Renting - who is responsible for decorating?

lookstraightahead

I live quite lightly really (grown up kids) with no pets at the moment (very old cat no longer with us but she was a neat and tidy girl).

We bought our place two years ago and I have to say the walls need a lick of paint already, I think 4 years with white or magnolia paint, specially in high footfall areas, does need painting again.

personally I think landlords find any reason to charge tenants so as a tenant you may as well dress your home as you wish, as long as you can easily change it back, brcause you're going to have to decorate anyway. When we moved into rented we took all the curtains down and stored anything that could be ruined and used our own. I remember in one place years ago the wooden toilet seat cracked (urghhh can't think of anything more unhygienic) and we replaced with a new plastic one, only to be charged for a new wooden one which they were never going to replace anyway. Thankfully the toilet seat was old when we took on the rental so was worth about 50p and I argued the case.

In one place the landlord tried to get away with saying our house was furnished, using an old conservatory suite in the lounge (free storage for them). We got them to move it out.

Grumpy_chap

lookstraightahead said:

personally I think landlords find any reason to charge tenants

Well, I disagree.  Some LL may behave like that but being a LL is running a business and good customer service keeps a customer happy.  That is the mindset we use with our BTL.

I think the issue with decorating is that the AST contract is based upon a tenant being in situ for a finite amount of time so the standard forms don't really cover decorating. The terms are all more general about the tenant being responsible for maintaining in good order and the LL responsible for any substantial.

In my opinion, if the tenant requests a general uplift decoration after a reasonable period of time (and I'd say 4 years as mentioned in this thread is reasonable), then I'd agree to cover the redecoration.  I have done so twice.  It is quite a small cost and as much in my interest to have a tenant that takes pride in the property.  Providing support such as periodic redecorating supports the tenant in that and shows that, as LL, we respect their right to have a nice place to live.  If we are too tight to pay for basic redecoration after a few years, why should the tenant treat the property with good respect?  Keep the property nice, good customer service and far more likely to have the tenant be happy and stay for a longer time.  It is, also, presumably an indication that the tenant is generally happy and intending to stay for a while if they are asking for redecoration.  

I try to encourage tenants to report any problem early as that means it can be managed and addressed swiftly rather than creating a bigger problem of left.  Consider the example of a slight weep from a drain pipe under the sink.

I sometimes do and pay for things that are not really down to me.  For example, the current tenant struggles with maintaining the garden.  I don't know why as they are fit and able.  However, typically, we receive contact on this matter twice a year and it is easier to send a gardener to do a quick cut everything back and tidy up than have an unhappy tenant.  The cost is low compared to the alternative of the tenant thinking we are heartless and moving on, thus leaving a void period.

In 18 years as a BTL LL, and 6 changes of tenant, I have only once deducted anything from the deposit.

I always redecorate the property before a new tenant takes possession.  

I realise that not all LL understand the "running a business / customer service" philosophy in the same way as I do.

propertyrental

Absolutely agree not-so-grumpy-chap.

But on a site like this it's equally important to provide information (to both Ts and LLs if they ask) based strictly on the legal position.

Grumpy_chap

propertyrental said:

Absolutely agree not-so-grumpy-chap.

But on a site like this it's equally important to provide information (to both Ts and LLs if they ask) based strictly on the legal position.

Yes, you are correct.
The strict position has been pretty much confirmed upthread:

sammyjammy said:

The landlord can choose to paint it if they so wish, if the tenant can't live with it they could ask landlord if they can paint it.  There is no requirement for any painting to be done at all.

lookstraightahead said:

you could rent a property for 20 years and you're forbidden to decorate (potentially) but landlords don't have to do it either.

saajan_12 said:

The LL is responsible for ensuring the property is in good repair, that doesn't extend to cosmetic work. 

That strict position does not really help with establishing happy tenants and happy tenant, easy life for the LL.  It is really important that a tenant enjoys living in their home.  Apply what are, to me anyway, basic business principles to ensure customer satisfaction and a happy tenant is far more likely.

lookstraightahead

Grumpy_chap said:

lookstraightahead said:

personally I think landlords find any reason to charge tenants

Well, I disagree.  Some LL may behave like that but being a LL is running a business and good customer service keeps a customer happy.  That is the mindset we use with our BTL.

I think the issue with decorating is that the AST contract is based upon a tenant being in situ for a finite amount of time so the standard forms don't really cover decorating. The terms are all more general about the tenant being responsible for maintaining in good order and the LL responsible for any substantial.

In my opinion, if the tenant requests a general uplift decoration after a reasonable period of time (and I'd say 4 years as mentioned in this thread is reasonable), then I'd agree to cover the redecoration.  I have done so twice.  It is quite a small cost and as much in my interest to have a tenant that takes pride in the property.  Providing support such as periodic redecorating supports the tenant in that and shows that, as LL, we respect their right to have a nice place to live.  If we are too tight to pay for basic redecoration after a few years, why should the tenant treat the property with good respect?  Keep the property nice, good customer service and far more likely to have the tenant be happy and stay for a longer time.  It is, also, presumably an indication that the tenant is generally happy and intending to stay for a while if they are asking for redecoration.  

I try to encourage tenants to report any problem early as that means it can be managed and addressed swiftly rather than creating a bigger problem of left.  Consider the example of a slight weep from a drain pipe under the sink.

I sometimes do and pay for things that are not really down to me.  For example, the current tenant struggles with maintaining the garden.  I don't know why as they are fit and able.  However, typically, we receive contact on this matter twice a year and it is easier to send a gardener to do a quick cut everything back and tidy up than have an unhappy tenant.  The cost is low compared to the alternative of the tenant thinking we are heartless and moving on, thus leaving a void period.

In 18 years as a BTL LL, and 6 changes of tenant, I have only once deducted anything from the deposit.

I always redecorate the property before a new tenant takes possession.  

I realise that not all LL understand the "running a business / customer service" philosophy in the same way as I do.

This is lovely to hear. I do stand by my point that you are probably in the minority. Sue great reasoning as to why landlords need to keep the properties nice, so that the tenants do.

Ksw3

I grew up in a council house and you could do whatever you want, was a bit of a shock to rent privately to find a couldn't even hang a picture without threats of losing my deposit...and had to stare at magnolia walls going from one flat to the next. 

MultiFuelBurner

Ksw3 said:

I grew up in a council house and you could do whatever you want, was a bit of a shock to rent privately to find a couldn't even hang a picture without threats of losing my deposit...and had to stare at magnolia walls going from one flat to the next. 

Were you refused changes by all landlords?

KxMx

I've been in my flat 15 months and I've just started going round removing scuffs (usually with a tiny bit of nail varnish and a tiny amount of pressure). 
The only mark that hasn't come off and will need a dab of paint is where the sofa colour has transferred onto the wall (red on ivory). 

theartfullodger

Apart from 'elf and safeT there is no requirement for any sort of decoration at all.

Unless Tenancy or licensing says otherwise.

lookstraightahead

MultiFuelBurner said:

Ksw3 said:

I grew up in a council house and you could do whatever you want, was a bit of a shock to rent privately to find a couldn't even hang a picture without threats of losing my deposit...and had to stare at magnolia walls going from one flat to the next. 

Were you refused changes by all landlords?

Why should you need to ask? So long as it's put back when you leave which I get, why can't anyone paint a wall without asking a landlord? Next those renting will have to ask what they can have for tea. 

I suppose what it does do is give some landlords an opportunity to look for scuffs and then charge for a repaint, ad infinitum with each tenant, so that it costs the landlord nothing to redecorate, each tenant starts with 'perfect white / magnolia walls' which of course get scuffed.
not saying all landlords would do this, but it's an easy one to make money on.