Tenants trashed house & insurance not paying out

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

I think you've summed it up except that no, it's not equitable at all, it's expecting tenants to be neglectful and careless.

I don't know any owner who have to replace their oven after 10 years because it's reached it's end life. In some case, they might break down, in others, they might decide they want to upgrade. Our oven is over 15 years and looks 10 years younger than that one did.

Same with carpets. Ours in the living room is 16 years old and still looks in very good shape? Why? Because we've looked after it. We don't walk on it with shoes, we don't eat in the living room, and the moment there is a bit of an accident, we clean it properly immediately.

Let's not even talk about decorating! How many home owners fully paint their entire house every 5 years because the paint is looking shabby!

As said, the rules expect old tenants to treat the place like a hotel (or worse because hotel will charge!) but new tenants are expected quality standards above what most landlords would set for themselves!

Most furnishings in rented property are of a low quality. Hence the shorter life.

G_M

Wish I'd never posted now. After that comparison (20 odd posts back - and they were odd) I may never dare post again!

FBaby

So your issue is with the adjudicators valuation.

My issue is that the adjudicator only take into consideration wear and tear and that at a value that is way too generous in the favour of tenants.

I do totally agree with the notion of wear and tear, but the loss associated with destroying something that although old was in good condition and in perfect used should be considered beyond W&T.

Most furnishings in rented property are of a low quality. Hence the shorter life.

Because that makes no difference to compensation if it is going to be neglected so most landlord now take the attitude that if they are going to lose out as a result, they might as well lose out less by putting in poorer quality.

On the same note - You do NOT get a monthly income from the property you live in but you do from the rental.

That has nothing to do with it. Some landords get a good monthly return on their investment, some don't. It is not dependent on how well tenants look after their property.

As a landlord you CANNOT expect not to have to do some remedial work, atleast after each tenancy.

Rental properties however, need to be treated differently.

Why should you have to do any more remedial work than you would do to your own home.

So what it seems we are saying is that tenants just don't have the same standards when it comes to looking after one's home as home owners and that should just be accepted. That's fine, but then it's no surprise that more and more landlords resort to using S21 to get rid of tenants when they evidence that they can't be bothered to keep the property in good order.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

My issue is that the adjudicator only take into consideration wear and tear and that at a value that is way too generous in the favour of tenants.

I do totally agree with the notion of wear and tear, but the loss associated with destroying something that although old was in good condition and in perfect used should be considered beyond W&T.


Because that makes no difference to compensation if it is going to be neglected so most landlord now take the attitude that if they are going to lose out as a result, they might as well lose out less by putting in poorer quality.



That has nothing to do with it. Some landords get a good monthly return on their investment, some don't. It is not dependent on how well tenants look after their property.




Why should you have to do any more remedial work than you would do to your own home.

So what it seems we are saying is that tenants just don't have the same standards when it comes to looking after one's home as home owners and that should just be accepted. That's fine, but then it's no surprise that more and more landlords resort to using S21 to get rid of tenants when they evidence that they can't be bothered to keep the property in good order.

They take wear and tear into account to get to the value of the item.

In their view the item was worth £40 were it not for the damage and that's what you were compensated.

In other words, a working 5 year oven is £40

AdrianC

FBaby wrote: »

My issue is that the adjudicator only take into consideration wear and tear and that at a value that is way too generous in the favour of tenants.

I do totally agree with the notion of wear and tear, but the loss associated with destroying something that although old was in good condition and in perfect used should be considered beyond W&T.

Hey-ho. Whether you like it or not, them's the fairly well-known rules of the game. Like 'em or lump 'em.

ecclesto

Wow, thank you one and all. I have decided to decorate the inside, sort the garden, get rid of their rubbish and sell the darned thing, so if anyone would like to buy a once loved detached, 4 bed house in Skelmersdale I am open to offers!!!!Never again will I have a house and then rent it out, once bitten twice shy..........

[Deleted User]

The point is, if you'd done things differently (an inspection, different letting agent, more thorough vetting - checking where they lived before they lived in your house etc) the damage would have been prevented/spotted before things got to that state.

The problem was how the letting was done, not letting itself.

warby68

deannatrois wrote: »

The point is, if you'd done things differently (an inspection, different letting agent, more thorough vetting - checking where they lived before they lived in your house etc) the damage would have been prevented/spotted before things got to that state.

The problem was how the letting was done, not letting itself.

With respect, the tenants have made a real mess - they ARE to blame. Yes they weren't 'policed' as well as they might but they were still the ones to trash the place.

What is it with this site and 'saintly' tenants and 'devil' landlords?

ffacoffipawb

xylophone wrote: »

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

Blakey?

ffacoffipawb

ecclesto wrote: »

Wow, thank you one and all. I have decided to decorate the inside, sort the garden, get rid of their rubbish and sell the darned thing, so if anyone would like to buy a once loved detached, 4 bed house in Skelmersdale I am open to offers!!!!Never again will I have a house and then rent it out, once bitten twice shy..........

Enough said ....