Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Landlord won't let tenants decorate thread 2

105 replies

WhiteDust · 27/05/2019 23:24

So the thread has reached 1k. Hoping
NurseJackie
makes another one but if not, here's post 1001 from me in reply post 1K

Like I have already said...how many of you homeowners have lived next to a house of multiple occupancy where the residents are ex offenders.

1st,2nd,3rd 'home' : Rental properties. Studio flats in rough area of city. Druggies everywhere. 3years.

1st mortgaged house : Terrace. 2 up 2 down in very rough, poor area. Mattresses in back passage used as trampoline by local kids. Car broken into numerous times. Teens and druggies in same place hanging around at all hours. On edge of rough council estate. Damp and grim house. 5 years there.

2nd mortgaged house: 2 bed semi slightly further out. Quieter but still troubled area. Backed onto railway line used by people doing their stuff. Near high school. People always hanging around. 4 years there.

3rd mortgaged house: Nice house on quiet estate. Nice area. Mortgaged to max. Couldn't afford to decorate for 10+ years, too busy saving for/ paying for new roof & fixing damp/ electrics, kitchen/ bathroom. Decorated some of it after 10 years. Parts of house still need decorating 15 years after purchase. Can't afford to yet. Just paid for new boiler/ windows.

27 years OP of renting/ paying mortgage.
Our mortgage is up next year and I'm most likely the very person you look at and think has it easier than you. We haven't lived in luxury. Far from it. Like I said earlier. The colour of walls is the least of many home owners problems. It's taken YEARS to get this far.

OP posts:
NailsNeedDoing · 28/05/2019 08:58

it also totally ignores the facts that the tenant, not the LL has to live with the concequences of an LL decision, that the tenant is paying and it's not some wonderful favour bestowed by the LL, and that when all comes to all the LL has the asset when the tenancy is over, not the tenant.

This point about the landlord having an asset and the tenant not is one that I really don't understand. How is it relevant to anything? They are two different positions that aren't meant to be the same. For starters, the landlord could have exactly the same asset at the beginning of a tenancy as at the end if they own outright, which many do. Paying rent pays for somewhere to live for a set period of time, it is not a mortgage.

SachaStark · 28/05/2019 08:58

Anyway, we are “lucky” tenants.

We rent from one of our best friends, as he lives abroad now. We are allowed to do whatever we like to the property, and know that we are in it for the long term. A much more European style of tenancy.

For example, I am retiling the bathroom this week, in tiles of my choice, done at my convenience. All I have to do is send landlord the bill for the equipment. Easy. I get a bathroom in the style I like, and he has fresh tiles in his property.

In an ideal world, this is how tenancy in the UK should work. Long-term contracts, and able to treat as a proper home.

Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 08:59

Sascha
No. My OP continued the thread.
This is not a new topic.

OP posts:
zsazsajuju · 28/05/2019 08:59

White dust I agree. On the other thread the essence of the ops complaint was that she couldn’t afford to buy in the area she wants (she could afford to buy in other areas nearby but these were not up to her standards) so she chose to rent. Here was nothing unsafe about her home just that she felt she couldn’t decorate (although as I understand it, she hadn’t asked the landlord).

So not really comparable to “Grenfell”. Just a woman who chose to rent cos she doesn’t want to buy in what she sees as a bad area but is angry she can’t afford to buy in exactly the area she would like.

Crunchytowel · 28/05/2019 09:01

As someone who rented and has recently become a homeowner, the hanging of pictures/money you spend on a bought house is almost by the by. It's about the sense of security.

I was quite lucky with my rentals, and was indeed allowed to hang pictures and paint. We kept the house spotless because we were scared of being given our marching orders. Then we moved. Our house is nothing special, but it's ours. Yesterday we put a swing up for our children and I realised that, when we rented, as we put the swing up we'd already be talking about how we'd get it back down and out the door if we had to move. Every day in a rental is a day where a notice to quit could come through the door. I didn't realise how much that hung over my head until it didn't. Everything we do in our current house is for our benefit, so spending the money is totally different from paying out ££££ to a landlord who doesn't let you do perfectly normal things to make a house a home. It's about feeling secure as a family. I honestly don't think it's good for the morale of a country in general, if great swathes of people feel like they and their children can't live fairly ordinary lives without being afraid they'll have to leave their home if they put up their wedding photos.

Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:02

Sascha
In an ideal world, this is how tenancy in the UK should work. Long-term contracts, and able to treat as a proper home.

I agree. My Grandparents has exactly that kind of tenancy from the 1950s until they died in the early 2000s. Capped rent, lifelong tenancy. & they were responsible for all renewal & upkeep of buildings, fixtures and fittings.

OP posts:
SachaStark · 28/05/2019 09:03

Yes. I get it. I’m not thick.

My screen name is also Sacha.

I was simply suggesting that you sound like a bit of a wanker opening a new post by whinging about your hardship of owning three properties. Boo hoo you. You could have just written a new OP, and discarded your response to the closed one. You didn’t even link the old thread in your OP!

zsazsajuju · 28/05/2019 09:04

I also agree new op that homeowners often chose to live in bad areas (so they can afford to buy). I bought in a dodgy area that a lot of people wouldn’t touch a few years ago but it was fine.

You can’t expect to have absolutely everything you want all the time. Life is not like that. Why does nursejackie get to own in the area she wants when she can’t afford it? Why is she more special that everyone else who can’t afford to buy there?

Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:09

So not really comparable to “Grenfell”. Just a woman who chose to rent cos she doesn’t want to buy in what she sees as a bad area but is angry she can’t afford to buy in exactly the area she would like.

This!

OP posts:
Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:10

You didn’t even link the old thread in your OP!

Try the second post on this thread.

OP posts:
Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:11

zsaz

Exactly my point!

OP posts:
NailsNeedDoing · 28/05/2019 09:13

I'm another that agrees tenancies would work better for families (and landlords) if th were long term and secure, where tenants could decorate how they wanted but were also responsible for minor repairs.

Problem is that there's not usually much difference in a contract presented to a family moving into a family sized home or one presented to a single person moving into a bed sit. I do think that landlords renting out larger properties have a social obligation to realise that they are housing a family with children who are going to require some stability. How that would actually work though, I don't know.

Like I said on the other thread, if landlords were given some protection in the law against bad tenants who end up costing them a small fortune, then they could afford to be more lenient. As things stand, it's really not fair to blame landlords for trying to protect themselves against thing which should be considered criminal offences.

scaryteacher · 28/05/2019 09:16

Sacha Depends which European style of tenancy you refer to....in terms of being allowed to do what you want to the property, that isn't always the case, and you will get taken to the cleaners in Belgium if the property isn't given back exactly as you took it over. No such thing as fair wear and tear here.

RubberTreePlant · 28/05/2019 09:18

I have a similar (but shorter) housing history to yours WhiteDust but I can't really see the relevance to private renters not being allowed to decorate.

Grumpymug · 28/05/2019 09:19

This point about the landlord having an asset and the tenant not is one that I really don't understand. How is it relevant to anything? They are two different positions that aren't meant to be the same. For starters, the landlord could have exactly the same asset at the beginning of a tenancy as at the end if they own outright, which many do. Paying rent pays for somewhere to live for a set period of time, it is not a mortgage.

I'm not saying that the tenant should own the property or that it should be like a mortgage etc. I realise that the two positions are completely different, and one of the reasons they're completely different is because the LL owns (either outright or through mortgage) the asset at the end of it all, not the tenant. Through the tenancy the LL is the one with the power, they decide effectively, how someone else lives, any repairs they make ultimately benefit them as well as the tenant because they either improve the value of the house, or stop it devaluing. Same as any home owners really. Any money the LL lays out does benefit them too in the long term, it doesn't for the tenant.
For example I rent, and had my whole roof replaced recently as it resembled a sieve. Someone said that I should just be grateful that it had been done and I didn't have to pay for it, ok, but, when I move out, the LL still owns the roof don't they?

RubberTreePlant · 28/05/2019 09:20

I'm another that agrees tenancies would work better for families (and landlords) if th were long term and secure, where tenants could decorate how they wanted but were also responsible for minor repairs.

We had that until Thatcher tampered in the late eighties. Maybe it is time to under her 'reforms'?

scaryteacher · 28/05/2019 09:20

Nails My NDN in the UK wanted me to rent our house to her stepson and his family. I refused because I knew we would be reoccupying in late 2019, and they had kids. The NDN's husband is a DIY addict, and I could foresee awkward situations where he did we were not happy with in our house to 'help' his son. Much easier to rent to transmission whom I have no connection, however tenuous.

Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:20

Nails I'm trying to remember what that type of tenancy is called.
It still exists as my Great Aunt still has this agreement (dating back to the '50s).
My Grandparent's tenancy expired only when they died.

Landlords came and went but their rent couldn't be put up past a certain level, they couldn't be turfed out and they were responsible for all building/maintenance as if it were there own home.

It's a long term investment for landlords as rent paid is very low. They can only sell when tenants decide to move or die.

OP posts:
Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:24

rubber
As I've said, My opening post is in direct response to the final 1k post made by the OP on the original thread.

This was ' Like I have already said...how many of you homeowners have lived next to a house of multiple occupancy where the residents are ex offenders. '

OP posts:
Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:24

I answered the question on the 1k post.

OP posts:
Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:25

Their not there Blush

OP posts:
NailsNeedDoing · 28/05/2019 09:30

Through the tenancy the LL is the one with the power, they decide effectively, how someone else lives, any repairs they make ultimately benefit them as well as the tenant because they either improve the value of the house, or stop it devaluing.

I disagree that the LL is the one with the power. They have some control, but only when tenant says chose to follow the rules. Otherwise they are totally powerless. The tenant could choose to damage the property in a way that will far exceed the amount of deposit to repair, and there pretty much nothing the LL can do about it. The tenant can choose to stop paying rent, costing thousands in lost income and eviction fees, and again, there's nothing the landlord can do about it.

The landlord might have the power to say no to things that are relatively trivial like repainting and putting up pictures, but they have no real power when it comes to things that really matter.

RubberTreePlant · 28/05/2019 09:31

Seems like an odd tangent to the main subject.

Original poster
WhiteDust · 28/05/2019 09:37

Seems like an odd tangent to the main subject.

Read my OP again. It is explained there.
My OP directly answers a question the Original OP asked in post 1000 of the original thread.

OP posts:
RubberTreePlant · 28/05/2019 09:39

I have read it. It's still a merail TAAT.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread