To think that if you private rent your life should not be dictated to by the landlord whose mortgage you are paying

[Nursejackie1]

So many of us are stuck in private renting with no choice paying over the odds, while landlords are making a mint. Most landlords have all these rules that you can’t decorate without permission, can’t even put a wall hanging up without asking. Often can’t or need permission to have pets, have regular inspections. I pay loads for my home and due to that cannot save a deposit. My kids have never had their bedrooms decorated in the way I would like.. having to stick with plain magnolia. Why should somebody else decide whether my kids get to grow up with a family pet or not? AIBU to think that if you are paying somebodies mortgage for them then while you are in that house you should be able to treat it as your own within reason and not have your life dictated to and controlled by them?

I rent a house out (no mortgage) and I'm perfectly happy with pets, so long as there is zero evidence of them when you leave, and quite happy for you to paint so long as you return it to bland cream or white. I adore long term tenants, and am highly motivated to allow anything that makes them feel fully at home and able to put down roots. If my current tenants are still there 10 years from now I will be delighted.

If there were no private landlords, you and many others probably would have no place to live. Like it or not, I think you and all other private tenants need to remember that.

That’s spectacularly missing the point when in reality the entire system needs to change to ensure good quality housing for all and moving away from a ‘have’ versus ‘have nots’ system.

For example, in Europe most rental housing is owned by companies. That may well be a better system.

you may feel a little differently when your child is older and goes to friends houses whose rooms are decorated with superheroes or whatever they are into and want the same. It’s not the be all and end all but would be nice to be able to do it.

But you don't need to paint a room to be able to decorate it. I use 3M removable hooks when I want to hang anything up. You can always put pictures on the wall with removable hooks. Bedding can be changed to reflect a theme.

KTheGrey so renting the house benefits you economically doesn't it.
You haven't kept it just to provide housing to the community have you.
You've made a business decision to cover your costs by renting your house out.

I'm not saying this is wrong but this profits you otherwise you wouldn't do it it's exactly the same. Unless you are renting it out at a massive loss just to help out the homeless in which case well done you.

Whilst I think that landlords should be flexible about pets and decoration the tenant should have to put everything back as it was before moving in which could be quite costly and I bet a lot of people wouldn't do a good job. This may require quite a large deposit which I doubt many people would be happy to pay.

MyInnerAlto
Same goes for the area I am in.
We live in a rented flat. I even had a wall put in, to separate one into two rooms.
When we leave, we'll make sure the place is in good repair, freshly painted and clean and have the wall removed - unless the tenant after us wants it to stay.
If - what's more likely - the owner sells and the new owner demolishes the place to set it up differently (the only sensible thing to do, actually), we'll do nothing, because that would be stupid. The new owner would have to give us notice and we'd have 9 month to find something new.

Mythologies thank you, you have explained what I am trying to say very well.

The problem is different tenants have varying standards of what ‘looked after’ looks like. Most tenants would say they look after their house but that’s not always the case. Unfortunately it’s easier to make blanket rules as it only takes one tenant to take the mick and cost the landlord a fortune.
Re putting things on the walls - it would be reasonable to allow it provided the walls were returned to their original state when the tenancy was up, but so often this just doesn’t happen when people leave so I can also understand why landlords don’t allow it. The original damage bond doesn’t necessarily cover all damage done to the property. It’s difficult but so many people leave houses in a bad state.
(I know there’s another side to the coin regarding irresponsible landlords but that’s another issue.)

This may require quite a large deposit which I doubt many people would be happy to pay.

They should absolutely have the option though.

@coffeehabit I have no resentment whatsoever towards my landlord. I get on fine with her and find her very pleasant. My problem is with the system and how few fights good tenants have to feel like the home they are paying a lot of money for is their home.

Just to clarify I'm not saying LLs are evil or immoral but everyone renting out their property is doing it in their own interest and it's silly to say otherwise. That's OK, you're allowed to cover your costs, you're allowed to make your finances balance however you can but you're not doing anyone a favour.

*few rights

I can only think that landlords worried about tenants decorating badly or damaging can't be properly insured.

Between insurance and upkeep and various other things I don't make much profit from the property I let out, but it's a property suitable for my DD when she's older (she's unlikely to ever work or live completely independantly) so it benefits my family to keep it so I wouldn't moan about lack of profit. I do think some LL's don't look long term in their costs though.

The tenant who trashed it and didn't pay the rent would have left me massively out of pocket if it wasn't heavily insured. Every room was wrecked. Walls needed re plastered, windows replaced, bathroom and kitchen replaced. It was just destroyed. But because it was insured (and yes the premium went up a bit after, but that's just the nature of it) I was only a small amount out of pocket for the eviction process.

I know a few LLs who aren't insured for malicious damage and that just seems like madness to me.

I totally agree with you OP.

I think the problem stems from the fact that the UK doesn't have a rental culture. People only rent if they can't buy and renters are often seen as second class.

In many European countries, most people rent and renters are treated with far more respect. Rent can only be increased by a certain percentage as long as the same tenant is in, tenancys are for years not months, it is far harder to evict tenants and landlords have a far more relaxed attitude to tenants making their house a home.

We rented in the UK and it was horribly restrictive. It felt like we were just staying in someone else's house. We now rent in Europe and we feel this really is our home.

We rented our UK house out briefly after we moved away and the tenant who had rented properties her whole adult life couldn't believe we would let her decorate her child's bedroom and feel genuinely at home there.

Plus those of us with owned houses simply organised our lives differently, I owned before I had children. This isn't a criticism but we would have struggled to save after we had kids, they are bloody expensive ! Though I admit as I'm probably older than you it was a bit easier in the 90's to buy, but still entailed living with my parents and taking packed lunches, going without cars, holidays etc (phones were still executive luxuries!)

They should absolutely have the option though.

I agree.

YANBU, it's a symptom of a larger problem with housing provision and prices in the UK. If I had it my way, in an ideal world, there would be no private landlords; they'd all be social housing tenancies. I fundamentally don't think it's right to profit from someone's need to have a place to live.

Calling a rented home "temporary accommodation", while technically correct, is quite telling in terms of where the problem lies. Just because someone can't afford a deposit (often through no fault of their own - we've all seen how quickly house prices have risen without corresponding growth in wages), doesn't mean their housing status should be insecure.

I agree private landlords are pox on society, bumbling amateurs who look down their noses at those whom they have helped to priced out of the housing market
what we need is more corporate let's and a fairer and more rational system

can only think that landlords worried about tenants decorating badly or damaging can't be properly insured.

They may have decorated "properly" but if the walls are a colour that nobody else would like it will have an impact of whether they can rent out the property in the future. Insurance wouldn't cover revolting decor.

it's all depend on the landlord.
Mine is quite flexible, asked before we moved if we can put pictures on the walls (making holes to hang the pictures) and he said as long we fill the holes at the end of tenancy he doesn't mind, same with changing color of the wall.

I rented for many years then after meeting hubby we rented and then a few years later bought. We moved to the tiniest dampest, dingiest basement to save to buy.

Then after a couple of years we had to move and rented our house out. We rent elsewhere.

We ask for neutral colours only if people want to decorate but have had the house back with chocolate brown walls all over the place (we didn't charge but were fed up) we say no to pets because we don't want to have to replace carpets that stink and are soiled when the tenant changes or have our (small) garden too foul for a toddler to play in. I have still been asked to replace carpet as the new tenants can't get rid of the smell of cat pee though.

If you are a kind landlord that gives tenants a "chance" decorates throughout between tenants and allows pets there is a fairly reasonable chance that 6 months later your tenants move on and you get your property back damaged and smelly. The same tenants that are "entitled to pets" should also be entitled to clean carpets and walls so the landlord could spend well more than any rent received in 6 months replacing carpets/ damaged laminate/ painting and other repairs.

Our house is just about worth what it cost in 2007 (reason we rented out in the first place was negative equity after the crash) and the rent received is slightly less than the mortgage. All other expenses we find from our ordinary cash flow as a part time teacher and part time carer - so I agree all landlords are definitely not rich.

I agree the reason houses are so dear is short supply and plenty of people with high wages or dual income willing to spend it on a home. I don't think there are many long term empty homes outside of London or coastal resort/national parks but I would agree with heavily penalizing empty homes as they destroy the home ownership prospects people that live and work in these areas.

I agree everyone should be able to have a home and wish their was plenty of social housing. A private landlord is not a charity and can't afford to take risks tenants any more than anyone else can afford to take on clients that dont pay or damage tgeir equipment with their employment or business. Social housing should underpin the housing market. I also think it would be fantastic if social housing was available for the hard working low earners more so it could shed it's connotations of anti social tenants.

If there was more good quality housing and good quality social housing available then a lot of the problems like damp/poor homes and high rents would resolve themselves without legislation (which usually has detrimental unintended consequences)

Sorry for epic essay!

can only think that landlords worried about tenants decorating badly or damaging can't be properly insured.

They may have decorated "properly" but if the walls are a colour that nobody else would like it will have an impact of whether they can rent out the property in the future. Insurance wouldn't cover revolting decor.

I can understand your feeling OP. My family had to rent for a few years when we moved to a new area for work and our house sale fell through. We had to rent our house out and it took a few years to be able to sell our house and then find a house to buy. We felt like we were treated as second class citizens by the letting agents and the landlord of the second house we lived in. But as it was short-term I was somewhat grateful for the magnolia walls as it was the only thing modern about the house. In the end I was desperate to have my own home again and to decorate my dc bedrooms.

I don't suppose this helps but one positive spin on renting is less time spent doing DIY. Once we bought a house again, the list of 'things that need to be done or bought' was never ending and I look back at the photos of the summers that we rented and realise we spent a lot more time with the kids just living and enjoying the garden. That probably sounds patronising and of course everyone's preference would be to have their own home.

Are the colours of the bedrooms hideous? Could you buy some decals to put on the walls of your children's rooms? Those are removable without peeling paint. There are also self adhesive hooks you can buy to put up pictures which do not peel off paint when removed. They can hold quite a bit of weight.

@crosspelican I want to rent from you 😂 you sound very fair and I’m sure if you have the right tenants it’s reciprocated.

The chief problem with the small private landlord is that they can't accept that the 'inferior' person who can't afford to buy their own property should be allowed the privilege of feeling as if they have a home to call their own
The small private landlord is inclined to feel that his or her tenant is just a guest or a recipient of their charity