Every seven minutes a private renter in England is given eviction notice even though they have done nothing wrong.

growstuff

Gagajo How come you couldn't keep money for a professional clean? How much had you allocated for fair wear and tear and how often had the property been inspected while you were away?

1) Tenants are responsible for cleaning a property before they move out. I should not have to pay for a professional clean.

In this case, floors hadn't been washed. I honestly thought the white painted floors had discoloured. No. It was just dirt. When I washed them, it came off.

The carpet in the living room was stained. I thought (again) the stains were not removeable. No. When I cleaned the carpet they came out.

I was a tenant for many, many years. I know the drill. You clean the house, including the oven. As a tenant you move into a clean house and you leave the house clean. The house was clean for the tenants and it was filthy when they left.

2) Wear and tear is a different matter. Paintwork doesn't have to be pristine. It is absolutely a property needs repainting between tenants.

3) The property had supposedly been inspected while I'd been away. But how well it had been inspected was debateable, because the agent also inspected before the tenants left and said it was in good order.

When I drove past the house while I was away (back on holiday), I saw an external drip from the overflow pipe. Not reported to the agent by the tenant. I reported it. Got them to get it fixed AND to have the stain down the side of the house cleaned off.

I think £4,000 worth of damage in 4 years is a little excessive. New paint? Absolutely. New carpets? Possible, although replacing carpets after 4 years is more than fair wear and tear. Unreported flood damage in a bathroom, requiring a new floor (joists, floor boards) is not wear and tear. It is either a genuine problem which wasn't reported or it was negligence. Either way, they didn't have to take any responsibility for it, because I paid for it. Not them.

If Margaret Thatcher had brought in that right to buy we would be in as much mess as we are now

One sold fast, this one was on sale for 2 years while I had no security & constant buyers in! It was listed as with Sitting Tenant! 2 separate would be buyers told me that if they bought it, the rent would increase or I would be out! Thankfully the property never sold but because of this I now have a Rolling contract with no security.

And this is exactly the consequences that I tried to explain in my post @ 22.27 yesterday. If, and when, this property is sold to an investor, they will, in all probability, require that the property be vacated whilst they undertake vital modernisation and safety upgrades. SillyNanny123 would then be temporarily homeless until the upgrades are completed. Once the works are completed, assuming the property is to go back onto the rental market, they will seek to recover their costs for those improvements by charging a higher monthly rent, as SillyNanny123 has confirmed. Simply stating The "wealthy" who snap up the bargain properties would have to be stopped from evicting and re-letting at a higher rent, would be self defeating; landlords would simply stop improving or maintaining their properties properly if they knew that they couldn't recoup their costs and that would lead to more slum landlords. It is precisely because most private landlords do have an emotional attachment to their properties that they want to care for, invest in and maintain their properties whilst retaining good and responsible tenants. But, if you remove their option to sell that property at any time, remember that it will come with the above consequences. Putting embargoes and legal restrictions on one sector of the property rental industry will simply enlarge and strengthen another that is potentially worse.

That's because many MPs rent out homes and live in tax payers' accommodation instead. They are not going to vote for something that's going to be detrimental to them.

If they live in their constituency and rent out their previous home have you considered that they might become homeless on losing the next election?

Like to see and MP sleeping on a park bench, especially a Tory one.

growstuff

Caro57

What about the owner who may have a change of circumstances and need their house back?
I was a private landlord and ended up having to replace the sewage system in the house because the tenants used ‘baby wipes’. I had to fumigate the house because the cats - which they were not meant to keep - left fleas. I had to replace the kitchen cabinet doors because they smashed one and didn’t report it. They deferred on rent constantly ‘stringing me along’ - I loved that house, it had been my home but they destroyed any feelings I had for it and, once they left, I sold it - I will never be a landlord again - it’s thankless

Landlords must never have an emotional attachment to their properties. Somebody else is paying rent and it becomes their home, not yours.

Even if it is their own home they're renting out when they are working overseas?

We know people who've done this and did come home after two years to find their house in a terrible mess, including, for some reason, a large hole in the wall between two bedrooms.

Buy-to-let was actively encouraged during the early 2000s because the future of pensions was uncertain. It was seen as a viable alternative and mortgages readily offered. Perhaps many of those who bought when they were working now want to realise their assets for valid reasons.

The DPS have a guide don't they regarding wear and tear and in busy rooms (lounges etc) it is 3 -5 years

No, I don't think they should have an emotional attachment to it. They should employ an agent to make sure the property is being well looked after. It's somebody else's home and that other person is paying to have a home, no matter whose name is actually on the deeds.

If they want to realise their assets, they can sell at the market rate. Quite honestly, if that means they have to sell with a sitting tenant - tough! They should have done their homework before they decided to let as an investment. Presumably they've been collecting rent and, even with a sitting tenant, the property will probably have made a profit - almost certainly more than if they had left the money in a savings account. If it hasn't, they bought in the wrong place - so it's back to doing homework before becoming a BTL investor and being realistic.

How much did the hole in the wall cost to repair? Did it exceed the amount they factored in for damage?

JaneJudge

The DPS have a guide don't they regarding wear and tear and in busy rooms (lounges etc) it is 3 -5 years

Yes, they do, which is why my landlord would need to replace carpets and white goods and redecorate, whatever state I left any of them in. My next-door-neighbour's landlords completely redecorate and replace carpets after every letting finishes.

PS. They're tax deductible, so should be factored in to the business plan.

How much did the hole in the wall cost to repair? Did it exceed the amount they factored in for damage?

I have no idea how much it cost to repair - why on earth would I?

Callistemon21

^How much did the hole in the wall cost to repair? Did it exceed the amount they factored in for damage?^

I have no idea how much it cost to repair - why on earth would I?

I don't expect you would, but the point is that the owners should have factored in damage from the start. Experienced landlords reckon on 15% of the rent for damage and maintenance. Unfortunately, some small landlords forget that.

It's somebody else's home and that other person is paying to have a home, no matter whose name is actually on the deeds

So why treat a 'home' with such disrespect?

Callistemon21

^It's somebody else's home and that other person is paying to have a home, no matter whose name is actually on the deeds^

So why treat a 'home' with such disrespect?

It's nobody else's business how anybody else keeps their home.

My landlord once told me that he doesn't care if I keep coal in the bath or never mow the lawn or get the windows cleaned, just so long as the bath isn't damaged and the garden looks neat and tidy when I hand it back.

I wish our factored in 15% for damage and maintenance was enough, but it's a mere drop in the ocean when taking into account a new kitchen and bathroom, new smoke alarms and a new heaters and floor coverings, all due to being mistreated by the last tenant.

but the point is that the owners should have factored in damage from the start

If accidental damage the house insurance should cover that. Wear and tear should be factored in, of course.

Obviously if a tenant deliberately damages a house - their home - then that won't be covered, will it.
It's not the only case I know of and I'd hazard a guess that if the home was owned by the occupier not rented, some of the deliberate damage I've heard of would not have happened.

Of course, there are negligent landlords/ladies too as I pointed out in a post above.
Not all landlords/ladies are responsible but the same is true for tenants too.

That's not the point though is it growstuff for landlords who have untold damage when they finally, in many cases after great expense, manage to get their property back.

Rented accommodation may be someone's home but it is not their property is it.

It's nobody else's business how anybody else keeps their home

I disagree. It is someone else's property even if it's the tenant's home.
Deliberate damage is not usual wear and tear.

I'm astonished that you seem to think it is acceptable.

We are selling up.
We bought it with an inheritance from my MIL
So relieved that we will no longer be landlords.
So , hopefully, in about 2 or 3 weeks we will be free!
The buyer is a single woman who is going to live in the flat herself.
Just keeping my fingers crossed

If they want to realise their assets, they can sell at the market rate. Quite honestly, if that means they have to sell with a sitting tenant - tough! They should have done their homework before they decided to let as an investment.

Your bitterness and envy is clouding clear thinking and not allowing you to see the consequences of what your advocating.

Callistemon21

^It's nobody else's business how anybody else keeps their home^

I disagree. It is someone else's property even if it's the tenant's home.
Deliberate damage is not usual wear and tear.

I'm astonished that you seem to think it is acceptable.

Well, be astounded! (as if I care.) No, it doesn't matter whose name is on the deeds, it's somebody else's home for the duration of any letting agreement and they have the right to "quiet enjoyment" without “without interruption of the possession”.

I agree that deliberate damage isn't wear and tear, which is why any sensible landlord factors that into a damage deposit and keeps money to one side to pay for it.

It’s very difficult for private renters.
My son and daughter in law had just had their second baby, not longed signed an extension to the rental when his landlord pops up, he had decided to sell the house and they had a month to get somewhere else.
They had to take somewhere that had a years tenancy but assured it would be longer, six months in and same thing has happened so while they are trying to figure what to do they are having work people in and out of the place doing it up to get a better price.
They went to the council to see if they would help but told no as they are not homeless yet.
I wish I had room to take them in as I’m worried but just not got space

Smileless2012

That's not the point though is it growstuff for landlords who have untold damage when they finally, in many cases after great expense, manage to get their property back.

Rented accommodation may be someone's home but it is not their property is it.

Yes, it is their property during the time they are paying rent and they have the right to live in it as they wish, subject to any restrictions in the contract and local by-laws.

quiet enjoyment
Hammering away.

I said astonished btw