Don't demonise renters

Tucosalamanca

mick15 said:

Mr.Generous said:

Sound's like you might be renting from the wrong landlord Mick. Like others I do repairs immediately to keep tenant happy and protect the property. I've had boilers changed twice, both done much quicker than I managed to get mine done at home. No rent increase to coverthe cost. Rents go up every 2 years now, when I didn't put them up for 5 years I got complaints that it was "out of the blue" and that "I thought the rent was fixed as long as we stayed here" etc.

Section 21 used once as a warning, rent was never paid on time - they stayed 7 months, initial payment up front, rent late and short every month after. They caused loads of damage and eventually abandoned the house leaving it unlocked, bizarrely with a lot of belongings still there. Doors damaged, carpets burn marks and filth, worktops damaged, walls and paintwork damaged (they had a big dog in a 2 bed terrace without agreement).

Obviously all the landlords fault.

I have a tenant who sold her owned house to help her 2 kids get on property market and rents. How could you look down on someone who made this sacrifice? I have a tenant who wanted a large 3 bed with a garden so she can have her kids in a bedroom each and somewhere to play rather than live in a tiny street fronted terrace she could afford to buy. A tenant who rents to be near elderly relative to provide care. Who would look down on these people?

The tenants that are looked down on, like the landlords who are same, maybe need to look at the circumstances and actions they take.

There are good and bad on both sides, Firstly I don't rent, an assumption you made, but I do have several friends/family that do. The term Landlord is derogatory in this day and age and that needs to be changed. Properties are often rented out after a quick makeover, many have damo issues detrimental to health and during the first winter the mould/fungus appears. Properties should be inspected prior to being rented and if any form of damp is found the property should not be allowed to be rented. 

Hilarious. When are we going to replace the nation's housing stock?

JosephK

As ever, the negative publicity is always about the bad minority of both landlords and tenants and that is the way the media will always portray it. Meanwhile, the majority just get on with life. 

saajan_12

Are you hearing (or reading) yourself? Some tenants are good so call them all good, but some LLs are bad, so they are 'often' bad. 

In all roles there will be good and bad actors. In the absence of statistics, you can't just decide which subset is representative of the group arbitrarily. 

mick15

Exodi said:

mick15 said:

Mr.Generous said:

Sound's like you might be renting from the wrong landlord Mick. Like others I do repairs immediately to keep tenant happy and protect the property. I've had boilers changed twice, both done much quicker than I managed to get mine done at home. No rent increase to coverthe cost. Rents go up every 2 years now, when I didn't put them up for 5 years I got complaints that it was "out of the blue" and that "I thought the rent was fixed as long as we stayed here" etc.

Section 21 used once as a warning, rent was never paid on time - they stayed 7 months, initial payment up front, rent late and short every month after. They caused loads of damage and eventually abandoned the house leaving it unlocked, bizarrely with a lot of belongings still there. Doors damaged, carpets burn marks and filth, worktops damaged, walls and paintwork damaged (they had a big dog in a 2 bed terrace without agreement).

Obviously all the landlords fault.

I have a tenant who sold her owned house to help her 2 kids get on property market and rents. How could you look down on someone who made this sacrifice? I have a tenant who wanted a large 3 bed with a garden so she can have her kids in a bedroom each and somewhere to play rather than live in a tiny street fronted terrace she could afford to buy. A tenant who rents to be near elderly relative to provide care. Who would look down on these people?

The tenants that are looked down on, like the landlords who are same, maybe need to look at the circumstances and actions they take.

There are good and bad on both sides, Firstly I don't rent, an assumption you made, but I do have several friends/family that do. The term Landlord is derogatory in this day and age and that needs to be changed. Properties are often rented out after a quick makeover, many have damo issues detrimental to health and during the first winter the mould/fungus appears. Properties should be inspected prior to being rented and if any form of damp is found the property should not be allowed to be rented. 

Sorry, I'm really struggling to understand the point you're trying to make:

You say the term landlord is derogatory and that needs to change, but then continue your crusade with specific anecdotes about bad landlords?

Your points about mould are not so black and white. Mould is a symptom of poor ventilation (or high humidity), which of course damp can also be a cause.

But a house with no damp issue can develop mould, for example if you repeatedly dry washing in a room with the door closed with no ventilation. The cause of mould isn't always the landlords fault either - if the bathroom extractor fans aren't vented then it's the landlords fault. But if the tenant refuses to switch the fans on after a bath/shower, it's the tenants fault.

Mmm, Appears to be the Tenants fault as always, poor Landlords, or should I say House Owners who rent out their second home. If they don't want normal wear and tear on their properties which over a number of years is inevitable, don't really want children or Pets then the answer is simple....just sell it !! Conversation over I would say, let's agree to disagree 

mick15

theoretica said:

On this forum, one reason the less good renters are talked about is to make potential one-off landlords think about whether they are actually equipped to rent out a property in a professional manner or have unrealistic expectations (eg get the property back whenever they want/not need to do much maintenance...)

Nailed it in oneelsien said:

I’m not sure I agree that many people would want to live on a canal boat. Some people do. I suspect the majority would struggle with that level of minimalism. And trying to fit children into a canal boat without everyone killing each other. 

Then clearly if they thought they would struggle with that lifestyle then they wouldn't buy a narrowboat, would they ? But certainly cheaper than buying a house or renting, so an alternative, and something they can call home and will eventually own rather than pouting £1000s into rental

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Emmia said:

I think we should end right to buy, to help keep social housing in the hands of councils/housing associations, rather than having it sold off at a loss to the council, but at huge profit to the previous tenant, now owner. 

They did here in Wales back in 2019 and our local council is buying houses, makes sense the council own the property removing the landlord and mortgage provider profit that the tax payer is funding through housing benefit.

Unfortunately they don't have many and it's a shame they didn't do it years ago when property was cheaper but at least they are sort of heading in the right direction.  

Grumpy_chap

Exodi said:

The reasons landlords can be selective about "no children or pets" or estate agents can "Gazump and [charge] 6 months rent up front" is because they can get away with it when they have double/triple digit number of viewings booked.

Just to comment on these points:

"no pets" may not be down to the LL.  It is not uncommon (especially in flats) for the long lease to prohibit the keeping of pets.  In such cases, the LL has to impose the same restriction in any AST agreement.  For these properties, the same restriction would apply to residents if they purchased the property.

"no children" would rarely have the same restrictions but some properties the comment might be made if there is simply inadequate space (property is too small).  Some properties in "retirement villages / over 50 estates" have restrictions on minimum age of residents, though I suspect the number of such properties in the private rental sector is very small.

"gazumping" is, AIUI, mainly in very specific locations and more an issue with HMO accommodation.  Whenever I have let, the process of the T signing from viewing is quite quick so there is little time for gazumping to happen in any case.

"6 months rent upfront" is something I would never do.  I have been offered this.  From a LL perspective, it has some substantial drawbacks that might be an issue - the main one being that it is, allegedly, a popular payment method of those that plan a cannabis farm.  If the T's financial position does not support the tenancy, a guarantor is a better solution IMO.

Murphybear

Grumpy_chap said:

Exodi said:

The reasons landlords can be selective about "no children or pets" or estate agents can "Gazump and [charge] 6 months rent up front" is because they can get away with it when they have double/triple digit number of viewings booked.

Just to comment on these points:

"no pets" may not be down to the LL.  It is not uncommon (especially in flats) for the long lease to prohibit the keeping of pets.  In such cases, the LL has to impose the same restriction in any AST agreement.  For these properties, the same restriction would apply to residents if they purchased the property.

"no children" would rarely have the same restrictions but some properties the comment might be made if there is simply inadequate space (property is too small).  Some properties in "retirement villages / over 50 estates" have restrictions on minimum age of residents, though I suspect the number of such properties in the private rental sector is very small.

"gazumping" is, AIUI, mainly in very specific locations and more an issue with HMO accommodation.  Whenever I have let, the process of the T signing from viewing is quite quick so there is little time for gazumping to happen in any case.

"6 months rent upfront" is something I would never do.  I have been offered this.  From a LL perspective, it has some substantial drawbacks that might be an issue - the main one being that it is, allegedly, a popular payment method of those that plan a cannabis farm.  If the T's financial position does not support the tenancy, a guarantor is a better solution IMO.

Having dealt with thousands of tenants over the years that’s one problem we never had  . I don’t see how paying 6 months rent in advance would make a difference.  We did regular checks on all our properties the main purpose of which was to make sure there were no problems and not to check up on the tenants, including those who paid in advance.  

FlorayG

"They don't like doing repairs and tenants don't like reporting them for fear of eviction. If the repairs are reported and carried out then a rent increase will surely follow" is excessively sweeping. I get annoyed if my tenant DOESN'T report anything that needs doing and I certainly don't increase the rent just because I've upgraded something. I own the house, of course I want it in good condition and I can't expect the tenant to look after it if I don't.
Don't tar all landlords with the same brush, please

bairn7

mick15 said:

Circumstances such as redundancy, divorce, death of a partner can all force perfectly good people into the rental market. 

What about people who prefer to rent? Are they not perfectly good people?