Jump to content

Plastered Walls


bbird105

Recommended Posts

Most contract will prohibit tenants from making such alterations/ additions.

Hopefully your AST isn't so vague that it could be interpreted either way.

When I've been askied similar requests I respond by saying let's see how the tenancy is running in a few months. After a short time we know better if the relationship is good and likely to continue for a significant time. I've had a few that carry out their experiments and then don't hang around anyway and leave thinking that what they have attempted is to my benefit.

W/o reading the contract it isn't really possible to give a definitve answer, but generally tenants wishing to alter things isn't good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have provided adequate window coverings already you are under no obligation to permit them to put up curtain poles.

There is no breach of contract unless it implies they are allowed.  

tenants should have asked  the question before committing to the tenancy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't dream of letting a property without curtain poles. It's completely obvious to me that these tenants are likely to be the first of many future tenants who will want to have curtains.

I've heard of this situation a few times.....even my own brother in law, when renting, experienced it and was forced by the landlord to take the curtain poles down, fill the holes and paint the walls when the tenancy ended.....They were expensive poles, professionally installed, we're an asset to the property which my brother in law was happy to leave but no......the landlord didn't accept that, he wanted them removed and wall repaired.....Total nonsense. 

If it were me I'd get curtain poles fitted......

1. They don't cost much.

2. It's tax deductible.

3. It's likely to make life a lot easier for you now and in the future with both attracting and keeping tenants.

4. Tenants will stay longer if they can make it a home instead of a house.

5. It's better that you or your handyman fit them as it can sometimes be tricky drilling into lintels above doors and windows.

6. Stopping tenants hanging pictures means they may leave at their earliest opportunity.

7. Why does the amount of money it's cost you to refurbish have any bearing on the matter ?

8. I have an enormously long list of what is not allowed....but pictures and curtain poles are not on that list.

9. I agree with the tenants that you are being totally unreasonable. Your expectations are not realistic. 

10. If it goes to court id expect the tenants to win.....but much worse than that, you will loose their respect.

I'm not going to wish you good luck because I think you have the wrong attitude towards letting property.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary.......They had installed new tenants in a property which had just been replastered & refurbished and had fitted blinds at the windows. The tenants had asked if they could fit curtain poles and hang some pictures on the walls. The OP had declined both requests and was seeking our opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, ok. Thought it was something like that. 

I had a similar situation in one of my properties. To save the question and potential damage I put up a load of hooks throughout the house. At least there were hooks for pictures, but it did pain me to put them into new plaster!

Now we have Command Strips. They’re as good as sliced bread! Absolutely love them, and they leave no damage at all. Fabulous products. 

Shame the OP didn’t like the responses and deleted the post. A bit necessary! 

Oh, and as for curtain rails, if the tenants want them I’d probably agree and have them professionally put up. Want tenants to feel they are at home and stay long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy to have curtain poles on newly plastered walls but would insist that it was me doing the installation to a avoid dodgy DIY job.  I would probably ask that when they leave the curtain poles remain in position..... or at least you buy them from the tenant at a reduced cost.  Same goes for picture hooks on walls.  All of this in writing of course to avoid any confusion when the the tenant leaves.

A flexible approach to any requests by tenants is the key word when you are a landlord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totaly agree with the advantaqges of T's making a long term home of our properties, but many have strange ideas and as suggested the risk of Mr DIY having a go is well experienced.

One issue I would have had with the op's new T's was the attitude of "it's our house and we should be able to do as we want", although they did at least ask. I find that reminding T's as to who owns the propeerty can have value, them paying rent gives them enough legislative rights already.

Whats the panels opinion of this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045552

I mean T's are creating a home, they are paying rent. Why should we be able to control their lifestyle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carryon Regardless said:

Whats the panels opinion of this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045552

I mean T's are creating a home, they are paying rent. Why should we be able to control their lifestyle?

I'm totally opposed to Labour plans giving tenants more rights to have pets.

I don't allow cats or dogs or any large pets (e.g. Iguana). I do allow fish, small furry things in cages and small birds in cages. Why?

1. My properties are mostly leasehold flats. Most leases contain restrictions on keeping pets. Those restrictions, whilst not banning pets, do require freeholders permission and a fee (usually £50 - £100) to have permission granted. As I am not prepared to apply for permission on behalf of a prospective tenant before they take up residence and am not prepared for them to move in with pet without permission.....it's impossible to accept applications from tenants with pets.

2. If I were forced to accept applications from people with pets id just ask for an enormous extra deposit or increase the rent to an unaffordable level to cover the risk.

Going forward, I am a little concerned. I'm starting a portfolio of mainly 3 bedroomed family homes where there is a much bigger chance of applicants with pets. So, irrespective of a Labour Govt and legislation im going to have to face the request for pets much more frequently......and will have to deal with it quite firmly. Hopefully it won't limit my market to much.

They shouldn't have sold off all the ex council houses then people could have rented with pets. Its the politicians fault that they find themselves in this situation and it shouldn't be made the responsibility of me and other landlords to dig them out of the hole.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey RL, you start to sound like me being frustrated at the state expecting me to be a social LL'.

Your points assume that we will be able to increase deposits, although proving it is an increase could be difficult.

Then after the move in a T 'then' decides to get an animal and we are in a more difficult situation. If the legislation were to say they can have one it follows that we can't penalise them for having one (or more). Any repossession attempt would fail.

The wear and tear over damage argument has always been ambiguous. With animals it then would be far more difficult for us to cite excessive wear and tear, as with animals this is often more and to be expected.

My AST prohibits animals of any description w/o written consent, like you I might permit such depending on which property, but it would always detail numbers and size of. I would also detail that consent is for a particular animal and not for a replacement, due to doggy death for example.

T's had moved in, I visit 2 months later and there are 2 small dogs, without any consent. I can repossess but the effect of the animals on carpets has already taken place. My efforts to get rid of dog smells would be needed already. I would suffer another void, and likely a little longer due to increased cleaning. They are still there but they pay over £40 pm more than my next door and same type property.

Now my application form specifically requests if there are or will be animals at the property, to attempt to focus their minds some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the future will be:-

* Advertised rents shown as a range eg £600 - £800 pcm. Instead of the current £600 pcm. Those with pets get to pay the higher rent.

* Landlords only offering 6 month contract with lots of additional clauses relating to pets.

* Rent reviews every 6 months with pet owners attracting massive increases to deter ownership.

This all sounds very harsh on those who want pets but some of us landlords don't want them. If we are forced we will find a loophole to deter applicants just as there are alternatives to deposit protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL as you rightly say with leasehold properties the head lease could well have restrictions on pets within the property and I would guess this would be an acceptable restriction. So for your future  development  you could consider putting 99 or 999 year leases in place with all the normal leasehold (pet) restrictions. This could have the added advantage that if you later sell you could either keep the FH and the income from the annual ground rent (which you set at the outset) and the possible income from managing the FH or offer to sell the FH to the purchaser for a premium. Just a thought.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL my fast response is that I like your thinking, possibly as I don't wish to pay the cost of those wantng to enjoy animals but can't control their effects on others, us included

My general style, and more strict for the flats, is no animals. I don't want them but occasionally might prefer that to the next unknown T'. 

I practice one alternative to deposit protection, I don't take deposits. Are yu aware of more?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a family in one of my properties who have a large dog. It was they who offered to have a separate deposit to cover the dog. They have been there for 4 years and have been model tenant's and so has the dog. :D

I guess it is pot luck with animals and to be fair I don't normally allow big indoor animals but I have to say on my 6 month inspections the house is spotless and even the dog likes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carryon Regardless said:

 

I practice one alternative to deposit protection, I don't take deposits. Are yu aware of more?

 

Yes.

Firstly you have to consider the purpose of the deposit, it means different things to different people. I consider a deposit is a form of insurance that covers anything that the tenant is responsible to pay for......damage, missing items, cleaning, unpaid rent, repairs etc etc.

Most landlords just take a deposit.......the really smart ones also .....take rent guarantee insurance, a home owning guarantor, take extra care with tenant selection, check references, meet their tenants in person to determine their suitability etc etc. All designed to reduce the risk of being out of pocket.

Just taking a deposit on its own is often not good enough. Any other opportunity to further reduce the risk of being out of pocket should be used.

If you choose not to take a deposit it's even more important to take alternative action to reduce risk.

Deposits are usually only any good if you comply with legislation and have a detailed inventory with all that entails. Many landlords take a deposit, follow legislation and don't follow the principles required for a detailed inventory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always take a deposit and into the protection scheme with the money. A property owning rent guarantor is a must for me also.

On this new property I am going to let I am going to look into rent guarantee insurance as a cover against default on payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Richlist said:

If we are forced we will find a loophole to deter applicants just as there are alternatives to deposit protection.

Hence my question.

I beleive I've explained my rationale for not taking deposits previously.

Good T's aren't a problem, they demonstrate respect and / or fear actions against them. We get our money and the property is returned in an acceptable state.

The others will avoid their responibilities. I also insist on a guarantor, home owning or at least in a position where they have something to lose. But when things have soured we then make claim for unpaid rents and often excessive wear and tear, and then costs. Even with a good inventary the claim for those losses is ambiguous and biased in T's favour. For losses other than rents any excessive claim would lose us any sympathy or even be thrown out. Any accurate claim will be moderated to somewhere in the middle. For this we have paid for an inventary in and out (I know some charge the T for the in), we have made claim at our cost and the effort is significant.

Unpaid rents are easily demonstrable by a simple statement of account. The only defence is disrepair but T's now have an increased responsibility to demonstrate that we were informed.

The DPS scheme is only us acting as an agent for the state by providing funds for them to enjoy. Aside from the rent aspect we are highly unlikely to acheive true satisfaction from an involved claim. If defended, by T or Shelter, the effort required to attempt to win the small deposit I could realistically take would not be worth it. Dealing with the DPS just for deposit in and out is extra effort I can do without. Any slight mistake and we only increase our risks, and considering the continual changes by the London meddlers that risk is ever increasing.

Keep it simple stupid is my aim. Now we are unable to keep this as simple as many of us would prefer but avoiding the ever increasing obstacles in our path, where we are able to makes sense to me.

I save money and effort on check in / out.

I save hassle dealing with deposits, and any later claim on a deposit.

The guarantor, thank you Grampa I still use your Deed of Guarantee, and a £3 LR check, are my get out of jail card.

Meeting potential T's is invaluable, but as I've never seen a bad T till I give 'em the keys it isn't fool proof. Visiting their present domicile at 6pm by surprise can be very revealing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Carryon Regardless said:

 

The DPS scheme is only us acting as an agent for the state by providing funds for them to enjoy.

Meeting potential T's is invaluable, but as I've never seen a bad T till I give 'em the keys it isn't fool proof.

My lettings agents are registered deposit holders so in my case at least, there is no money going to the state.

I agree meeting tenants is 100% essential. I have a very long list of those applicants i don't accept. There is no way that either my agents of i can run through the full list with applicants on the phone. We just cover the main ones.....no pets, no smokers, no benefits tenants etc and then I meet them at the property where I check the other 30 or 40 on the list. A couple of years ago I had a property where we had a total of 50+ applicants......49 of them were unacceptable. Picking the right tenants is THE most important part of letting property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the potential T's there are many subtle questions that can indicate lack of suitability.

On the phone I often ask where they are living now, when the answer comes back as the west end of Rhyl, although I appreciate anyone wishing to get out of there, the fact they thought it ok to move there shows their low standard of expectation.

Where they work is another reasonable pointer, how long isn't always an issue with todays les than reliable employers. Plasterers, decorators  and the like will always have their job left overs to be stored somewhere, and of course their returning home dusty isn't good. Then there are those that work from a van, that will clog up the parking areas.

I try to eliminate where possible before arranging a viewing, but during a viewing there is much to be learnt in subtle ways.

Come assessing an application, again where they have lived, and for how long. A few short duration tenancies and I'll be the next one. Gaps in accomodation dates may mean they were abroad, or in jail. Assessing a bad attitude isn't overly difficult. I point out that errors on the application, for both T and G'tor will mean a lost application fee, and suggest all issues are best divulged to save their money.

It goes on and in practice most of my 'interview' is done as a second nature rather than a tick list. But I have to accept that many of my properties will only attract those with a less than ideal history an circumstance. I don't want a troublesome T, but the G'tor is my safety net.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...