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

growstuff

madmum38

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

That kind of situation is exactly why laws need tightening.

they would have to wait on after that period. Have they been to the housing section at their council offices. I'm sorry I dont have the correct name but I have post covid brain fog!

growstuff is right though, it should be run as a business not a pension investment or an asset.

I have seen the damage short term lets inflict not only financially but emotionally on young families especially those that are already in crisis and /or poverty. It isn't fair

madmum38

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

That kind of situation is exactly why laws need tightening.

quiet enjoyment
Hammering away.

I said astonished btw

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

^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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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.