A question for landlords, if I may

Graces7

I have often wondered, occasionally having been to the homes of our landlords.. if they would themselves live in the places they rent out?

Maybe a part of any training etc for lls should include that?

badgerbaiter

Im not a landlord but ive seen properties before that were advertised as "owner occupied" and assumed this meant the landlord lives there too

athtrasna

Many landlords now, myself included, did indeed live in the properties we have now had to rent out. I haven't actually been in the house for years now, my OH or our agent do any checks, repairs etc. I actually cried after we evicted our first tenants, and saw what they'd done to our beautiful house.

mrmitty

I'm a landlord and I've no desire to live in any of my rental properties.
Some because of location, others because of antiquatedness, none because of habitability or lack there of.
There is however a market for the properties that I own and the proof is in the fact that the are all rented at present.
If my economic situation changed substantially for the worse then yes I would live in any of them.

dudmis

I'm in a rental at the moment that was owner occupied prior to it being rented to me.

TBH I can't get over the amount of small (but v annoying) things that are wrong with this house that she was prepared to live with! eg door handles falling off, curtain railings barely hanging on, single glazing throughout the house - despite it having huge windows etc. The list goes on and on. It makes it hard to get things fixed because I think there is an attitude of 'well, it was ok for me, so why should i pay to get it fixed for you".

I wouldn't put up with this stuff in my own home, but she was quite happy to - I suppose different people have different tolerance levels.

odds_on

dudmis wrote: »

I'm in a rental at the moment that was owner occupied prior to it being rented to me.

TBH I can't get over the amount of small (but v annoying) things that are wrong with this house that she was prepared to live with! eg door handles falling off, curtain railings barely hanging on, single glazing throughout the house - despite it having huge windows etc. The list goes on and on. It makes it hard to get things fixed because I think there is an attitude of 'well, it was ok for me, so why should i pay to get it fixed for you".

I wouldn't put up with this stuff in my own home, but she was quite happy to - I suppose different people have different tolerance levels.

Excellent post, dudmis. And therein lies much of the crux of the matter.

I think that you could also add the following. A landlord says /thinks that he can fix that small problem - so why can't you do it yourself, Mr. tenant?

cailinoBAC

Yes, I lived in the house I rented out. It was my home. Unfortunately it's now in a different country to where my work is so I decided to rent it out. It's too much trouble though, I think whenever the current tenants leave I'll just leave it empty until I come back.

ANXIOUS

cailinoBAC wrote: »

Yes, I lived in the house I rented out. It was my home. Unfortunately it's now in a different country to where my work is so I decided to rent it out. It's too much trouble though, I think whenever the current tenants leave I'll just leave it empty until I come back.

What hassle have you encountered?

cailinoBAC

Don't really want to get into the details, but if I was around maybe I would consider it as I could deal with the problems myself. But it's impossible to do that from a distance so my parents bear the brunt of it and it's not fair on them. Then again if I was around I'd be living in the house myself and not renting it out.

amdublin

Graces7 wrote: »

I have often wondered, occasionally having been to the homes of our landlords.. if they would themselves live in the places they rent out?

Maybe a part of any training etc for lls should include that?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But you don't have to live there either. If you are not happy with the accommodation on offer no one is forcing you to rent it

BostonB

dudmis wrote: »

I'm in a rental at the moment that was owner occupied prior to it being rented to me.

TBH I can't get over the amount of small (but v annoying) things that are wrong with this house that she was prepared to live with! eg door handles falling off, curtain railings barely hanging on, single glazing throughout the house - despite it having huge windows etc. The list goes on and on. It makes it hard to get things fixed because I think there is an attitude of 'well, it was ok for me, so why should i pay to get it fixed for you".

I wouldn't put up with this stuff in my own home, but she was quite happy to - I suppose different people have different tolerance levels.

So you thought all this, then rented it

Graces7

amdublin wrote: »

Maybe. Maybe not.

But you don't have to live there either. If you are not happy with the accommodation on offer no one is forcing you to rent it

(A) I made no complaint.

(B) We need RA which greatly limits choice.

Distraction tactics don't work.

In general, as others have said, condtitions are not such as LLs would accept.

You see adverts for old furniture "suitable for rental", and if you ask, well they say you don't know who will be in.

As others will say, we pay and often highly. To be left with junk

Graces7

BostonB wrote: »

So you thought all this, then rented it

Ah once more you see attack as the best form of defence?

Cavehill Red

Graces7 wrote: »

I have often wondered, occasionally having been to the homes of our landlords.. if they would themselves live in the places they rent out?

Maybe a part of any training etc for lls should include that?

Not sure what 'training' is required?
But my best friend owns a beautiful five bed house that he cannot afford the mortgage on, so it's rented out and he's in a pokey two bed apartment which he rents. He is dreaming of and living for the day he can move back into the house he has rented out.

Graces7

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not sure what 'training' is required?
But my best friend owns a beautiful five bed house that he cannot afford the mortgage on, so it's rented out and he's in a pokey two bed apartment which he rents. He is dreaming of and living for the day he can move back into the house he has rented out.

- an awareness of tenancy laws and rules such as PRTB reg and BER.
- living in the house to sort out snags.
would be a start

I hope your friend does get home again soon.

His situation though is not one we have encountered.

Cavehill Red

Graces7 wrote: »

- an awareness of tenancy laws and rules such as PRTB reg and BER.
- living in the house to sort out snags.
would be a start

I hope your friend does get home again soon.

His situation though is not one we have encountered.

I'd imagine it's a lot more common than most people think. It could well come into focus with the new taxes coming in, I suspect. Anyhow, landlords are required by law to be registered with the PRTB, and filling in the form doesn't require training. I don't know that they need to have lived in a house prior to renting it out, though. This thread has already clarified that different people will have different ideas of what a snag in the house is. I'm not sure that would serve the purpose you presumably wish to see, which is to ensure that inhabitable standards of rental accommodation are enforced.

odds_on

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd imagine it's a lot more common than most people think. It could well come into focus with the new taxes coming in, I suspect. Anyhow, landlords are required by law to be registered with the PRTB, and filling in the form doesn't require training. I don't know that they need to have lived in a house prior to renting it out, though. This thread has already clarified that different people will have different ideas of what a snag in the house is. I'm not sure that would serve the purpose you presumably wish to see, which is to ensure that inhabitable standards of rental accommodation are enforced.

Unfortunately for tenants, "snags" seldom render a house "uninhabitable"

NIMAN

I lived in my main house for 10yrs, then bought another for family reasons, could not sell my 1st, and now rent it out.

I loved my 1st house and really looked after it. It was immaculate when I rented it out, finished to a high standard.

borderlinemeath

Graces7 wrote: »

(A) I made no complaint.

(B) We need RA which greatly limits choice.

Distraction tactics don't work.

In general, as others have said, condtitions are not such as LLs would accept.

You see adverts for old furniture "suitable for rental", and if you ask, well they say you don't know who will be in.

As others will say, we pay and often highly. To be left with junk

People are different. Tenants are different. Some are fantastic, others will ruin you. Once bitten, twice shy springs to mind.

My partner owns a few houses, he lived in 2 of them before they were rented out - the first was a lovely large 3 bed end of terrace with a huge garden, plenty of parking at the front and well furnished and beautifully finished. He rented rooms at first and when he bought his second house in the same area, all his tenants went with him.

He let the first house out through a letting agent, after 2 years the tenants were moving out and the house was left trashed. Not only was most of the furniture destroyed but there were holes in the walls, doors and the green bin was stuffed full of rancid food and crawling with maggots. The bathroom ceiling was black with mould and the ventilation system was deactivated, shower door broken and the toilet had to be replaced.

So from then on furniture was "suitable for rental" ie hardwearing and hopefully washable. Beds were bought sturdy but mattresses bought cheaply for replacing. Sofas were leather or faux leather for easy wipe down.

When something you spent money on, or worked hard for or fitted with your own hands gets destroyed by a tenant it is very disheartening - I would imagine the majority of landlords have been burnt at some stage by rogue tenants (and there's a lot of them because they get away with murder imo)and are weary of fitting a house out nicely or running to get new furnishings at the start of a tenancy when you don't know how good (or bad) the new tenants may be.

Julie London

My rental property is lovingly maintained. I make sure it is cos I intend to move home and live in it in a few years. I get it painted outside and inside as and when needed. I get windows washed and chimney done once a year. I replace appliances. and the furniture in it is to a high standard. The bed in the master bedroom alone cost me 1000 Euros. And I have flatscreens in all the bedrooms. My tenants are well looked after. I get the garden done too. I make a very healthy profit every month but I could make more if I clamped down on some things. But I have good tenants and once they treat my house with respect I will treat them with respect.

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

People are different. Tenants are different. Some are fantastic, others will ruin you. Once bitten, twice shy springs to mind.

My partner owns a few houses, he lived in 2 of them before they were rented out - the first was a lovely large 3 bed end of terrace with a huge garden, plenty of parking at the front and well furnished and beautifully finished. He rented rooms at first and when he bought his second house in the same area, all his tenants went with him.

He let the first house out through a letting agent, after 2 years the tenants were moving out and the house was left trashed. Not only was most of the furniture destroyed but there were holes in the walls, doors and the green bin was stuffed full of rancid food and crawling with maggots. The bathroom ceiling was black with mould and the ventilation system was deactivated, shower door broken and the toilet had to be replaced.

So from then on furniture was "suitable for rental" ie hardwearing and hopefully washable. Beds were bought sturdy but mattresses bought cheaply for replacing. Sofas were leather or faux leather for easy wipe down.

When something you spent money on, or worked hard for or fitted with your own hands gets destroyed by a tenant it is very disheartening - I would imagine the majority of landlords have been burnt at some stage by rogue tenants (and there's a lot of them because they get away with murder imo)and are weary of fitting a house out nicely or running to get new furnishings at the start of a tenancy when you don't know how good (or bad) the new tenants may be.

Firstly I in no way condone any tenant thrashing a property - but what surprises me is that the agent did not do regular checks on the property.

Every 3 months or so my LL or his agent visit my home - they do a quick check around, check the garden and generally ask if things are ok. This is beneficial to both of us as if I have any issues I can lay them out to him in person and we can resolve them, it also means that any of the issues that arose for you wouldn't have the chance to.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

Firstly I in no way condone any tenant thrashing a property - but what surprises me is that the agent did not do regular checks on the property.

Every 3 months or so my LL or his agent visit my home - they do a quick check around, check the garden and generally ask if things are ok. This is beneficial to both of us as if I have any issues I can lay them out to him in person and we can resolve them, it also means that any of the issues that arose for you wouldn't have the chance to.

I don't think the letting agent went near the property as the rent was paid on time every month and from the outside, nothing looked untoward. It was also around 2004/05 at the height of the boom, they were probably too busy selling shoeboxes for megabucks.

It was the first and last time my OH used a letting agent, since then he has managed all lettings himself.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah once more you see attack as the best form of defence?

I think that if you see it's sh|te, why move in? I too am very puzzled by this sort of action.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This thread has already clarified that different people will have different ideas of what a snag in the house is.

A snag list is completed before the new owner/tenant move in. Once you are in, there's nothing making the landlord/EA/agent/etc complete the snag list.

daltonmd

the_syco wrote: »

I think that if you see it's sh|te, why move in? I too am very puzzled by this sort of action.


A snag list is completed before the new owner/tenant move in. Once you are in, there's nothing making the landlord/EA/agent/etc complete the snag list.

In fairness a lot of these little problems are only apparent after you move in.

BostonB

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah once more you see attack as the best form of defence?

Why is it an attack. Theres no logic to what he said. If there is logic explain it.

Also answer why would a LL spend money on a property if they don't need to rent it.

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

In fairness a lot of these little problems are only apparent after you move in.

Like single glazing??

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

Like single glazing??

Single glazing windows wouldn't appear on a snag list unless they're broken. Heating not working, rads needing to be bled, leaks and a lot more besides only become apparent when you move into any house, new or old and start to use these things.

BostonB

Kinda missing the point. Or you're taking about something entirely different. The previous comments weren't about non obvious things but obvious things. Entirely different.

If you want a house in a certain condition, with certain features, like double glazing, or a certain Ber rating. Then it makes no sense to complain about them being missing after you move in. Its just nonsense.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

Kinda missing the point. Or you're taking about something entirely different. The previous comments weren't about non obvious things but obvious things. Entirely different.

If you want a house in a certain condition, with certain features, like double glazing, or a certain Ber rating. Then it makes no sense to complain about them being missing after you move in. Its just nonsense.

What point??

I responded to this sentence by another poster:

"A snag list is completed before the new owner/tenant move in. Once you are in, there's nothing making the landlord/EA/agent/etc complete the snag list."

I pointed out that a lot of little things only become apparent after you move in. I said nothing about wanting double glazing or a Ber rating. Of course a tenant can complain if the heating is broken or if rails are falling down or if there is a leak in the kitchen for example.

Double glazing and Ber ratings are not snags.

BostonB

the_syco point was a lot of the things people complain about, are obvious before they move in. So why move in.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

the_syco point was a lot of the things people complain about, are obvious before they move in. So why move in.

I agree with you!! Although on the opposite side why doesn't the landlord make sure things are to standard before he rents it out? Why should it always fall on the tenant to point out the obvious things?

BostonB

Graces7 wrote: »

...Maybe a part of any training etc for lls should include that?

What training? Does LL or tenant get any training of any kind? If there was who would run and pay for it?

Rachiee

the problem is some landlords spuce a place up before getting a deposit and lease then the people move in, and say for example the mold that was just painted over starts coming back again or something such as the heating, fridge or washing machine breaks and the landlord refuses to fix it,
sure the tenant could just say they wont pay rent, or they can give their notice to leave but the landlord can then withold the deposit, while legally if there is no damage to the property and you have paid your rent the landlord has no right to do this, landlords in this country are extremely rarely prosecuted, so really can and do get away with it for people on social welfare a deposit is not a cost that can be absorbed there are some rentals with really appalling conditions and nothing is being done about it.

BostonB

If people can't tell the different between somewhere thats sorted, and some where thats neglected perhaps bring someone with them who does.

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

I agree with you!! Although on the opposite side why doesn't the landlord make sure things are to standard before he rents it out? Why should it always fall on the tenant to point out the obvious things?

If the tenant doesn't spot it. perhaps the LL is equally clueless about it.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

If the tenant doesn't spot it. perhaps the LL is equally clueless about it.

Then these aren't "obvious" problems we're talking about.

borderlinemeath

In fairness, some things may not bother some people but drive others mad.

Years ago I lived in an apartment where the washing machine door handle was broken, when I moved in the girl I was sharing with showed me how to open it with a spoon:D. It didn't bother me - it still washed my clothes just fine. Fantastic apartment otherwise.

On the flip side of this, one of my OHs tenants rang him saying the washing machine was moving when it was spinning (ie it needed levelling on it's feet). Trying to explain this to her was like rocket science so he had to go up and level it for her. She wouldn't have put up with the washing machine handle like me!

*He also redid the bathroom and replaced all the doors and doorhandles last year, not because she asked but because the bathroom needed tiling and he got a good deal on the doors and she freaked out thinking he was going to sell the house - so you can't win:D

I guess it's what you're used to as well. If you grew up in a pristine house where Dad was a diy enthusiast or broken things got fixed/or thrown out/upgraded then you would feel aggrieved if you were renting a property that had niggly little things.

However if you (like me) were a child of the 80s where there was no money to fix things let alone replace or upgrade, sometimes you tend not to see the little things as being troublesome once they function.

am i bovvered

I am a landlord, we are lucky enough to have good tenants, the standard of their home is better than our own, they pay us each month on time, so it is in all our interests to take care of the home.

Ray Palmer

I lived in each property myself. THe property has been improved since I lived there as I was aware of some of the issues from being there.

The reality is some tenants keep the places in good condition while others haven't. While I was living there I put in high quality items that would have lasted years longer than they did if it wasn't for tenants.

Having had to deal with tenants from a an early age I was never shocked to see the disregard people I knew had for property they rented. Never told people in college I had property due to the way they spoke about LL

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

Then these aren't "obvious" problems we're talking about.

TBH I dunno what you are talking about. You seem to be talking about the theory not the practise.

dudmis wrote: »

...door handles falling off, curtain railings barely hanging on, single glazing throughout the house - despite it having huge windows etc. ...

Seems obvious enough to me.

LL don't do these things because they don't have to. People rent the properties regardless. If everyone who viewed the place pointed out the problems and the place didn't rent the the LL would fix them. But if people are going to rent them anyway....

dudmis

I see I have started a bit of controversy!

Ok, so I agree that we were aware of the fact that the house had single glazing before we moved in - so I've no real come back there.

But, there was no way for me to know that:

• the dishwasher, cooker and dryer are useless, and while they work, they are not good quality,
• the drain for the shower is in fact designed for a sink and therefore the shower basin fills to the brim each time you have a shower,
• there are too many toilets in the house, so the water flow to them all is rubbish,

the list goes on and on. Also, these type of snags will not be fixed by most LLs as everything still works - just not very well.

Also, I was looking for 4 months for a four bedroom with garden to come up for rent in the area, so there was not much choice to be had.

amdublin

The utilities work. Yet they are useless.

What brand are they? I am sure not a "quality" brand if they are not of good quality? Again, this is something you could have seen when viewing and it was your choice to rent.

Do you want a toilet removed or something? What will fix this problem for you?

I agree the drain should be fixed. What has your LL said about it when you've asked them to fix it?

That you did not have much choice for a house is neither here nor there. Nothing to do with this particular property/landlord. You chose to rent the property.

Finally, when replying to this post please don't reply and say I'm "attacking you as a form of defence". Have a read over some other forums on Boards, this is the way debate and discussion goes... I'm just trying to get to the crux of your issues.

odds_on

the_syco wrote: »

I think that if you see it's sh|te, why move in? I too am very puzzled by this sort of action.


A snag list is completed before the new owner/tenant move in. Once you are in, there's nothing making the landlord/EA/agent/etc complete the snag list.

Basically there are two types of lists - the first list is of what problems you have noticed while viewing the property and before you have moved in. Then there is a snag list of things you don't spot from viewing but only find out after using an appliance or trying to do something like open a window which won't open, or finding that the shower or toilet are not working properly. Never ever just accept a landlord's word that he will fix something.
In either case it is always preferable to have these problems in writing and give the landlord "a reasonable time" (usually 7 - 14 days) to have the problem rectified. This puts a limit on the time that a landlord can take to fix the problem. After which, he is liable to be in breach of the landlord's obligations. This would entitle you to leave the property should the tenant so desire and retain his full deposit.

When advising the landlord (or his agent) of a problem, by all means discuss the matter with him during a phone call or text message. But, always follow up with a dated written letter, specifying the problem and specifying your acceptable time to get the problem fixed. Again, always keep a copy as if there is a claim with the PRTB, you will have written evidence of your request and "the reasonable time" for the landlord to fix it.

If, for example, the landlord has to wait for spare parts (over which he has no control) then he may realistically go over the "reasonable time" in effecting repairs. "A reasonable time" must always allow for such eventualities.

BostonB

I think if first impressions are bad it usually doesn't get better.

But I agree with the comments above. If people put things in writing its hard to ignore and if it is then you've proof which is what you need to break out of the lease. People seem to avoid tackling issues by sending emails, and txts. Thats fine if someone responds to that, but if they don't go the traditional way of a letter.

dudmis

amdublin wrote: »

You chose to rent the property.

I know that I have the ultimate responsibility as to where I live. I also know that if I kick up enough fuss, I could get all the repairs etc done - my LL is actually quite responsive.

I, however, have a life and I have chosen to live that rather than spend my days waiting for repairmen that don't turn up.

My response to the OP was simply to say that people's threshold for snags etc are different and that my LL was happy to live with all the snags in the house I now rent. If this was my own house, I would not live with those snags.

amdublin

.

dudmis

dudmis wrote: »

I wouldn't put up with this stuff in my own home, but she was quite happy to - I suppose different people have different tolerance levels.

Not sure how this got lost in translation

BostonB

dudmis wrote: »

I know that I have the ultimate responsibility as to where I live. I also know that if I kick up enough fuss, I could get all the repairs etc done - my LL is actually quite responsive.

I, however, have a life and I have chosen to live that rather than spend my days waiting for repairmen that don't turn up.

My response to the OP was simply to say that people's threshold for snags etc are different and that my LL was happy to live with all the snags in the house I now rent. If this was my own house, I would not live with those snags.

So its ok if you don't do it. But not if the LL doesn't do it. In the same house.

Thats double standards if you ask me.

dudmis

Funny that - seeing as I pay the rent.:D

BostonB

..and they the mortgage.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

..and they the mortgage.

No, the landlord provides a property to rent to a tenant, that is a service. The mortgage repayment has nothing to do with the tenant.

If a tenant pays rent for a service and it's not a good service then that is a separate issue from the landlord paying the mortgage.