Jan although agreement was until Sept. So you are very wrong on all counts!!!

If you'd actually mentioned that in your first post then you may have got some different responses from people, but instead you drip-fed us information, hence the replies you got. So don't get all grumpy with us.

If they have a contract until the end of September, are they not liable for rent until then?

DRP

Halle71 wrote: »

So there was no point me wasting my money and joining the NLA (as advised to do so by people on this forum) for access to current documentation because tenants don't have to adhere to the agreement they sign anyway?
As a landlord can I ignore everything that is not a legal obligation as well?

Risky business this rental malarkey. Luckily the capital appreciation in London makes it all worthwhile!

They don't have to adhere to unfair terms, no.

dancingfairy

You will need to obviously prove the condition of the property and end of the tenancy. You will need to notify the tenant and whoever is holding the deposit (MyDeposits etc) that you wish to claim the deposit back due to damages.
If the damage (and unpaid rent) exceeds the deposit then you would need to go to court. The only problem with this is that even if you win how are you going to enforce it? What sort of referencing did you do? Do you know where they work so you can attach earnings? Do you know where they will be moving to so you can send bailiffs? etc etc. Although to be honest if the damage is extensive then it's unlikely the bailiffs will be able to recover enough to make much difference. Even if they had a massive tv or something it's hardly going to fetch a lot second hand It may be worth taking them to court just so they get a CCJ and it ruins their credit rating but don't hold your breath with actually getting any money back.
df