Tenants trashed house & insurance not paying out

saajan_12

FBaby wrote: »

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.

But you're not expected to find an oven for £40, idea is to get a new oven for £200. The assumption here is a £200 oven lasts 10 years, so each year of oven use costs you £20. You've lost 2 years of use due to the tenant's damage, but the next 8 years of use would be down to you anyway as you'd have to replace after 2 years anyway. So you spend £40 of the tenant's deposit plus £160 of your money to last the next 10 years.

It's not an exact science
* are the last 2 years of use worth the same as the first 2 years of use when its new and shiny?
* Can you really put a single life expectancy on all ovens? My parent's is 22 years old and going strong. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect tenants to take as much care as owner-occupiers.
But its the most equitable way of dealing when something breaks.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

There is a difference between getting new for old and having to pay a lot to replace like for like. - That doesn't make sense. The 'value' of the item was £40, that's what you got. That is the like for like replacement value. It was a used oven, that is what you are expected to be compensated for.

No I couldn't have got a new oven - I didn't say 'new', you could've gotten a used replacement, perhaps a refurb or a house clearance. that would he been to the satisfaction of the new tenants for £40. - That's your problem. You lost out on an item valued at £40. No chance. That's the problem old tenants think it is acceptable to leave things in disgusting conditions without being penalised - they were penalised. whilst new tenants expect new items in excellent conditions. - That's the business, there are others....

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.

Not so, landlords provide a required service and many do so with an understanding of the risk, rewards requirements and expectations.


I'm sorry that you aren't aware of those.

xylophone

I question whether some people should be.

I think that the man with the toothbrush moustache felt the same - you ally yourself with him?:eek:

Guest101

xylophone wrote: »

I think that the man with the toothbrush moustache felt the same - you ally yourself with him?:eek:

Godwin's Law in this thread- genuinely surprised!!

xylophone

Godwin's Law in this thread

Sorry about that - the comparison was irresistible.........

Mind you, I could have said 'the man with the walrus moustache" - I understand that his views were much the same......

Thrugelmir

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.

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.

That's what comes of running a business. You get out of it what you put in. There's plenty of sharks in this world in every walk of life. As a business owner it was up to you to monitor the property. Not simply sit back and use the property as an ATM. You've learnt a harsh and costly lesson.

You don't have to be intrusive performing an inspection. The fact that one is done. Will put the tenant on their guard. Easy to see how the property is being treated and whether the tenants seem suitable.

Guest101

xylophone wrote: »

Sorry about that - the comparison was irresistible.........

Mind you, I could have said 'the man with the walrus moustache" - I understand that his views were much the same......

He targeted intellectuals and dissidents more than race or religion ( though I'm sure there was some of that too)

xylophone

He targeted intellectuals and dissidents more than race or religion

Regardless of who suffered at his hands, I imagine he still would have said

I question whether some people should be.

He answered the question too....... (as indeed did his equally hirsute one time buddy)....:eek:

Guest101

xylophone wrote: »

Regardless of who suffered at his hands, I imagine he still would have said



He answered the question too....... (as indeed did his equally hirsute one time buddy)....:eek:

I don't think 'buddy' is a useful term to be honest.


If you look at the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, you will find similarities with western European appeasement and even German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact

xylophone

I don't think 'buddy' is a useful term to be honest.

I'm sure you understand the use of irony.....