Tenants trashed house & insurance not paying out

seven-day-weekend

FBaby wrote: »

ecclesto, I had the same experience than yours with our first tenants. Pleasant enough people but when they left, we had a shock at the state they left the house in. Like you, I couldn't believe that people could live in such filth.

I did 6 monthly inspections but I hated them probably even more than the tenant as I felt it was a total intrusion into their personal life. I made the mistake of putting myself in their shoes and wondering how it would feel to have someone come into your house and demand to open your fridge/oven. As it was, I did notice that the place was a dirty but they would make an effort each time I went and then they would say they were intending on cleaning the carpet/sorting out the garden, which they would do to an extent and then it went right back to how it was before. Problem is, unless you inspect in a very scutinising way, you will miss things, like a window they'd broken but made sure to keep the curtain closed. It's all well to do regular inspections, but ultimately, all you can do as a result is to evict the tenants after the end of the fix term of you are not happy, otherwise, they are entitled to live like pigs if they so wish.

Ecclesto, it has nothing to do with your insurance. If landlords insured for this sort of damage, they would all be bust in no time. What you need to do is claim through the deposit (we got 90% of it back) and then either put it down to business loss or take them to court for the rest. You just need to make sure that you have a detailed and well organised claim though.

Next time, you might want to consider asking for 6 or 8 weeks deposit.

I don't think as landlords we are legally entitled to ask them to open their fridge, etc. I think we can look around for damage, but the way they live otherwise is up to them, PROVIDING they leave the place in the condition they found it. If they live in filth in the meantime, then that is up to them.* If at the end of the tenancy, the property is NOT as they found it (allowing for fair wear and tear), then you claim from their deposit.

I think the OP should claim via the tenants' deposit, that is what it is for.

*I have just noticed that you mentioned this in your post, sorry!

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

ecclesto, I had the same experience than yours with our first tenants. Pleasant enough people but when they left, we had a shock at the state they left the house in. Like you, I couldn't believe that people could live in such filth.

I did 6 monthly inspections but I hated them probably even more than the tenant as I felt it was a total intrusion into their personal life. I made the mistake of putting myself in their shoes and wondering how it would feel to have someone come into your house and demand to open your fridge/oven. As it was, I did notice that the place was a dirty but they would make an effort each time I went and then they would say they were intending on cleaning the carpet/sorting out the garden, which they would do to an extent and then it went right back to how it was before. Problem is, unless you inspect in a very scutinising way, you will miss things, like a window they'd broken but made sure to keep the curtain closed. It's all well to do regular inspections, but ultimately, all you can do as a result is to evict the tenants after the end of the fix term of you are not happy, otherwise, they are entitled to live like pigs if they so wish.

Ecclesto, it has nothing to do with your insurance. If landlords insured for this sort of damage, they would all be bust in no time. What you need to do is claim through the deposit (we got 90% of it back) and then either put it down to business loss or take them to court for the rest. You just need to make sure that you have a detailed and well organised claim though.

Next time, you might want to consider asking for 6 or 8 weeks deposit.

To be honest, inspections are a two way street, the tenants are there to highlight issues to you.

As for opening the fridge? Well that's a bit much, I'd of asked you to leave at that point

Rain_Shadow

New skirting boards in some areas as they must have had a dog which has chewed the boards - not allowed to keep pets
So tenants have repaired damage. Nothing to claim.

I thought the op meant that the skirting needed to be replaced.

FBaby

Hence why landlords will always be penalised. The oven that was in the property was a few years old but in very good order and clean as stated in the inventory. If tenants had looked after it properly it would hedge been fine for another few years but it was so filthy the grease had ruined the enamel and the glass was beyond cleaning but because your can't claim replacement value we only got £40 for it via DPS. There is no way we could he left it like this for next tenants so had to replace which cost £200.

This is not managing a business this is dealing with people who have no respect for what they don't own and yet get away with it because the laws are on their side but then cry when landlords are not prepared to jump to pay for all minor repairs.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Hence why landlords will always be penalised. The oven that was in the property was a few years old but in very good order and clean as stated in the inventory. If tenants had looked after it properly it would hedge been fine for another few years but it was so filthy the grease had ruined the enamel and the glass was beyond cleaning but because your can't claim replacement value we only got £40 for it via DPS. There is no way we could he left it like this for next tenants so had to replace which cost £200. - But that's part of the business. Why should you get new for old. You could've bought second hand one for £40.

This is not managing a business this is dealing with people who have no respect for what they don't own and yet get away with it because the laws are on their side but then cry when landlords are not prepared to jump to pay for all minor repairs.

The law isn't on their side at all.


You buy an oven for £200, after a number of years your tenant breaks it, you have had use of it for those years. Why should you get a free oven? That wouldn't be fair.


You get a proportion of the cost to replace. The amount of money you were deprived of by the tenant.


You now have a new oven with many more years on it, because eyou chose to buy new

Pixie5740

It's no different to contents insurance which pays out the value at that moment in time for whatever it is that needs repaired or replaced unless you pay extra for a new-for-old insurance policy.

FBaby

There is a difference between getting new for old and having to pay a lot to replace like for like.

No I couldn't have got a new oven that would he been to the satisfaction of the new tenants for £40. No chance. That's the problem old tenants think it is acceptable to leave things in disgusting conditions without being penalised whilst new tenants expect new items in excellent conditions.

Just to clarify is not ALL tenants but from my experience and that of fellow landlords a very common outcome and one that yoy are expected to accept if you are a landlords because landlords are scum anyway.

AdrianC

FBaby wrote: »

Hence why landlords will always be penalised. The oven that was in the property was a few years old but in very good order and clean as stated in the inventory. If tenants had looked after it properly it would hedge been fine for another few years but it was so filthy the grease had ruined the enamel and the glass was beyond cleaning but because your can't claim replacement value we only got £40 for it via DPS. There is no way we could he left it like this for next tenants so had to replace which cost £200.

I simply do not believe that it could not be cleaned. You didn't want to clean it, you wanted a shiny new oven.

Getting it professionally cleaned would have been an acceptable deduction from the deposit. As has already been said - new-for-old replacement is not.

If an oven is expected to last ten years for £200, then the amount you can reclaim if replacement is needed drops by 10%/£20 per year. If it was 8 years old, then you've lost two years - 20% of the expected life - of use from it. So £40 is fair recompense.

phill99

ecclesto wrote: »

I appreciate all your answers - I did let the house through an agency and YES they should have been more thorough in hindsight but I foolishly trusted them. I am shocked and horrified that people live like that and will not be letting it again. It seems to me like the insurance has won again but I am very bitter as this is the first time I have claimed and it is genuine.

No. The insurance hasn't "won again". You are in a contract with insurers. The policy wording (the contract) states that if x happens, they will do y. But you fail to grasp that according to the contract (the policy) certain things haven't occurred. An overgrown garden isn't an insured loss. Redecoration isn't an insured loss. Just because the tenant has done things that you don't like doesn't mean that insurers will cover the cost. That isn't what insurance is for. You need to address this with your agents. Why have they failed to undertake appropriate inspections? Where is the inventory? And you need also to address your expe tations as a landlord. Too many amateur landlords think its a licence to print money. Its a business and has associated business risks. If you haven't addressed these risks and planned for them, then I'm sorry, but you are at fault.

G_M

xylophone wrote: »

I question whether some people should be tenants!:eek:

I question whether some people should be.