Landlord Works

blacklilly

Hi All,

Looking for some advice on a situation my friend is in.

They live in a house share with 4 others (not owbner occupied)

I will try to outline the verion of events as factual as possible:

The landlord has caried out cosmetic works to the house (estimated to have cost in the region of €12-15k).

The landlord gave 1.5 weeks notice of these works.

The tenants requested a meeting with the landlord in advance on the works.

The landlord attended this and it was agreed that when the works were completed he would arrange for the house to be cleaned.

It was also agreed that works would not take place prior to 8am and the works would last 5 days.

The landlord met the tenants yesterday morning and told them the works woudl be completed by yesterday evening.

While the internal elements of the work were completed the house was not cleaned, 2 of the rooms got a very light sweep. The works carried out generated a lot of dust which has effected all rooms.

The tenants messaged the landlord yesterday evening requesting that the cleaner re attend. The landlord contacted the tenants today to say the house is clean and there was only a bit of dust left in a few corners. The landlord has only done a light sweep to the rooms directly effected by the works.

The landlord seems annoyed with the tenants and will not agree to clean the remaining communal areas. The main toilet has been used by the builders and without bein graphic is seemingly a mess.

The tenants here feel most agreived as they are good tenants, keep the house in order, pay the rent on time all the time.
They allowed the works proceed without compliant. They didn't complain when works began at 7.30am when it was agreed initally that works would not commence before 8am. They have been unable to park their cars in the driveway as it is full of skips and builders material (which has yet to be removed)
They also feel annoyed that the landlord wont pay a cleaner €50 considering the work teh landlord has carried out which was not required (merely cosmetic) and obviously cost quite a bit of money.

Prior to this they would have had a good relationship with the landlord and never complained when he called around unannounced, entered the house to carry out various jobs without any notice. The tenants are not the awkward type at all but this matter has really bothered them.

Can anyone advise how best to resolve this? They do not want to clean up aftter the landlords works.

the_syco

I could be reading this wrongly, but it seems the LL is acting like this in the hopes that the current lot leave, and he's able to claim that there was sufficient work done to allow him to increase the rent of the house?

blacklilly

I don't believe that to be the case. My understanding is that the landlord is being audited and is pumping money into his houses.
The landlrod has not given any indication that they intend to increase the rent and they have confirmed that they are not selling up.

Claw Hammer

At a time like this, the tenants should be glad to have a house. A bit of inconvenience is only to be expected every now and again. IF there are a few tenants an hour or two each would clean the house.

blacklilly

@CH I don't agree with your opinion, that sentiment would allow for landlords to treat their tenants like dirt given the current housing issues.

The tenants here are good tenants, they don't want any arguments but are annoyed considering they've been inconvenienced for 8 days in their home and now they are expected to clean up after the landlord. They are infact still being inconvenienced as the outside of their home is currently like a building site. However they don't want to raise any issue with this.
An agreement was in place regarding the cleaning which the landlord has failed to abide by.

I wonder would it be possible for the tennants to clean their own accommodation, which I assume has been improved in some way.

davo10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder would it be possible for the tennants to clean their own accommodation, which I assume has been improved in some way.

Possible, but in an age of entitlement, it's just too much trouble. Pity the LL didn't claim major refurbishment and give them notice, next time he will know better. Lots of posters on here complaining LLs won't spend money improving accomadation.

Op, tell your friend to plug in the vacuum cleaner and run a few tea towels under the tap.

hawkelady

davo10 wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder would it be possible for the tennants to clean their own accommodation, which I assume has been improved in some way.

Possible, but in an age of entitlement, it's just too much trouble. Pity the LL didn't claim major refurbishment and give them notice, next time he will know better. Lots of posters on here complaining LLs won't spend money improving accomadation.

Op, tell your friend to plug in the vacuum cleaner and run a few tea towels under the tap.

I really want to thank this post 1000s of times !!! THANK YOU Again

blacklilly

davo10 wrote: »

Possible, but in an age of entitlement, it's just too much trouble. Pity the LL didn't claim major refurbishment and give them notice, next time he will know better. Lots of posters on here complaining LLs won't spend money improving accomadation.

Op, tell your friend to plug in the vacuum cleaner and run a few tea towels under the tap.

Just to reiterate, the works have not improved the accommodation, they were not required and are merely cosmetic (and unrequired at that, this is simply an exercise by the LL to through money into their properties as they are being audited). The standard of living is unchanged entirely.

The tenants had an agreement with the LL that the LL would clean the house (communal areas only) after the works. The LL has not followed through on this. In the mean time the tenants have put up with works commencing at c.7.30 each morning (even though the agreement was 8am), their home being used by builders and all that goes with that.

I appreciate the general consensus is to clean it up themselves but when someone is paying rent they are entitled to quiet enjoyment which has not been provided here.

Perhaps it is a culmination of things that have left them annoyed about this particular situation. As mentioned previously they are easy going and have not complained previously when the LL has let themselves into the house without any prior notice whatsoever.

Anyway, as no one has any suggestions other than for the tenants to clean it up themselves, might as well close the thread please.

conf101

OP, there are a lot of bitter landlords on this forum who think tenants should be grateful to have a place to live and should put up with any old crap from their landlord, as if landlords are being so generous and benevolent by allowing tenants live in their houses.

I don't have a solution to your problem but I think your friends are right to be aggrieved that the LL went back on their agreement. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get much sympathy here. Sure aren't your friends lucky to have such a caring landlord who gives them a place to live out of the goodness of his heart?

What exactly was the cosmetic work?

blacklilly

I don't want to provide specific detail on the works however it involved the facade of the house. Please take my comment at face value that it does not improve the living standards at all and was totally unnecessary.

Glass fused light

blacklilly wrote: »

Just to reiterate, the works have not improved the accommodation, they were not required and are merely cosmetic (and unrequired at that, this is simply an exercise by the LL to through money into their properties as they are being audited). The standard of living is unchanged entirely.

IF the landlord is spending the equivalent of annual rent of a (cheapish) one bed property it was for a reason not just so the landlord could spend cash on a fully occupied, fully rented property.
If they were audited and made changes, it's to improve the standard of living.

blacklilly wrote: »

I appreciate the general consensus is to clean it up themselves but when someone is paying rent they are entitled to quiet enjoyment which has not been provided here.

The landlord is entitled to make essential repairs and as this was from an audit they were essential repairs. Also the occupants agreed in principal to the timeline. They could have told the builders to stay outside until 8 if they wished, and should have explained to the builders after day 1 that they would have to sort out their own bathroom if the facilities were left in a state again.

blacklilly wrote: »

Perhaps it is a culmination of things that have left them annoyed about this particular situation. As mentioned previously they are easy going and have not complained previously when the LL has let themselves into the house without any prior notice whatsoever.

the landlord letting themselves in is separate to the work and should have been addressed when it happend.

If there are 5 people in the house it's 10e a head to get someone in to do a deep clean.

Cuddlesworth

The mess left behind from substantial building works requires serious effort to clean. Every single surface is usually left coated with a fine particle dust. You usually need a full deep clean, every piece of furniture and exposed item needs to be cleaned. Plus it wrecks vacuums and spreads when wiped. If done right, you usually seal off areas not being worked on.

Basically, its not a matter of just plugging in the hoover and giving the place a sweep. Bit surprised the builder left it like that.

blacklilly

Glass fused light wrote: »

IF the landlord is spending the equivalent of annual rent of a (cheapish) one bed property it was for a reason not just so the landlord could spend cash on a fully occupied, fully rented property.
If they were audited and made changes, it's to improve the standard of living.

In terms of the audit, it is a revenue audit!

Glass fused light

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Basically, its not a matter of just plugging in the hoover and giving the place a sweep. Bit surprised the builder left it like that.

It the landlord is ok with it so will the builder be. But it's a good point that the occupants should document any ingrained dust and serve notice on the landlord so that it can't be used against them when they leave, as over and above normal wear and tear.

blacklilly wrote: »

In terms of the audit, it is a revenue audit!

if the landlord had an audit and owes money on historic rental income they have to pay revenue and the builders now. And the revenue if owed money don't mess around, they can and will collect from the rental income.
The landlord will only get the benefit of repairs not capital improvements in future tax returns, and only to a maximum of the amount spent. So spending 12-15k cosmetic work on a fully occupied fully rented house when there is no need and is of no benefit to the landlord is odd.

handlemaster

conf101 wrote: »

OP, there are a lot of bitter landlords on this forum who think tenants should be grateful to have a place to live and should put up with any old crap from their landlord, as if landlords are being so generous and benevolent by allowing tenants live in their houses.

I don't have a solution to your problem but I think your friends are right to be aggrieved that the LL went back on their agreement. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get much sympathy here. Sure aren't your friends lucky to have such a caring landlord who gives them a place to live out of the goodness of his heart?

Its about common sense. The landlord could increase the rent if he /she wanted now. They haven't. Why kick up a fuss annoy them  ( we are all human ) do the cleaning and move on. Risk is if the tenants kick up more of a fuss than required the landlord might look as them as hassle and up the rent ( which he / she is allowed to in this case )

handlemaster

conf101 wrote: »

OP, there are a lot of bitter landlords on this forum who think tenants should be grateful to have a place to live and should put up with any old crap from their landlord, as if landlords are being so generous and benevolent by allowing tenants live in their houses.

I don't have a solution to your problem but I think your friends are right to be aggrieved that the LL went back on their agreement. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get much sympathy here. Sure aren't your friends lucky to have such a caring landlord who gives them a place to live out of the goodness of his heart?

Its about common sense. The landlord could increase the rent if he /she wanted now. They haven't. Why kick up a fuss annoy them  ( we are all human ) do the cleaning and move on. Risk is if the tenants kick up more of a fuss than required the landlord might look as them as hassle and up the rent ( which he / she is allowed to in this case )

ScouseMouse

Or it could be a case of spending some of his rental income as it can legitimately be used as a write off against his tax liability.

Off the top of my head, roughly., if his rental income is 10k, and his liability is 50% then he pays revenue 5k. If he pays out 8k on receipted maintenence works, it can be written off as an expense. So 10k less receipted expense of 8k So he owes revenue 50% of only the 2k, which is 1k.

As for the cleaning, do it yourself. I am looking after a house where tenants moved in and started demanding things. I told them to feck of.

I want a shed, NO! don't worry, the council will give me one, no they won't, it's not a council house, it's private via HAP. Guess what, council told no as well!

Council wanted a three piece suite replaced. I went out and bought one, now tenant decides only want the couch, remove the armchairs - no space. Nope, it was bought especially as it was council spec. They must stay.

Remove dishwasher, we don't use it. Need a press there instead. Owner says nope.

Fridge freezer replaced as per previous tenants measurements. Dope measured to small so 12inch gap at top. New tenant says want new one, it's to small. NOPE, Im not asking owner to take out a perfectly good reasonably new unit as you want a new one.

I'm waiting for the next set of demands, but maybe this attitude is standard in Chechneya

blacklilly

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Or it could be a case of spending some of his rental income as it can legitimately be used as a write off against his tax liability.

Off the top of my head, roughly., if his rental income is 10k, and his liability is 50% then he pays revenue 5k. If he pays out 8k on receipted maintenence works, it can be written off as an expense. So 10k less receipted expense of 8k So he owes revenue 50% of only the 2k, which is 1k.

As for the cleaning, do it yourself. I am looking after a house where tenants moved in and started demanding things. I told them to feck of.

I want a shed, NO! don't worry, the council will give me one, no they won't, it's not a council house, it's private via HAP. Guess what, council told no as well!

Council wanted a three piece suite replaced. I went out and bought one, now tenant decides only want the couch, remove the armchairs - no space. Nope, it was bought especially as it was council spec. They must stay.

Remove dishwasher, we don't use it. Need a press there instead. Owner says nope.

Fridge freezer replaced as per previous tenants measurements. Dope measured to small so 12inch gap at top. New tenant says want new one, it's to small. NOPE, Im not asking owner to take out a perfectly good reasonably new unit as you want a new one.

I'm waiting for the next set of demands, but maybe this attitude is standard in Chechneya

Don't like the sound of your tenants but you seem to be prejudiced against all tenants on the back of yours being (or certainly sounding like) complete and utter pains in the ass!

I don't think it's ever fair or reasonable to expect anyone to clean up after someone else. I would have the same view if tenants vacated a house and left a mess for the landlord to clean up.

blacklilly

handlemaster wrote: »

Its about common sense. The landlord could increase the rent if he /she wanted now. They haven't. Why kick up a fuss annoy them  ( we are all human ) do the cleaning and move on. Risk is if the tenants kick up more of a fuss than required the landlord might look as them as hassle and up the rent ( which he / she is allowed to in this case )

Landlord can't increase the rent on the back of these works. They would have had to serve notice of intention to increase the rent prior to the works commencing. Also, the tenants did raise this with the LL and the LL confirmed they were not increasing the rent or preparing the house for sale.

handlemaster

blacklilly wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

Its about common sense. The landlord could increase the rent if he /she wanted now. They haven't. Why kick up a fuss annoy them  ( we are all human ) do the cleaning and move on. Risk is if the tenants kick up more of a fuss than required the landlord might look as them as hassle and up the rent ( which he / she is allowed to in this case )

Landlord can't increase the rent on the back of these works. They would have had to serve notice of intention to increase the rent prior to the works commencing. Also, the tenants did raise this with the LL and the LL confirmed they were not increasing the rent or preparing the house for sale.

so the tenant should be happy , they asked if rent was going up. Landlord said no. Now there whinging because of some dust. Wise up, do the cleaning, win the war not the battle.

hots

There's a strange disparity between the service tenants expect from lls and vice versa but pretty much when you have no alternatives you have to suck it up.

I would have thought it's fair to expect them to at least leave the house as they found it like.

Glass fused light

hots wrote: »

There's a strange disparity between the service tenants expect from lls and vice versa but pretty much when you have no alternatives you have to suck it up.

I would have thought it's fair to expect them to at least leave the house as they found it like.

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Or it could be a case of spending some of his rental income as it can legitimately be used as a write off against his tax liability.

Off the top of my head, roughly., if his rental income is 10k, and his liability is 50% then he pays revenue 5k. If he pays out 8k on receipted maintenence works, it can be written off as an expense. So 10k less receipted expense of 8k So he owes revenue 50% of only the 2k, which is 1k.

Its been a while, but with rental income is it not allowable expenses are w/o against year of expenditure? and only the total annual loss is carried back, so with your example the LL has a reduction for current year and would still owe on prior years.
Anyway he is better off paying the 5k
10k-8k-1k=1k cash in bank
10k-0k-5k=5k cash in bank

conf101

handlemaster wrote: »

Its about common sense. The landlord could increase the rent if he /she wanted now. They haven't. Why kick up a fuss annoy them  ( we are all human ) do the cleaning and move on. Risk is if the tenants kick up more of a fuss than required the landlord might look as them as hassle and up the rent ( which he / she is allowed to in this case )

But the fact that the LL could put up the rent but hasn't has nothing do do with him not sticking to their agreement re: cleaning up after the building works.

This attitude of tenants having to suck up poor treatment from LLs because the LL could treat them worse or turf them out is a realy poor one that I see an awful lot of on here.

Zulu

hots wrote: »

There's a strange disparity between the service tenants expect from lls and vice versa ...

Very true. In particular I see a lot of "I'm a good tenant, I keep the property clean & pay my rent on time".

It's a sad indictment when doing the very minimum makes you "good".

That said, this is a 2 way street, and there are plenty of LL who do the very minimum and consider themselves "good". However, I would add that the unfortunate thing is that the government have been doing everything now for the past few years to force all LL's to do the very minimum.

hots

Zulu wrote: »

Very true. In particular I see a lot of "I'm a good tenant, I keep the property clean & pay my rent on time".

It's a sad indictment when doing the very minimum makes you "good".

That said, this is a 2 way street, and there are plenty of LL who do the very minimum and consider themselves "good". However, I would add that the unfortunate thing is that the government have been doing everything now for the past few years to force all LL's to do the very minimum.

I think good for either side is basically just meeting what's expected and not being a pain in the arse.

Tenants, pay on time and every time and make the the house is left as you found it, LL should only hear from you if something is fcked.

LLords, fix things that are broken, maintain the property as it was first let, tenant should only hear from you if something is fcked.

If both are sound there shouldn't really be "good" of either, just two groups doing their jobs.

the_pen_turner

im confused. how did the house get distroyed in dust if they were working on the fasade on the outside.

if there was electrical, plumbing works going on i could understand .


on a decent sized job 10-15k you would expect the builder to hire in a company to give it a once over.

C3PO

I'm amazed at the attitude of some of the posters in this thread! I'm not a tenant nor anti-landlord but the landlord/builders made the mess - they should absolutely clean it up!

Browney7

Seems the market for landlords at the moment doesn't reflect the "your tenant will try to kill you" type of hysteria that prevails on this forum judging by the "suck it up or you'll be on the street" style posts. Funny that.

runawaybishop

conf101 wrote: »

OP, there are a lot of bitter landlords on this forum

Really, who exactly are they? Anyone who disagrees with any tenant for any reason?