Tips on vetting new tenants

Noodles7791

gonsdad wrote: »

Noodles7791 wrote: »

Given you are on a low income and self-employed that could all change very quickly. It’s the tenants that should be vetting you not the other way round.

Oh Gonsdad, I've figured you out from just two posts. I'm not biting

Enjoy your evening.

silverwhistle

Noodles7791 wrote: »

gonsdad wrote: »

Oh Gonsdad, I've figured you out from just two posts. I'm not biting .

I don't think many LL on here would want to rent to Gonsdad!


When I went to live abroad for a bit I rented my house to a Housing Association at a good deal less than market rent. I don't think their vetting was very good, or their inspection regime. My neighbours were very glad to see me back, and the numerous visitors stopped turning up at funny times. Despite the jokes they made there was no cannabis farm in the loft, thank goodness!



The HA were meant to give me back my house in reasonable order, but the highlights of my three page snagging list on my arrival were a hole in the front door, a disappeared greenhouse and loft ladder, the carpets and the hard flooring in the hall removed , deep cracks on every kitchen floor tile, a DVD player in the cold water tank and so on...


So yes, in the extremely unlikely event of renting out my house again I wouldn't do it through a housing association, and I'd certainly take care with any vetting.

FreeBear

diggingdude wrote: »

If serious vetting is necessary, should landlords be DBS checked before visiting their property should children/vulnerable adults live there?

Well, I'm DBS checked (due to requirements of my employment), I'm a live-in landlord, so can keep tabs on what the lodger(s) get up to. So far, apart from a relationship breakdown, no damage to fixtures or fittings and rent is paid up.

Did I mention they are on benefits, and I didn't do any vetting - Just went on gut feeling and answers to a few questions.

gonsdad

FreeBear wrote: »

Well, I'm DBS checked (due to requirements of my employment), I'm a live-in landlord, so can keep tabs on what the lodger(s) get up to. So far, apart from a relationship breakdown, no damage to fixtures or fittings and rent is paid up.

Did I mention they are on benefits, and I didn't do any vetting - Just went on gut feeling and answers to a few questions.

As long as they pay their rent and don't damage the property, it's absolutely none of your business what your lodgers get up to, nor how their personal relationships go.

diggingdude

There are great landlords and great Tenants. Its the poor on either side that are the problem. That being said though, the checks some of the landlords want to do on here are excessive. No one agrees with tenants not paying rent or damaging property but these risks are why landlords should be professional, not those who were left a house or became accidental landlords as they should have the finances/insurance to cover these issues

Soundgirlrocks

Noodles7791 wrote: »

This is my only asset.

I'm self employed and earn less than the national average wage. The property I let is also mortgaged, the bank owns a larger portion of the property than I do. If I were to have the misfortune to stumble on a bad tenant and am unable to meet the mortgage payments, I loose my only asset. How is that fair?

I don't mean to sound harsh but you are exactly the kind of landlord that I don't think should be letting property.

You are emotionally invested in the property (it used to be your home) Your reference to it as your "only" asset suggest a level of dependency and fear, if you did have a bad tenant / prolonged void I think the stress of it would be crippling and possibly cause you to behave irrationally.

Good landlords are emotionally detached from their investment this lets them look at the property objectively, (none of the "it worked fine when I lived there" type mentality) They run a business and understand the tenant is their client, they understand the law, they don't panic if a situation turns sour they know the procedure's to go through.

need_an_answer

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

I don't mean to sound harsh but you are exactly the kind of landlord that I don't think should be letting property.

You are emotionally invested in the property (it used to be your home) Your reference to it as your "only" asset suggest a level of dependency and fear, if you did have a bad tenant / prolonged void I think the stress of it would be crippling and possibly cause you to behave irrationally.

Good landlords are emotionally detached from their investment this lets them look at the property objectively, (none of the "it worked fine when I lived there" type mentality) They run a business and understand the tenant is their client, they understand the law, they don't panic if a situation turns sour they know the procedure's to go through.

So if you removed all the LL's that you describe what effect would that have on the housing market?

I am what some class as a portfolio LL and to a degree am quite attached to all my properties not always emotionally but I do believe that in order to invest in them you do need some form of commitment not just financially,but you do need to care about their upkeep too.

I started somewhere,with a deep routed family home that was actually built by a relation 100 years ago and has not been out of family ownership since.
Its a very successful rental property now and at the time was my only asset.


So which bracket would you now put me in as very clearly I started as the type of LL that you don't believe should be involved in renting?
Your post has far too many generalisations in it and therefore you've become critical of a section of people who provide living arrangements for many tenants.

If you have that type of attitude or over generalisation is it no wonder that from the other side LL's can be critical of tenants.


There are no laws at present that definitively say who should be a LL or indeed who should be a tenant, or what questions either can expect from the other but what is clear from the posters that there is a deep mistrust of eachother on both sides.

The potential reality may also be that there are many thousands of LL's who go about their business daily with very happy tenants.

FreeBear

gonsdad wrote: »

it's absolutely none of your business what your lodgers get up to, nor how their personal relationships go.

If they are shouting and fighting, I have every right to know - It impacts on my quality of life and causes a disturbance for the neighbours (of tertiary concern to me, but..). Likewise, if the go leaving piles of dirty dishes in the sink I will get annoyed.

If they are smoking inside the house or lighting candles/oil burners/incense, then there is an unacceptable fire risk to consider.

corell

If only the landlord of my neighbouring house had some of these ideas and used social media or google to check out their new tenants, I would not now be living next door to a couple going through continuous domestic violence and drug taking. The landlord would also know one has an ASBO and both are ex-cons recently released and were hell on earth to their previous neighbours. Yet I checked them out and I found all this out from what is available online. It's a good source to use in my opinion. I've happily been in my property for almost 5 years, I'm a tenant, I have 3 monthly inspections and yet now I cannot live peacefully in my home due to another landlords choices.
So it's not just your homes that may be damaged but also neighbour's lives so you need to get it right who you are letting your properties to for everyones sakes.

need_an_answer

FreeBear wrote: »

If they are smoking inside the house or lighting candles/oil burners/incense, then there is an unacceptable fire risk to consider.

I agree with this not from the point of view that I don't want my tenant yo enjoy a candle but actually my buildings insurance wont allow the flame as part of its condition.

So I'm not being miserable in having a tenancy agreement that says no candles,I am protecting my asset.

Of course if a tenant was to come to me and ask for a candle then the answer would only be yes if they could guarantee that they would cover the cost of any insurance claim that arose for damage to the property because they were burning something prohibited.