Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want to just break stuff in anger?

180 replies

OrangeIsMyNewBlack · 01/07/2017 16:44

Posting here partly for rage, partly for quick responses.

Household got served notice for our rental property, has knocked us sideways because we thought this was our "forever" home whilst I have my studies and we sort everything out. I've been scrabbling to find a place for 4 weeks, and we have until the end of the month in order to get a place, finalize it, pack up and bog off. What I'm supremely fucking pissed about is the standards to which we are being held as tenants. Namely, we have cats.

2 cats, both male, that don't spray, don't fight and are treated for fleas regularly. We have an extra £250 in our current bond to cover any pet issues, and we've got a glowing reference because we've never had an issue. But tell a rental agency you have cats and they shrink away like a vampire being presented with garlic...!

I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck is wrong with private landlords?! I saw one property the other day that was a four-bed property. 4 bedrooms. No students, no sharers, no pets, no smokers, no benefits, no children. So... a FOUR. BEDROOMED. PROPERTY. For a single or professional working couple?!?!?! What the fucking fuck is wrong with people?!?!

Anyway, sorry. Crux of my point is: is there anything I can do to circumvent the whole "no pets" thing, because there aren't new properties being listed regularly in my area, and every single property within a 5-mile radius of the town I need to be near is treating me like a leper who's sneezed in their face. Anybody, anywhere, know anything about how to get around this other than getting rid of my two cats?!

OP posts:
Original poster
OrangeIsMyNewBlack · 03/07/2017 22:49

@ChickenOwner - I've only just seen your post! Thank you so much for offering, I'm unfortunately in West Wales, but the thought was absolutely lovely!!

OP posts:
WhatToDoAboutThis2017 · 03/07/2017 23:01

Sparkly, perhaps comfort yourself with the thought that your tenants paid your mortgage so you didn't have to sell at a loss, hmm?

Wtf?! So landlords are supposed to be okay with tenants wrecking their house just because it might have paid their mortgage?

How ridiculous (and I'm a private renting tenant myself).

Autofillcontact · 04/07/2017 09:02

Not ok with it. Accept it as a business risk.

It's so childish. It's like becoming selfish employed then stropping because there is no one to pay your enhanced maternity

You start a business venture. You have to understand what you're getting into.

LaurieMarlow · 04/07/2017 09:22

Wtf?! So landlords are supposed to be okay with tenants wrecking their house just because it might have paid their mortgage?

Look, Sparkly's the winner in this story. She'll have a lovely asset worth hundreds of thousands, that her tenant has played a big role in funding for her. Her tenant on the other hand, unless circs change may well be approaching retirement with nothing.

She's looking for sympathy because she had to shell out a few thousands in redecoration. Well she won't get any from me.

For what it's worth, I'm not a renter, so it's not coming from a personal grievance. But this attitude from landlords that all they should have to do is sit back and watch the money roll in stinks. As Autofill says, landlords have responsibilities and taking risks is a part of that.

Why should they be cossetted from all hassle, all risk, all inconvenience? While renters rights are tossed to the wind? it's deeply unfair.

SunTrapped · 04/07/2017 14:09

Serf I don't mean to sound patronising. I just think people should get their priorities straight. Not being able to have a pet cat is a very first world problem! I do have sympathy for animal lovers who long for a pet. I don't have sympathy for those who think it's their 'right' to keep a pet in someone else's house when the landlord says no pets. It's deeply disrespectful. It's not your house. Not all landlords are rich, many make their living from renting out a couple of properties they've saved hard to buy. How would you feel if you'd spent lots of money and effort doing up a house, only for the tenant to let their cats pee on the carpets and scratch the walls? To have your wooden floors ruined or your fireplaces chewed up, or your furniture damaged?

what you're saying is that long term renters should have to compromise quality of life so that you as a landlord can be assured or no inconvenience whatsoever

Original poster
OrangeIsMyNewBlack · 04/07/2017 14:51

Yes, SunTrapped, but the trouble is that I'm not deciding on a whim to have pets. I already have pets. They've been in my life for more than three years, I raised them from four weeks as they were abandoned. I'm the only family they've ever known, and to suggest I give them up is honestly unthinkable. If it were a goldfish in a bowl then I'd probably not even think about giving it to a friend, but they're my family. Its corny, but they are my furry babies. They have personalities. They communicate with me. They sleep in the backs of my knees when I'm lying on my side. They give me love and affection and licks and rubs and I'm honestly sitting here tearing up at the mere thought of not having them with me.

This isn't a "first world problem", this is my family.

OP posts:
LaurieMarlow · 04/07/2017 16:12

Suntrapped, I think you'll find it is their house for the period they pay rent to you.

You don't have unlimited access to it, your tenant does.

It's where they go home at the end of the day to relax and enjoy. It's their space to live their lives. They pay you for that privelege. They don't have an alternative 'home', that's it.

BlackStars · 04/07/2017 16:25

Sparkly, perhaps comfort yourself with the thought that your tenants paid your mortgage so you didn't have to sell at a loss, hmm? or perhaps the tenants (who obviously can't afford to buy) are grateful to have a lovely house and not trash other peoples property?

Look, Sparkly's the winner in this story. She'll have a lovely asset worth hundreds of thousands, that her tenant has played a big role in funding for her. Her tenant on the other hand, unless circs change may well be approaching retirement with nothing. Well maybe the tenant should have made the lifestyle choices Sparkly did?

And you do realise not every BTL has a mortgage on it so you are effectively living in someones £++K asset ........

SerfTerf · 04/07/2017 16:38

Well maybe the tenant should have made the lifestyle choices Sparkly did?

Right. Because everyone gets the assets they deserve and have worked for? No more no less? Of course they do Hmm

I wouldn't be under 30 now for all the in China (trustafarians and heir/esses excepted), for one thing.

I also suspect a lot of BTLs are either inherited or bought using inheritances.

So you can't generalise that assets are "deserved" or earnt.

chickenowner · 04/07/2017 16:39

You're welcome Orange, sorry that I couldn't help!

Hopefully there are other landlords out there like me. Smile

Autofillcontact · 04/07/2017 16:44

Wtf black? Why should they be grateful to sparkly? They're fucking paying her for it!

I don't know whether this homeowner/ landlord superiority is more like upstairs downstairs Victorian peasant or colonialism

SerfTerf · 04/07/2017 16:46

At the other extreme, it's also becoming clear from this thread that too many LLs are amateurish, emotional and unrealistic about the businesses they're supposedly running.

Maybe a LL licensing scheme is what's needed now. Home ownership has already dropped to 65% in the U.K. We can't expect a huge slice of the population to live like wanderers, constantly being told that their home isn't their own.

LaurieMarlow · 04/07/2017 16:53

Black, to your final point, no one is forcing home owners to rent their precious assets out. If they don't like it, they can stop renting them and keep them as pristine as they like.

But I think you'll find the £££ are a big draw Hmm

BeardofZeus · 04/07/2017 16:53

Look, Sparkly's the winner in this story. She'll have a lovely asset worth hundreds of thousands, that her tenant has played a big role in funding for her. Her tenant on the other hand, unless circs change may well be approaching retirement with nothing.

Well maybe the tenant should have made the lifestyle choices Sparkly did?

Shit, I knew I should have picked the 'pull a house deposit out of your arse' lifestyle choice, and not the 'be born into a average income family with houseprices 8x the average salary' option!

BlackStars · 04/07/2017 16:59

So you can't generalise that assets are "deserved" or earnt.
I never did.

Wtf black? Why should they be grateful to sparkly? They're fucking paying her for it! And so they should pay to use someone elses very expensive asset - after all they couldn't afford to live there otherwise...

LaurieMarlow · 04/07/2017 17:02

They are paying. Confused

What are you saying Black? They shouldn't be allowed to rent nice houses? Hmm, perhaps a workhouse is more appropriate for their housing needs? Or a shed?

Autofillcontact · 04/07/2017 17:02

You're not really making any sense. You said upthread they should be grateful. Why, when they're paying rent?

raspberrysuicide · 04/07/2017 17:05

We saw a house that was advertised as a family home.
We phoned up about it to be told they only want to rent to a professional couple.

Autofillcontact · 04/07/2017 17:08

Raspberry that's how they end up renting houses to people using them for cannabis farms Grin I mean what fucking idiots.

BlackStars · 04/07/2017 17:23

You're not really making any sense. You said upthread they should be grateful. Why, when they're paying rent?

Paying rent to live in a home whos capital funding was provided by someone else who is taking a rent for it. A house I presume the tenant couldn't afford to buy themselves ?

this was merely a response to those that think LLs should 'comfort' themselves etc that tenants are paying their mortgage (although most seem very angry about it if this threads anything to go by! ).

LaurieMarlow · 04/07/2017 17:48

No one's forcing landlords to rent though Black. If their house is too precious, if it's too much of a hassle, there's too much stress, then they can take it off the market and look after it as they see fit.

But they're getting a lot out of it (£££) so all the moaning about their tribulations sounds quite childish and spoiled. Do they expect to get the benefits without any hassle, any risk, any stress?

Original poster
OrangeIsMyNewBlack · 04/07/2017 17:50

People are angry, not because "how dare people make money in their own way" but rather "how dare people extort those who cannot afford their own property by charging extortionate rents and applying ludicrously high standards simply under the guise of protecting ones assets".

Renting, in principle, is fine. Making a hefty profit on families who have no other choice is not fine.

OP posts:
SerfTerf · 04/07/2017 17:55

I'm surprised we haven't heard of "no eating" and "no bathing" clauses by now, considering how much damage those "lifestyle choices" can cause to a "valuable asset".

Original poster
OrangeIsMyNewBlack · 04/07/2017 18:05

We already have "no smokers", (which apparently even includes if you smoke outside as its still within boundaries...!) So I'm betting we're going to have "no Alcohol" next. Just think of all those pesky red wine spills!

No coffee drinkers, no books older than 2000 due to dust, no artificial scents except where approved, no biscuit-eaters unless over the sink (CRUMMYS! WHY?!?), no cooking of food so oven can remain pristine, no opening the blinds due to sunlight bleaching the carpets....

OP posts:
SunTrapped · 04/07/2017 18:05

OP thank you for explaining your bond with your cats. I really hope you find a house that allows pets. They're obviously a central part of your life and you didn't plan to have to move.

Laurie, it's the tenants HOME for the period they pay rent. But not their property. They can't decide to get a dog any more than they can paint or get rid of the landlord's furniture. Of course the landlord can't enter without permission during the tenancy, but that doesn't affect ownership. Landlord is still responsible for repairs, inspections, safety checks, neighbour issues ... and cleaning and fixing damage at the end of a tenancy.

Swipe left for the next trending thread