Why 'Rent' furniture

Greaney

A good point was made to me recently. Why do most Irish landlords rent furnished houses. Furniture is most likely to break from wear & tear, it's often ancient and looks like it was sourced in a charity Shop and it's usually not to the Tenants taste. Other examples of how weird it is are....


a) My mate had a tiny modern flat. The land lord had it full of what appeared to be their old 80's living and dining room suite ( Mahogany & red velvet, a table and chairs for 8! and a huge side board, that took up a wall). After she moved in they kept calling with more huge and unnecessary furniture, to the point she asked them to stop bringing furniture she neither had room for, nor asked for!


b) Friends (a family) were renting a house, and the land lord wanted to break the lease early, they weren't happy but thought fair enough. When they left he said that a chair was missing. They said they took nothing and could he describe it. He said he couldn't as it was his sons who had left it in the house. He kept €150 of their deposit!!


Seriously, folks!!! Are Irish land lords using their rental flats as furniture storage?? We have freecycle, charity shops and skips full of stuff. I think tenants and land lords don't need the headache.

fash

There is less demand for unfurnished apartments- partly because tenants don't usually have furniture- partly because flats are furnished... etc.

There are advantages to furnished for tenants as well- moving house is less hassle and cheaper- as you've less stuff. It's easier for foreigners coming for a year or two- no wasted cost of buying furniture.

A better mix of furnished and unfurnished- like London for example- would be nice.

The landlord want entitled to retain that €150- they could have brought it to PRTB.

Greaney

I hear ya. My friends however were not Irish nationals and it was too difficult for them to fight it.


As for the furnished flat issue, I know that tenants used to have more rights if a flat was unfurnished (with regard to notice to quit etc.) but that's changed and doesn't make a difference anymore.


In every country new tenants don't have furniture to start with but they find it one way or another and build their home. An example would be when a mate of mine got a semi furnished flat last week, she was inundated with offers of stuff. Cutlery, crockery, a knife block with all the knives, an arm chair, ottoman, coffee table.... We just have so much stuff now, so much on freecycle, that is it really worth it to rent a furnished flat? I mean, docking a tenants deposit for furniture or filling their flat with oversized dated stuff?? Even students can spring for an inflatable mattress and find a giant spool as a coffee table. Simon Community have a delivery lorry so you don't have to worry there.

xper

I remember on Day One of my J1 in the States some time back in the previous century, we rocked up to an on site office of a large apartment complex, were shown a vacant unfurnished apartment, went back to the office and signed the rental agreement then jumped in a taxi and went two miles up the road to the city's furniture rental district (3-4 big warehouse stores), picked out modern, good quality beds, sofa, chairs, table, etc, all of which were delivered to our new abode within two hours. Four months later, furniture picked up again by same guys, deposit returned minus small deduction for slight damage to couch (students!).

Simple, efficient system run by specialist businesses giving the customer what suits them best. They make money, you get the service you wanted.


In Ireland, we have and are to some extent locked into a system that has evolved to a point where tenants, landlords or third parties are in able to resource the provision of furnishings separately from the property.

Thoie

Greaney wrote: »

In every country new tenants don't have furniture to start with but they find it one way or another and build their home. An example would be when a mate of mine got a semi furnished flat last week, she was inundated with offers of stuff. Cutlery, crockery, a knife block with all the knives, an arm chair, ottoman, coffee table.... We just have so much stuff now, so much on freecycle, that is it really worth it to rent a furnished flat?

I could nearly guarantee that if we habitually rented unfurnished, this board would be full of landlords at the end of each tenancy complaining that once again they have to hire a skip and take a day off work to empty out the furniture left behind by the last tenant. You saw how easy it was for your friend to get odd, mismatching stuff. There's no guarantee that she'd want to take all that stuff to a new place with her (and spend the money/effort on moving it).

There'd be no malice in it - each individual tenant would think they were being nice. "Ah sure, that ottoman looks really well there, and there's nowhere for it in my new place, the next people along would be thrilled to have such a useful thing". Those same people would be complaining that their landlord kept their deposit, even though they'd left him a lovely whatever.

beauf

In Germany you rent a place empty with freshly painted walls. But you hand it back the same way.

Would make things easier if we did that here to.

Tenants break furniture. LL buy cheap furniture. The solution is to rent unfurnished.

Greaney

Thoie wrote: »

I could nearly guarantee that if we habitually rented unfurnished, this board would be full of landlords at the end of each tenancy complaining that once again they have to hire a skip and take a day off work to empty out the furniture left behind by the last tenant.

Ha ha, I guess you're right, mind you, in an unfurnished flat, doesn't the inspection usually happen after the tenant has moved out their furniture 'n stuff??

shruikan2553

I would actually prefer to rent furniture separately. Rent would probably be cheaper and I could pick only what I want and for it not to be the crap the LL replaced after 10 years in their house.

beauf

It maybe the crap the previous tenant left or didn't manage to break.

Ironically an unfurnished place may be more expensive as they are rarer and the LL may have to store the existing furniture someone where, and get it moved.

But for sure unfurnished makes a lot more sense for many people LL and renters. I think it would reduce a lot of conflict.

Greaney

beauf wrote: »

But for sure unfurnished makes a lot more sense for many people LL and renters. I think it would reduce a lot of conflict.

Well said, that's what I thought. My heart really went out to my mates when they had some of their deposit withheld over a chair that the land lord didn't know existed. That was plain and simple wrong of the landlord. But when English is your second language and you're not from the country and your skin is darker, you're on the back foot and it's hard to fight for your rights.


On the other hand, if I were a landlord I would either rent an unfurnished flat or partially furnished (just a bed) because it would be less hassle. Regarding the final 'walk through', you can see damage a lot more easily in an empty flat.

Ray Palmer

I tried renting places with good furniture and there is no point. Tenants don't take care of it. AS is when a tenant moves out there is normally plenty of rubbish left behind.

If you rented unfurnished they would just leave furniture as well.

If you asked for them to repaint it before they left I can guarantee they would do a terrible job. Even giving tenants permission to paint a room is a bad idea as they don't paint it correctly. Paint on skirting, carpet, ceiling , sockets, light switches etc...

Ultimately it is easier for the vast majority to have places furnished and there are lots of other problems that would be created by it.

The LL was well within his rights to withhold part of the deposit if a piece of furniture went missing. Nothing to do with race or language. If they couldn't communicate or understand him that is their issue not the LL.

Thoie

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The LL was well within his rights to withhold part of the deposit if a piece of furniture went missing. Nothing to do with race or language. If they couldn't communicate or understand him that is their issue not the LL.

Given that the family hadn't taken/destroyed a chair, and the landlord couldn't tell them what the chair looked like, they were being charged €150 for a mystery item that neither they nor the landlord seemed to know anything about.

Ray Palmer

Thoie wrote: »

Given that the family hadn't taken/destroyed a chair, and the landlord couldn't tell them what the chair looked like, they were being charged €150 for a mystery item that neither they nor the landlord seemed to know anything about.

The LL didn't notice at first and then his son told him. You are taking it that they have done nothing and the LL is making it up. I take it the other way that there was a chair and it was not there when they left hence they owe for it.

You are saying it wrong because you believe your friends I am only telling you the LL was within his rights and am assuming it isn't a lie. LL was within his rights. They could have gone to the PRTB and made a case

Greaney

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The LL was well within his rights to withhold part of the deposit if a piece of furniture went missing. Nothing to do with race or language. If they couldn't communicate or understand him that is their issue not the LL.

Goodness, never been a foreigner abroad then?

Greaney

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The LL didn't notice at first and then his son told him. You are taking it that they have done nothing and the LL is making it up. I take it the other way that there was a chair and it was not there when they left hence they owe for it.

You are saying it wrong because you believe your friends I am only telling you the LL was within his rights and am assuming it isn't a lie. LL was within his rights. They could have gone to the PRTB and made a case

My point in all of this was that my friends home was used as storage for the landlords sons chair. I assure you tenants were not interested in stealing a single chair, really! That's daft!!

Ray Palmer

Greaney wrote: »

Goodness, never been a foreigner abroad then?

Yes I have and I never gave out because I couldn't speak the local language and I certainly wouldn't hold the other party responsible for my lack of understanding

Greaney

Okay then, are there any landlords here who rent unfurnished flats who could tell us if it's easier or more difficult. There's a lot of theory about tenants leaving furniture behind but I thought the deposit wasn't paid back in unfurnished flats till it was empty and after the walk through. If someone left furniture, you could withhold the deposit or part thereof, because it's not according to the terms.

Raphael

Surely if the tenant left furniture behind you could just take the cost of a skip out of their deposit?

I rent my current place (almost completely) unfurnished, and it's great. Our landlord had to move a couch out shortly after we moved in, and we're still using his dining table (our chairs, though). Means that I can do what I want to my own couch, have my own bed with my own mattress that's decent, and if something breaks I can just sort it out. Really makes the place feel more like my own.

I'd never consider leaving furniture behind me, though. If I move, it'll (hopefully) be to somewhere the same size or larger, and it'll definitely to be somewhere unfurnished. So I'll need all my furniture there. If there's anything I decide to replace later on, I'll toss the old thing out once I get the new thing. Means I'm not sitting around lacking it for a while, or making a move more expensive than it already is.

Mrs OBumble

Greaney wrote: »

Well said, that's what I thought. My heart really went out to my mates when they had some of their deposit withheld over a chair that the land lord didn't know existed. That was plain and simple wrong of the landlord. But when English is your second language and you're not from the country and your skin is darker, you're on the back foot and it's hard to fight for your rights.

Nonsense.

It's irrelevant that the LL didn't know what it looked like. Mine probably cannot remember what the stuff in my place looks like either.

But we both have an inventory list that says

1 dining table and 4 chairs
1 faux-leather sofa
2 double beds
4 bedside cabinets
etc

It's simply a matter of going through the inventory list, and checking that the stuff is there. If your friends weren't smart enough to do that, then ... nah, I'm not gonna say it, but you get the drift.




But I agree with your general point that it's dumb that rentals here are fully furnished. Bad for kids (doesn't teach them the value of stuff), bad for the environment (limited market for 2nd hand stuff), bad for tenants (have to live with the LL's choices) and LLs (have to worry about furniture).

Ray Palmer

Raphael wrote: »

Surely if the tenant left furniture behind you could just take the cost of a skip out of their deposit?

Have you seen the cost of skips these days? It isn't cheap to dispose of items as it used to be. The LL will also have to put the stuff in the skip and cannot charge for it. All in all a lot of extra costs and effort and that is ignoring the other things deposits are there to cover.

You can be sure the people who damage property don't pay their last months rent as is. The same problem would exist with people leaving furniture. Most tenants don't pay their last months rent as it stands and you can't do much about it.

Raphael

I'd actually be really interested to see if there's any data on what percentage of tenants pay their last months rent. I'm not disputing that it might be a majority, I'd just be really interested to see. This is one of those situations where a loUd minority could easily look like a majority, and anecdotal evidence does not data make. Personally, I've always payed the last months rent and waited for return of deposit - I've even received it in each case.

Skips are expensive, but not more than a quarter or so of monthly rent, which should leave enough for any other damages, since there's less to be damaged in an unfurnished place. I'd wager the skip for left behind furniture would cost less than replacing damaged furniture in the event of an arsehole who wrecks the place. Lugging it all around is extra effort, true, but unfurnished tenants will tend to also stay longer. And anyway, you wouldn't see lots of furniture left behind unless the tenant was moving to a furnished place, which a lot of people renting unfurnished would want to avoid.

Ray Palmer

Raphael wrote: »

Skips are expensive, but not more than a quarter or so of monthly rent, which should leave enough for any other damages,

Deposit often don't cover the damage of a tenant as is adding anything extra will require more of a deposit. A broken shower can take up a deposit very easily as can lots of non wear-and-tear damage to carpets and walls.

beauf

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...If you asked for them to repaint it before they left I can guarantee they would do a terrible job. Even giving tenants permission to paint a room is a bad idea as they don't paint it correctly. Paint on skirting, carpet, ceiling , sockets, light switches etc......

I wonder how it works in Germany. I assume they'd loose their deposit if it wasn't done properly. The deposit it bigger too I think, 3 months or so.

makeorbrake

beauf wrote: »

I wonder how it works in Germany. I assume they'd loose their deposit if it wasn't done properly. The deposit it bigger too I think, 3 months or so.

You can be sure you'd lose the deposit or part thereof. I was told in no uncertain terms that my German apartment had to be painted before leaving - this despite the fact that it was spotless!

At another point in time, when renting another German apartment (unfurnished), I simply went to a local furniture recycling facility. Now this may conjure up images of flea ridden furniture - but it was very civilised - with very high quality second hand furniture - that others brought there to be disposed of. The facility was state run.


I kitted out my apartment for very small money so there as no drama.