Buy-to-let Responsibilities

lipidicman

Sure, I wasnt directly criticising your post! Just didnt want anyone with an HMO to think a freebie from the fire station was good enough!

trafalgar_2

In my view it would be in the landlords interest anyway to fit a smoke alarm,alarm raised early usually means less damamge to property as well :beer:

lush_walrus

garysletters wrote:

It is not a landlords responsibility to fit smoke alarms unless it is a HMO (with multiple families/individuals living together).

True, but most landlords are now finding themselves in the position of being under the HMO legislation.

The new legislation states that a HMO is considered to be anyone who rents a property to more than 2 people staying at the property, therefore if you rent a two bed flat out to a couple with a child then you should comply, equally if you rent a property to two people, one of which decides to move their partner in without letting you know, you are still found to be in breach of HMO


Not complying (which non complience with smoke alarm requirements) carries a £20,000 fine.


Details can be found on:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/divisionhomepage/036728.hcsp

With typical HMO applied on:
http://www.lbwf.gov.uk/index/environment/env-public-health/env-hmo.htm

lush_walrus

Forgot to mention, with regards to Building Regs (and means of escape/fire etc), Building Regs only ever apply if a property has changed its use, been extended or adapted or is new build. They do not apply retrospectively ie: if you are a tennant in a purpose built block of flats that have remained unchanged fire regulations linked to Building Regs Part B are not required to be implimented.

GreenB_2

As a landlord I would fit one anyway. However - it does question the "responsibilities" a tenant should expect to carry out. In my view A tenant should treat the property in the same way as they would if it was their own home and take the same care and responsibilities

lush_walrus

GreenB wrote:

As a landlord I would fit one anyway. However - it does question the "responsibilities" a tenant should expect to carry out. In my view A tenant should treat the property in the same way as they would if it was their own home and take the same care and responsibilities

Well in the ideal world, I have to agree, but in my experience the majority of tenants treat properties anything but as they might their own!!!

I admire all of you who are landlords, having seen it from the other side (via my agency staff reporting 'problems' with tenants etc) God I would never trust anyone with anything I owned!

There are very good tenants out there who do have respect for property and the contents within, but there appear to be plenty who would rather live somewhere for free and keep a property like a pigsty to boot!!.

meanmachine_2

GreenB wrote:

As a landlord I would fit one anyway. However - it does question the "responsibilities" a tenant should expect to carry out. In my view A tenant should treat the property in the same way as they would if it was their own home and take the same care and responsibilities

Hahahaha.

Yeah good luck with that approach.

I'm afraid if you allow anyone the "privilege" of paying your mortgage for you, you must be prepared for the worst. Only then will you be pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't be a landlord for all the tea in China.

lipidicman

I dont have the nerves required either - doesn't seem like easy money to me!

sneekymum

This thread has had 221 views so for - representing 221 rented properties (current or future) ? - some of which may get a smoke detector fitted this week and a life or two may be saved.

We rent out commercial property and have our facilities inspected annually by the fire officer - in addition to current service contracts. In a world that's moving more towards the American model of sueing for damages at every possible opportunity we are very aware of the concept of Duty of Care.

No, I wouldn't touch residential buy-to-let in a fit.

edit
229 now

GreenB_2

mmm.. makes me think if there were no landlords - half the people who are not buying because it is too "expensive" would be living on the street or in a tent.

would not demand for housing increase more thus prices increase futher?

Perhaps the LAW should be enforced to ensure tenants look after the properties they rent?