salavan Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 hi im trying to decide whether to let my property funished or un furnished , just wondered if there are any legal implications such as is it more difficult to remove a tenant ect, i know furniture has to conform to the fire regulations but apart from that im not sure if there is anything else that would affect the tenancy, be grateful of any coments or suggestions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortitia Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 I would do unfurnished only. Less hassle over check out and maintaining the furnishings at a good standard. The exception to this would be a hight end company let in a big city. Mortitia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christophgoulds Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Furnished or unfurnished is generally more of a choice about the type of tenant you'd like to attract as opposed to any legal requirements or obligations (to my knowledge at least). I agree with Mortitia that unfurnished is certainly less hassle, but a completely unfurnished property will be rented out for less rent per month. Of course, the benefit of unfurnished is that it tends to attract families, couples and experienced tenants with their own furniture, more than likely looking to settle in a property for a good period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 I've got furnished & unfurnished. Here a few thought starters to help you make a decision. * F. allows you to choose to claim the 10% w&t allowance. * F. usually carries a small rental premium .....but it is usually small. * F. attracts a different type of tenant......usually professional or separated. * F. means you will have to pay more council tax between tenancies....often 90% * U/F. often means more work preparing the property & at check in & check out. * U/F. tenants often stay longer than in furnished property. In my area there is a massive shortage of furnished property and so they tend to let quicker than unfurnished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 I have let out furnished and unfurnished properties over the past 20 years but I stopped doing furnished properties 10 years ago and the reason was. Too much hassle....... Damage to furniture by tenant plus the disputes that followed. The difference in rental income was minimal. BUT I do agree with Mortitia that high-end company lets then a furnished property is probably a better bet. I use to do furnished for a large local company which was very satisfactory but still use to get problems from time to time with their tenants. More than happy to carry on doing unfurnished than to even consider going back to furnished. Mel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLAW96 Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Legal position and at common law when you rent out a furnished property there is an implied condition that it will "be fit for human habitation"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 Legal position and at common law when you rent out a furnished property there is an implied condition that it will "be fit for human habitation"! Well that rules out some of the places I've seen.....I wouldn't keep my dog in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted July 16, 2011 Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 In my area there is no difference in rental prices between furnished or unfurnished. I would also advise a professional inventory company is used if the property is furnished . There is quite a skill involved trying to do them yourselves if the property is unfurnished let alone furnished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoghurt Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Hello I am about to let a flat I have been doing up and am considering the same question. However I would appreciate some clarification on SEMI furnished? I had read that there is no legal definition of this so you could potentially advertise you property as semi furnished but put in the minimum ie. curtains, carpet, a few white goods, cupboard etc . You could then get the 10% tax relief and hopefully have less hassle than fully furnished (inventories/damage etc)? Have I read this wrong or does anyone else use this approach please? Many thanks Sarah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 so you could potentially advertise you property as semi furnished but put in the minimum ie. curtains, carpet, a few white goods, cupboard etc . You could then get the 10% tax relief and hopefully have less hassle than fully furnished (inventories/damage etc)? Have I read this wrong Yes you have read this wrong. To qualify for the 10% wear & tear allowance your property needs to be fully furnished with all of the main contents......cooker, fridge, beds, tables, chairs etc etc. The 10% allowance is NOT available for part furnished property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoghurt Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Thank you Richlist I did some more googling and came across http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/definition-of-furnished-for-10-wear-tear-allowance-t27923.html "Per the revenue website. A furnished property is one that is capable of normal occupation without the tenant having to provide their own beds, chairs, tables, sofas and other furnishings, cooker etc. The provision of nominal furnishings will not meet this requirement. If the accommodation isn’t furnished, or only partly furnished, the 10% wear and tear allowance isn’t due." So it looks like you are correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Warren Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 As both an agent and a landlord the answer is simple "Depends on local demand". If there is a sufficient demand and a premium for letting furnished then it can be worth looking at but if you have a single property with no storage facility off site then in the current market I would suggest an unfurnished let. I have seen landlords spend £££££££££££ on furnishing a property for a six month let and then have the next tenants either not want all or only some of it (hence the need to have storage). A big advantage of unfurnished is less hassle over wear and tear and the matter of damage v fair wear and tear during the check out inventory. Mark hi im trying to decide whether to let my property funished or un furnished , just wondered if there are any legal implications such as is it more difficult to remove a tenant ect, i know furniture has to conform to the fire regulations but apart from that im not sure if there is anything else that would affect the tenancy, be grateful of any coments or suggestions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.