Landlord won't let tenants decorate thread 2

[WhiteDust]

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.

I agree with you OP. The closing post of the last thread explained how the poster did not want to live in a run down home in a dodgy area, and she shouldn't have to. That is literally where I live. I bought a flat with a short lease, with no outside space, on a main road opening onto the street and on the edge of a Council estate. And I've lived here ten years because I can't afford to move. Being a homeowner was a choice I made and I made several compromises that others won't to make it happen.

Rubber
Feel free to report the 'merail TAAT'.

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.

Tbh that sounds a bit like they matter more because they matter to the LL, and anything that matters to the tenant is trivial. Which is my whole point about attitudes towards tenants in general. Fair enough that hanging pictures or painting may be trivial to some, but it does matter to other people, same as having a pet or wanting certain plants in the garden etc, you're not given autonomy over your home, in fact it's not really a home in those circumstances is it, it's more like a private hotel. But not knowing if you're going to have to move in a couple of months isn't trivial at all. I've moved 8 times in 12 years, uprooting DD form school on all but 2 occasions, having to change my job once because I couldn't get to work from the only available house I could afford. Plus the expense of moving. And each time it was because the LL either wanted to put the rent up past what I could afford, or wanted to sell - with one the sale fell through and he got shitty when I refused to stay until the next buyer came because I'd already found somewhere and I would still have to move, just no idea when or if anything would be available. I certainly didn't have the power there did I? He withheld my deposit for months until he was forced to give it back.

There are bad areas and there are places where you’d fear for you and your child’s safety.

I don’t blame the OP for refusing to consider the latter if that’s the case.

Actually quite a few of the people who lived in Grenfell were owner occupiers. Some were private renters. And some were council tenants. Didn’t make any difference to their safety.

Onering: Being a homeowner was a choice I made and I made several compromises that others won't to make it happen.

The houses I bought were unrentable! I lived in them because I wanted to get on the housing ladder.
Dodgy electrics, unsafe boilers, damp. Rough areas.

You're right, a lot of people aren't prepared to do this.

You're right, a lot of people aren't prepared to do this.

And some people will never be able to buy no matter what they do.

To take on such houses I should say.

I didn't mean it like that at all, it's not just that because it's something the tenant wants that makes it trivial.

When you compare someone being left with hundreds of pounds worth of damage against someone who just can't put a few pictures up, of course the latter is more trivial.

Tenants shouldn't have complete autonomy over their home because they don't have complete responsibility for their home, so it makes sense that that's how it works.

When it comes to long term stability, you have a good point. When it comes to family sized homes, I agree people should have the right to longer term tenancies once they have proved that they will look after the property and pay their rent on time. Apart from situations where landlords are renting out their home to work abroad for a set period of time or something, it works in everyone's favour to have longer term tenancies, except the estate agents that like to charge a fortune just to send out a new copy of the exact same contract.

The only reason I can think of that landlords in it for the long term don't offer longer term contracts is that they understandably don't want to find themselves stuck with a shit tenant for however many years because the law will do nothing to support them if it goes wrong.

Laurie Very true. House prices are ridiculously high for first time buyers.
Impossible.
The only point I'm making is that even back 20+ years ago, we started off on the ladder with less than ideal homes.

I'd happily live in a place that was in need of repair etc, it's not about not being prepared to do what other people are! That's quite offensive and again, yet another derogatory attitude towards someone who rents rather than buys. For me it's because until my DD is old enough to look after herself, enabling me to work 60/70 hours per week my income is topped up by tax credits. They are not taken into consideration when applying for a mortgage, so I have been refused. It's circumstances I currently cannot change not that I'm not prepared to do what other people are.

You're right, a lot of people aren't prepared to do this

How many school aged children did you have whilst living in these places?

Living in grotty places to get onto the ladder is one thing. Doing it when you have school aged children is another entirely.

@NailsNeedDoing

A deposit does go someway to covering damage to a property, as long as your LL can prove the tenant caused it rather than they ignored things that were their responsibility and then try and keep the deposit. I had to prove that I'd left the house in a good state (photo's and a receipt for carpets professionally cleaned) because the LL I mentioned tried to say I left a mess - I could prove I didn't more than he could prove I did I guess so I got my deposit back. I am thinking if he'd been able to prove it then he'd have got to keep it.
I do agree that when someone wilfully or neglectfully causes damage that they should be responsible, but it's the age old thing of getting blood out of a stone isn't it, they might be responsible but if they don't have the money then no one can magically make it appear. I have insurance, so that if I accidentally do something, or something like the washing machine floods the kitchen, I'm covered for the repair cost.
But one LL told me that their insurance also covered stuff like that.
Maybe mandatory insurance, paid through the rent that covers things like that could be a way to stop LLs taking the full hit.
And I suppose it could be that the LL doesn't want to be stuck with poor tenants, but IME it's been more that they want the option to sell, or move someone else in who can pay higher rent. I think that if you rent a house out, the LL should make a commitment of say 2 years of not selling, when new tenants move in. The tenant also makes the commitment and then the 2 years can only be broken in the case of either side breaking the contract.
Set inspections, by a 3rd party would also be a better idea, than 24 hours notice whenever suits the LL. I can't change my work commitments that fast, but if I knew when I moved in that on X date I would have an inspection, I'd be better placed to deal with it, rather than an email saying we're coming at X time tomorrow and giving you 24 hours notice now and then get arsey when I can't do what they want.

C81
First child started school a year before leaving first house. Why?

How many school aged children did you have whilst living in these places?

I had two, as a single Mum. The house was an absolute dump, it had dodgy electrics, mouldy bathroom, the whole place, every room, was gutted and had to be redone. It was gross. But I did have the money and the ability to do it up and it wasn't a rough area.

my income is topped up by tax credits. They are not taken into consideration when applying for a mortgage, so I have been refused.
Nationwide accept tax credits as do a couple of other banks.
London and Country are a good broker.

OP how much deposit did you need for the first house?
& how did you get the money for the first house?
If you started off now you’d be expected to pay a five-figure deposit.
There is a huge disparity between when someone your age was able to get on the ladder and when someone my age will (if ever)
That IS bloody lucky OP.
You were given a privilege we aren’t. & fwiw it’s not about decorating but about security & feeling like you live in your own home. Not someone else’s.

Joey
I said upthread that house prices made it very hard for first time buyers.
I couldn't afford to buy my first house on my own. I rented before then. The first house was bought with my partner at the time.
I can't remember what the deposit was but we saved for it (no zero deposits at the time, I think they started around 2000s?).
To give you an idea, 1995 Mortgage was around £750 a month for 50K as there were high interest rates at the time. I took home around 1K a month.

It doesn't matter what kind of shitty property I'd be moving into, the likeliehood of us getting a mortgage, any mortgage, is almost nil.

I don't get the point of this thread.

Some people can't get on the property ladder and you're not some kind of special self-sacrificing angel because you managed to do it.

Accept that you had privilege some of us will never have, otherwise you are being a bit of a twat.

Why would you expect to feel like you live in your own home when you don't though?

Living in your own home comes with things that tenants don't have to worry about at all, because they are paying for the privilege of not having to worry about it. They aren't paying all the costs associated with having their own home, so of course it isn't going to feel the same as if they owned.

It's like you want tenants to have all the rights, all the convenience, but none of the responsibility and none of the financial risk or outlay. How is that fair?

The 50K house is now worth around 80K. House prices don't go up much in that area!! Infact they've fallen comparatively! Even 20+ years on nobody wants to live there!!

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

Except not all tenants want long term tenancies and we as LL are not to know which is which because you can't rely on prospective tenants to let you know.

When I last rented the property to a professional couple, I was strongly expecting them to be 5hete only short-time in between buying properties as they'd sold theirs and had just moved in the area. I had spent over £2, 000 to fully redecorate and wasn't prepared to say they could repaint it all of they were then leaving after 6 months risking them doing a dreadful job repainting.

As it is, 2 1/2 years later, they still haven't moved. If they'd asked for a 5 years, even 3 years tenancy after the first 6 months with jo break clause, I would have been OK with them to repaint, but it's a big risk to agree for such a lenghtly contract without a break clause.

Financial security goes both ways.

swingofthings

but if you are in a position to own property, then nine times out of ten, you're obviously more financially secure than someone who can't afford to buy. The two are not comparable at all.

If their redecorating is not to your taste - well, that's what deposits are for.

Except not all tenants want long term tenancies and we as LL are not to know which is which because you can't rely on prospective tenants to let you know.

Secure tenancies are what is needed, not longer tenancies.

@IAmAlwaysLikeThis. Not forcibly. Someone can own a property and use the rental to pay their own mortgage. Even if you don't, this could be the landlord sole pension compared to someone renting who has a good corporate pension.

Your landlord might not have anymore £2000 to spend on redecoration 1 year or even two after the previous one than the tenant and as a prospective tenant, how would you feel visiting a new house with black walls all over and holes all over from hanging pictures? Will you think 'what a great landlord who is flexible and let us make the house the tenant home' or will walk in and be totally turned off by the look of the place and assess it is not worth the asking price?