Tenants made multiple changes to the property

If we want to encourage long term renting we should move to the system in other european countries where the landlord basically rents just the four walls.
The tenant is reponsible for furnishing it and dealing with all normal repairs etc. At the end of the rental period the tenant ensures that the house is returned in the condition they received it, repainting if necessary.
For the landlord, he gets his rent with no hassle, no wear and tear, no repairs to washing machines etc and being a landlord is just like holding any other investment.
For the tenant they get a house that they can furnish as they like using their own furniture and can genuinely feel that its a long term home.
This would encourage more people to rent as most of the hassle, and increased costs, comes not from the house, but the furnishings, equipment and maintenance.

boege

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think every one can agree that it's in just about every lease that permission is required for alterations.

I have yet to see a lease where alternations to a premises are allowed, even subject to permission. Even removal of plants and shrubs is usually forbidden.

About all I have ever seen allowed is redecoration, subject to approval.

alias no.9

listermint wrote: »

It kinda feels like many dont have a clue how easy it is to put an outside tap on. With minimal fuss. Its not a big deal any average basic Diyer could do that let alone a Builder.

This thread seems alot of fuss over nothing. Everything they did would be classified as normal on the continent as long as they return it to the condition they found it.

But frankly going solely on the OPs post they would have to degrade the condition to do so.

These tenants sound great because they have respect for and want to improve the place.

and NO that doesnt meant they have an ownership claim on it. Thats ridiculous.

Putting in a tap is trivial, in a basic mechanical sense, with no consideration for the potential risks.

Burst pipes are the most obvious risk, bringing a pipe outside the fabric of the house greatly increases the risk of freezing and bursting. I'm open to correction from the OP but I'll hazard a guess the tap is right outside the kitchen window, the water will freeze from the outside in and no doubt the burst will happen just inside the wall. Who picks up the bill on a freezing cold morning when the kitchen is flooded? Outside taps should always have an Isolation valve inside the house which should be closed in cold spells with the outside tap left open. Did the tenant do this?

If the tap is taken from the mains feed and is rarely/never used, the line to the tap becomes a 'dead leg' in the system and can be a breading ground for bacteria in the potable water supply for the house. It may not be the current tenants who suffer this issue, but again, who's responsible?

As you say, it's very easy to install an outside tap, the risks and consequences aren't always as easily identifiable. Someone else mentioned earlier about the difference between a good job and a job that looks good.

STB.

listermint wrote: »

It kinda feels like many dont have a clue how easy it is to put an outside tap on. With minimal fuss. Its not a big deal any average basic Diyer could do that let alone a Builder.

That's not the point. Regardless of whether they are a qualified builder or some idiot with a masonry drill bit who watched a youtube video on how to SDS drill through a wall and fit a tap badly is not the issue. Its that they did it without permission. The property is not theirs to fúck with.

listermint wrote: »

This thread seems alot of fuss over nothing. Everything they did would be classified as normal on the continent as long as they return it to the condition they found it.

Your not in Kansas now Toto. Do you actually own a property yourself Mr whats all the fuss guy ?

There is nothing normal about interfering with the structure of someone else's property even if qualified and even on "the continent".

listermint wrote: »

These tenants sound great because they have respect for and want to improve the place.

The tenants do not sound great. They sound like they think they bought the house and that its theirs to do with as they please.

There are serious implications for landlords in allowing unqualified work in ones property. Health, Fire, Safety, Insurance, Asset Depreciation, money loss.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder is the property owner not the tenant.

Builder and a plumber eh... Have a word OP. By the way they are never leaving. They think it's theirs already....

pasquale83

Deleted User wrote: »

If we want to encourage long term renting we should move to the system in other european countries where the landlord basically rents just the four walls.
The tenant is reponsible for furnishing it and dealing with all normal repairs etc. At the end of the rental period the tenant ensures that the house is returned in the condition they received it, repainting if necessary.
For the landlord, he gets his rent with no hassle, no wear and tear, no repairs to washing machines etc and being a landlord is just like holding any other investment.
For the tenant they get a house that they can furnish as they like using their own furniture and can genuinely feel that its a long term home.
This would encourage more people to rent as most of the hassle, and increased costs, comes not from the house, but the furnishings, equipment and maintenance.

That would be my idea indeed. The problem is that the law at the moment sees it differently.
If I won't be bothered if something happens and all responsibilities are of the tenants if he/she makes changes, then I won't be worried of what's happening in my property.

pasquale83

STB. wrote: »

Builder and a plumber eh... Have a word OP. By the way they are never leaving. They think it's theirs already....

What happens if I sell the property? I think they should leave sooner or later, shouldn't they?

pasquale83

Is it possible to check if those people have had any enforcement to leave the previous house? maybe at the court?

STB.

pasquale83 wrote: »

What happens if I sell the property? I think they should leave sooner or later, shouldn't they?

You would have to give them notice that you are selling.

Whether they move or not is up to your gut instinct. There are two ends of the scale. Having tenants who are genuinely enthusiastic and or/houseproud and those that live like animals/ cause you grief by not paying rent etc. You seem to be at one extreme which is over enthusiastic.

You JUST need to lay down the law about upgrading of the property without your say so. Like the central heating. Didn't you mention that this guy has installed a stove ??? That's a definite No No. If that house goes on fire you are rightly fecked. The first thing the insurance company will look for is the installers cert which you don't have.

You have concerns about the compliance of the work done and it has implications for your house insurance. Also drilling holes and plumbing tabs is a no no regardless of whether they know what they are doing or not.

You need to explain that whilst you know they are well meaning, they need to consult with you first.

4ensic15

Tenants like that who have no respect for a contract have no respect for you as landlord or the property. I would be rid of them as soon as possible.

irelandrover

listermint wrote: »

It kinda feels like many dont have a clue how easy it is to put an outside tap on. With minimal fuss. Its not a big deal any average basic Diyer could do that let alone a Builder.

This thread seems alot of fuss over nothing. Everything they did would be classified as normal on the continent as long as they return it to the condition they found it.

But frankly going solely on the OPs post they would have to degrade the condition to do so.

These tenants sound great because they have respect for and want to improve the place.

and NO that doesnt meant they have an ownership claim on it. Thats ridiculous.

THats not true. I live in the Netherlands and when I asked for a tap it was only allowed if it was installed by their approved plumber, and i had to pay for the work to be done. And if the next tenant didnt accept it i had to pay to have it removed. Also there is no way i'd be allowed install a stove in a house myself.

seamus

STB. wrote: »

You JUST need to lay down the law about upgrading of the property without your say so. Like the central heating. Didn't you mention that this guy has installed a stove ??? That's a definite No No. If that house goes on fire you are rightly fecked. The first thing the insurance company will look for is the installers cert which you don't have.

Stoves don't come with installers certificates. They're not controlled works, so anyone can do it.

The insurance company's only get-out clause is to prove that the work was not done by a competent person.

You have concerns about the compliance of the work done and it has implications for your house insurance. Also drilling holes and plumbing tabs is a no no regardless of whether they know what they are doing or not.

This is over-egging it. Outside of certain electrical or gas work, there are no regulations which govern small building works, and as such no statutory obligation on any homeowner to use a "compliant", certified, professional or formally qualified tradesperson.
The insurance company will require that all works which are carried out meet the necessary standards and that they are carried out by a competent person. That competent person can be the homeowner or a friend.

Drilling holes and plumbing taps is mostly definitely not a "no-no".

pasquale83

STB. wrote: »

You would have to give them notice that you are selling.

Whether they move or not is up to your gut instinct. There are two ends of the scale. Having tenants who are genuinely enthusiastic and or/houseproud and those that live like animals/ cause you grief by not paying rent etc. You seem to be at one extreme which is over enthusiastic.

You JUST need to lay down the law about upgrading of the property without your say so. Like the central heating. Didn't you mention that this guy has installed a stove ??? That's a definite No No. If that house goes on fire you are rightly fecked. The first thing the insurance company will look for is the installers cert which you don't have.

You have concerns about the compliance of the work done and it has implications for your house insurance. Also drilling holes and plumbing tabs is a no no regardless of whether they know what they are doing or not.

You need to explain that whilst you know they are well meaning, they need to consult with you first.

I don't think they will move easily. They've been there for just few months and making all those changes they are sending the message that they want to stay long term. What can I legally do if the don' want to move? Can I give a solicitor a power of attorney to act on my behalf and sell the house, getting rid of them in the meanwhile? I am loosing sleep on this tbh

My worry is indeed on the liability for the works they've done - it is on me

Just don't know what to do, I am very worried this situation can go very bad. What happens if they stop paying rent? Can I evict them easily?

I am thinking to put an estate agent, but they don't care at all on what is written in the contract and to my words. Would they care to an estate agents?

pasquale83

seamus wrote: »

Stoves don't come with installers certificates. They're not controlled works, so anyone can do it.

The insurance company's only get-out clause is to prove that the work was not done by a competent person.

This is over-egging it. Outside of certain electrical or gas work, there are no regulations which govern small building works, and as such no statutory obligation on any homeowner to use a "compliant", certified, professional or formally qualified tradesperson.
The insurance company will require that all works which are carried out meet the necessary standards and that they are carried out by a competent person. That competent person can be the homeowner or a friend.

Drilling holes and plumbing taps is mostly definitely not a "no-no".

What are the basis of this statements? do you have any reference?

It is not because I don't trust what you say but I am getting opposite information on the same subject

Ray Palmer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This will break the lease and landlord could end up in trouble.

OP already said that it's reduced rent. This most likely means that he has a reduced deposit.

Any landlord not wanting to change the market value should be getting 3 months deposit at least. imo

No it won't and the tenants already broke the lease already. They have the option to return everything as it was or pay an extra deposit to cover fixing the problems.

Sleeper12

pasquale83 wrote: »

What are the basis of this statements? do you have any reference?

It is not because I don't trust what you say but I am getting opposite information on the same subject

Originally Posted by seamus
Stoves don't come with installers certificates. They're not controlled works, so anyone can do it.

This is 100 percent true unfortunately. I gave up general plumbing decades ago as I specialize now in shower repair. However I am a member of the Heating Plumbing Association of Ireland & following the general chat with more knowledgeable plumbers than myself I can confirm that Seamus is totally correct. They are trying to make this restricted work at the moment as carbon monoxide can kill. Unfortunately DIY warriors can make dangerous jobs look good on the outside yet can be lethal on the inside.

STB.

seamus wrote: »

Stoves don't come with installers certificates. They're not controlled works, so anyone can do it.

The insurance company's only get-out clause is to prove that the work was not done by a competent person.

NO. Regardless of compliance certificates, ANYONE cannot do it. And especially not in my property. I would be seeking someone with a proven track record in the absence of a certification system. There would be no come back from a builders mate.

seamus wrote: »

This is over-egging it. Outside of certain electrical or gas work, there are no regulations which govern small building works, and as such no statutory obligation on any homeowner to use a "compliant", certified, professional or formally qualified tradesperson.
The insurance company will require that all works which are carried out meet the necessary standards and that they are carried out by a competent person. That competent person can be the homeowner or a friend.

Drilling holes and plumbing taps is mostly definitely not a "no-no".

Over egging it my hole. Its not their property to mess with.

"Certain" electrical or gas work. Try ALL.

Someone drilling holes in concrete walls and fitting outdoor taps without the property owners say so is not over egging it. You obviously don't actually property yourself. If you did it would be rather cavalier attitude to not give a toss.

seamus

pasquale83 wrote: »

What are the basis of this statements? do you have any reference?

It is not because I don't trust what you say but I am getting opposite information on the same subject

Your standard solid fuel freestanding or cassette stoves which are not hooked up to the heating system, are not covered by any specific legislation in Ireland. Gas stoves must be fitted by an RGI.

There are regulations in regards heating appliance in general. The only bits which apply to stoves installed in an existing hearth are the requirement for adequate air flow and the requirement for a CO alarm.

In the UK there are HETAS regulations; most fitters in Ireland operate to these standards, but they have no jurisdiction in Ireland. So it would be correct to say that no qualifications are required to fit a stove in Ireland.

Check your own insurance policy for the specific wording on works inside the home.

Mine, for example (with Allianz), simply states that they will not pay out for "Loss, damage or liability resulting from faulty workmanship, defective design or the use of defective materials."

Outside of that, there is no mention of any requirement to use professionals, obtain certificates, etc etc.

Anything which requires a professional by law and has not been installed or inspected by such a professional, is "faulty workmanship". Everything else is a matter of opinion. If we go down the what-if route and the house burns down because of the stove, the insurance company will talk to the tenant to ascertain whether he was competent to fit it. If they agree that he knew what he was doing, then they'll pay out.

But the same applies to virtually any DIY. Obviously the stove being a fire risk, it is worth your while covering your own ass on it. And as you mention that it was originally plumbed for gas, it might be worth getting an RGI's opinion on it.

Your landlord insurance will have a different wording and might have an exclusion specifically for works carried out by the tenant, so it's also worth checking it out.

Claw Hammer

O/p you should serve them with a notice to remove all unauthorised changes within 3 weeks or their tenancy is at risk. Don't listen to any creamy bull**** from them.

pgj2015

Deleted User wrote: »

If we want to encourage long term renting we should move to the system in other european countries where the landlord basically rents just the four walls.
The tenant is reponsible for furnishing it and dealing with all normal repairs etc. At the end of the rental period the tenant ensures that the house is returned in the condition they received it, repainting if necessary.
For the landlord, he gets his rent with no hassle, no wear and tear, no repairs to washing machines etc and being a landlord is just like holding any other investment.
For the tenant they get a house that they can furnish as they like using their own furniture and can genuinely feel that its a long term home.
This would encourage more people to rent as most of the hassle, and increased costs, comes not from the house, but the furnishings, equipment and maintenance.

what often happens in this country is tenants trash the landlords house and leave owing weeks of rent, which is never repaid. if we adopted this renting the four walls idea, the tenants would make changes and leave without reverting the property to its original state.

op, you sound a little passive to me and i think these tenants have figured the same, they have made some worrying changes in a very short amount of time, what if you ever want to move into this house and like me you prefer an open fire to a stove? do you think these tenants will restore the fire place to its original state? i wouldnt think so.

i would be getting rid of these tenants asap, you dont owe them anything.


it is ok to ask for some advice here op but you are going to get conflicting advice so you would be best to contact a solicitor for now.

sbsquarepants

I think you could be panicking over nothing - I get the whole overstepping the mark thing, but maybe have a word with them, make it clear there are to be no more changes without your prior permission, put it in writing even and have your solicitor send it to them, but it sounds to me like you've at the very least got people in who are eager to look after the place and stay there for a long time, I wouldn't be viewing that as a huge problem. You said yourself the place is in better condition than when you gave it to them- would you rather a bunch of students or some dole day party pad or something like that?

As problems go, there are worse ones to have!

the_syco

pasquale83 wrote: »

Is it possible to check if those people have had any enforcement to leave the previous house? maybe at the court?

Search for their name, surname, etc, on the RTB website.

pasquale83 wrote: »

I am thinking to put an estate agent

Most estate agents will probably only care when the rent stops coming in.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I get the whole overstepping the mark thing, but maybe have a word with them, make it clear there are to be no more changes without your prior permission

I'd say if the OP warns them, they just won't tell the OP of any changes in the future.

=-=

OP; have you asked where your original white goods went to?

pasquale83

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say if the OP warns them, they just won't tell the OP of any changes in the future.

=-=

OP; have you asked where your original white goods went to?

That is what happened indeed. Painting the walls and landscaping was agreed. I've asked them multiple times to talk to me, I was also keen to pay for material as that would have been something staying in my house.

The result is that they did whatever they wanted, hiding everything to me. That is the problem of all of this situation. I think I am very reasonable person and drifting a bit from the contract is something I can do. But they are going a bit too much further.

Re the white goods, they are stored in the attic.

pasquale83

pgj2015 wrote: »

what often happens in this country is tenants trash the landlords house and leave owing weeks of rent, which is never repaid. if we adopted this renting the four walls idea, the tenants would make changes and leave without reverting the property to its original state.

op, you sound a little passive to me and i think these tenants have figured the same, they have made some worrying changes in a very short amount of time, what if you ever want to move into this house and like me you prefer an open fire to a stove? do you think these tenants will restore the fire place to its original state? i wouldnt think so.

i would be getting rid of these tenants asap, you dont owe them anything.


it is ok to ask for some advice here op but you are going to get conflicting advice so you would be best to contact a solicitor for now.

Indeed. There is not a unique answer to the problem. And none of you knows 100% the situation simply because you're reading it through a discussion forum. I will need to talk to a solicitor to get things straight from the legal perspective.

I just don't understand why these people are being so stupid to fight with me. I am reasonable, I've allowed them some work and to be honest I would have allowed them also the others if they asked and agreed them with me beforehand. I am a very honest person but looks like they are not. And I don't understand why they don't just pay rent, communicate with me and live an happy life.

Sleeper12

pasquale83 wrote: »

That is what happened indeed. Painting the walls and landscaping was agreed. I've asked them multiple times to talk to me, I was also keen to pay for material as that would have been something staying in my house.

The result is that they did whatever they wanted, hiding everything to me. That is the problem of all of this situation. I think I am very reasonable person and drifting a bit from the contract is something I can do. But they are going a bit too much further.

Re the white goods, they are stored in the attic.

You didn't explain it quite like that in your opening post.



There is a huge difference between a builder & a handyman. Handyman I'd let decorate or make minor repairs inc the outside tap. A builder I might let put in the stove.


You have them on reduced rent so I assume reduced deposit. If I were to rent at reduced rent I'd be looking for 3 months deposit upfront & that's without the alterations



At this stage maybe you should consult your solicitor for advise. It's important that you find out now, before tenants gain more rights in a month or two, if that stove is sound & safe. I honestly think a chat with your solicitor today of tomorrow. You are getting close to the six month mark.

Sleeper12

pasquale83 wrote: »

Indeed. There is not a unique answer to the problem. And none of you knows 100% the situation simply because you're reading it through a discussion forum. I will need to talk to a solicitor to get things straight from the legal perspective.

I just don't understand why these people are being so stupid to fight with me. I am reasonable, I've allowed them some work and to be honest I would have allowed them also the others if they asked and agreed them with me beforehand. I am a very honest person but looks like they are not. And I don't understand why they don't just pay rent, communicate with me and live an happy life.

I don't doubt that you are indeed all of the above. It's just that some people see kindness as weakness & the more you give the more they take

Claw Hammer

People like that never change. That is their nature. You should be getting them out. However much trouble it is to get rid of them now it will be far worse when they inevitably act up regarding rent.

pasquale83

Claw Hammer wrote: »

People like that never change. That is their nature. You should be getting them out. However much trouble it is to get rid of them now it will be far worse when they inevitably act up regarding rent.

what do you mean by that?

Claw Hammer

pasquale83 wrote: »

what do you mean by that?

The guy is a builder. His income fluctuates. When trouble hits, the answer to your claims for rent will be "look at all we spent on the house". you will be strung along for months with promises that a big payment is coming When you go to the RTB all this work will be costed at thousands in an attempt to resist your claim.I know a landlord who ended up having the exaggerated price of a crap laminate floor taken from his award. The tenant claimed there was a filthy carpet there (untrue). You are now staring into the abyss. It is much better to get rd of a tenant like that before things get any worse. If they want to play Bob the Builder, they should buy their own house.

sbsquarepants

pasquale83 wrote: »

Re the white goods, they are stored in the attic.

Have you seen them?

You'd be doing well to get a washing machine into the attic!

pasquale83

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Have you seen them?

You'd be doing well to get a washing machine into the attic!

well, the washing machine and the oven are gone...the rest is in the attic.