Dss Welcome!

[evictee]

If a heavy smoker rents a house for 6 months, you cannot rent it to non-smokers until you've basically gutted it as the place will smell of smoke until you do. Curtain, carpets, sofas, all need to be AT LEAST professional cleaned to remove the smell of smoke, possibly replaced. Meanwhile the place will need to be fully redecorated at the ceilings painted with a special paint to cover the tar. £650 deposit wont cover all that. This £6500 deposit.

Likewise if someone with a dog moves in then most likely this will wear the carpets a lot quicker and possibly bring in fleas. And then of course, after Mr Dog owner moves out, you can't rent the house to someone with pet allergies without gutting the place again. The same applies to children and the amount of damage they do by there mear presence... £650 will never cover it.

This is so true. Last tenants I had, seemed respectable enough, but a few weeks after they'd moved in got talking to a friend of a friend who'd been to their flat warming party, and it turns out they'd had a bowl of peanuts sitting out for guests! Unbelievable. I had to get them evicted straight way then basically dismantle the property brick by brick, spray each one with Febreze and then reassemble the whole damn lot before I could put it back on the market. Disgusting.

[Shao Kahn]

This is so true. Last tenants I had, seemed respectable enough, but a few weeks after they'd moved in got talking to a friend of a friend who'd been to their flat warming party, and it turns out they'd had a bowl of peanuts sitting out for guests! Unbelievable. I had to get them evicted straight way then basically dismantle the property brick by brick, spray each one with Febreze and then reassemble the whole damn lot before I could put it back on the market. Disgusting.

It is disgusting - you omitted to give the place a quick coat of magnolia Tesco Value paint and some crap squeaky laminate flooring before you put it back onto the market. Call yourself a landlord?

[wonderpup]

Benefits scum are thieving scroungers,

Actualy some ex bankers are quite civilised- you can't tar all former executives with the same brush you know.

[juvenal]

Sadly on here, it seems that there are too many "bears" waiting to become the next BTL landlords and then fock everyone else, in particular, the next generation down from them, over, in the way that they perceive that they have been. Not healthy...money isn't everything, FFS.

Just my tuppence worth...

After a year of posting on here, I don't get that impression of HPC. Most posters seem to want a home they can both afford to buy (without being crippled for life by the mortgage), and can stay in for the foreseeable future.

[ccc]

This thread got me thinking something I often consider...

Who the ****** would want to be a landlord !!??

Without a credit bubble and large capital gains - it seems like a whole lot of hassle for a semi-resonable income.

[kingsgate]

This thread got me thinking something I often consider...

Who the ****** would want to be a landlord !!??

Without a credit bubble and large capital gains - it seems like a whole lot of hassle for a semi-resonable income.

I don't know. As of now, our little business is going to to make £160K over the loan payments this year......

[Thread Killer]

This is so true. Last tenants I had, seemed respectable enough, but a few weeks after they'd moved in got talking to a friend of a friend who'd been to their flat warming party, and it turns out they'd had a bowl of peanuts sitting out for guests! Unbelievable. I had to get them evicted straight way then basically dismantle the property brick by brick, spray each one with Febreze and then reassemble the whole damn lot before I could put it back on the market. Disgusting.

Sorry maybe I am a little slow on the uptake, but what do you mean by a "bowl of peanuts sitting out for guests" What is wrong with that? I often have a bowl of peanuts, crisps, and twiglets in a bowl if guests come round, and I am perfectly respectable?

[ScaredEitherWay]

I can't afford to pay out of my own pocket what the LHA would pay for rent if I were signing on. LHA where I am is £100/month more than I pay.

[johnny5thumbs]

I often have a bowl of peanuts, crisps, and twiglets in a bowl

What - all in the same bowl? That won't help house prices locally.

[jimbo1968]

Benefits scum are thieving scroungers, landlords should be paid just to take them in.

That is generally how renting works.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

This thread got me thinking something I often consider...

Who the ****** would want to be a landlord !!??

Without a credit bubble and large capital gains - it seems like a whole lot of hassle for a semi-resonable income.

As opposed to a whole lot of income for little or no hassle?

[darwin]

This is so true. Last tenants I had, seemed respectable enough, but a few weeks after they'd moved in got talking to a friend of a friend who'd been to their flat warming party, and it turns out they'd had a bowl of peanuts sitting out for guests! Unbelievable. I had to get them evicted straight way then basically dismantle the property brick by brick, spray each one with Febreze and then reassemble the whole damn lot before I could put it back on the market. Disgusting.

Quite right. Such profligacy can not go unpunished.

[ccc]

I don't know. As of now, our little business is going to to make £160K over the loan payments this year......

And capital values ? If your business is taking in that amount I imagine your capital values have dropped by a lot more.

I am sure some people do well out of it but for the hassle involved I am not tempted. My own wee little business pulls in less than that. But not by a huge amount. I imagine for a lot less hassle too.

Who knows - one day I may want to join the BTL brigade. Can't see it anytime soon though.

TaxAbuserOfTheWeek - That is exactly what I am looking for !!

[right_freds_dead]

where i live at the peak in 07 the rentals were NO SMOKING, NO CHILDREN, NO PETS, NO DSS. in bold letters. very offensive i thought. the agency in question hasnt used such ads for a while now, but it goes to show how people become very controlling once they think they have total power.

a lesson for ID cards.

[bomberbrown]

where i live at the peak in 07 the rentals were NO SMOKING, NO CHILDREN, NO PETS, NO DSS. in bold letters. very offensive i thought. the agency in question hasnt used such ads for a while now, but it goes to show how people become very controlling once they think they have total power.

a lesson for ID cards.

No fear, in a few years time, the shoe will be on the other foot and landlords won't be able to be so choosy if they're hoping for minimum voids.

I also find the above not as much offensive, as insulting.

[right_freds_dead]

No fear, in a few years time, the shoe will be on the other foot and landlords won't be able to be so choosy if they're hoping for minimum voids.

I also find the above not as much offensive, as insulting.

no. its happened already. they took down these vile signs a while ago in desperation.

[ma-ku]

You're right, but the problem is that these kinds of clauses seem to be very prevalent these days. From your experience, is there any room for negotiation?

I think some of these contracts need to be bound. Say a devout catholic signed a clause that says "no kids", gets raped, pregnant and then thrown out of their home minus deposit for contract violation? hmm.. Personally, I think "no kids" clauses should be illegal with the exception of specialist accomodation such as granny flats.

[Zngland]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

And in the mean time they strip and sell the interior and turn the bedrooms into a junky factory.

:angry:

[@contradevian]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

:angry:

+1 Good post

[pete.hpc]

And in the mean time they strip and sell the interior and turn the bedrooms into a junky factory.

Yeah right

Don't like taking a chance? don't go into BTL

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

To be fair, you probably could get those terms now, you'de just need to pay a bigger deposit. Much bigger.

If a heavy smoker rents a house for 6 months, you cannot rent it to non-smokers until you've basically gutted it as the place will smell of smoke until you do. Curtain, carpets, sofas, all need to be AT LEAST professional cleaned to remove the smell of smoke, possibly replaced. Meanwhile the place will need to be fully redecorated and the ceilings painted with a special paint to cover the tar. £650 deposit wont cover all that. Think £6500 deposit.

Likewise if someone with a dog moves in then most likely this will wear the carpets a lot quicker and possibly bring in fleas. And then of course, after Mr Dog owner moves out, you can't rent the house to someone with pet allergies without gutting the place again. The same applies to children and the amount of damage they do by their mear presence... £650 will never cover it.

Same with DSS... Landlords worry about rent problems. If your paying a £3000 deposit plus a full 6 months rent up front, they wont worry about how you're paying for it. On the other hand, if your paying £650 deposit and can't explain how you plan to make the second months rent payment, the LL is going to be nervous.

I'm not trying to justify the LL attitude, but when you look at the flipside, you can see why, if they have a choice, they'de prefer to enforce those rules. Renting out is a risk balancing act, balancing the risk of damage against the size of the deposit.

Edited for dyslexia.

What a crock.

Say what you mean don't dress it up as some sort of landlord perspective. This is a thinly veiled attack on renters as the sort of people who do not respect their surroundings and other people's (pardon the pun) property and why they should consider themselves lucky to be allowed to live anywhere at all.

Edited April 13, 2010 by daiking

[@contradevian]

What a crock.

Say what you mean don't dress it up as some sort of landlord perspective. This is a thinly veiled attack on renters as the sort of people who do not respect their surroundings and other people's (pardon the pun) property and why they should consider themselves lucky to be allowed to live anywhere at all.

I agree, and the house could be let as a council houses were, no furniture, fitting, appliances, carpets etc..

Not some token crap furniture bought cheap so the landlord can snoop every six months.

If the tenants wrecks stuff thats his own problem, but no one looks after other people's stuff as well as their own.

No reason also why a tenant can't put in his own kitchen or bathroom or redecorate like they can in Germany.

I think the whole AST/BTL thing was to privatise council housing anyway. Either get into huge debt, rent from a bank or be moved every 6/12 months and be told what colour walls you can have.

[Austin Allegro]

A lot of people renting off the housing association I'm with now are unemployed, so am I at present. Most of us treat the place as if it was our own, due to the fully assured tenancy, which we all recognise is a great gift in the present environment. We paint, decorate and upkeep the property in our own manner, we all pay the rent on time, statistically very, very few are in arrears with rent (I am on a tenants advisory board working with the association and have seen the statistics in the flesh), and there are very few antisocial incidents etc. Of course, there are some, as there are some rent arrears, places falling into disrepair etc. But, they're of a minority, as with any other subject or category, there is the perception that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Take the private rentals in the same street. This street which we all live in is a regency crescent. The private rentals are all falling apart, the windows are mouldy, in some of them the glass above the doors has been smashed by what looks like someone throwing a bottle or full can of beer through it, the tenants are transient in nature due to their ASTs, especially the Eastern European economic migrant ones, and so don't give a monkeys about the area and don't form any neighbourly relationships, a lot of them (the U.K citizens) come in pissed at three in the morning and wake the whole street up etc.

What is needed is the opposite to what we have. We need a strongly-regulated, tenant friendly legislative environment, like in the more enlightened western-European countries, where most have fully assured tenancies through housing associations or local authorities, or various other regulated social landlords, and can live in whatever manner or by whatever lifestyle they please, provided they pay their rent on time, do not cause antisocial behaviour, respect their neighbours and their surroundings, maintain the property as if it was their own, do not commit criminal activites, etc. Then, there should be a private rental sector, with ASTs where all the scum should live, run by landlords like Van Hoogstraten, and if they act up like they do at present then they should be thrown onto the streets. Perhaps then they might behave? Students should also have ASTs, not because they're scum - they are, of course, nothing of the sort, but because they're transient in nature.

Sadly on here, it seems that there are too many "bears" waiting to become the next BTL landlords and then fock everyone else, in particular, the next generation down from them, over, in the way that they perceive that they have been. Not healthy...money isn't everything, FFS.

Just my tuppence worth...

Well said. I believe the Dutch tried a policy where antisocial p*ssheads (in free state accommodation) were all put together in the same estate outside a town, so that it didn't matter if they all made noise in the night etc. Even then, some bleeding heart liberal complained about it!

[MrPin]

I never had any bad renting experiences! Nobody minded the cat!