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.

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?

You'd think neglectful, scruffy landlord. You would question what else was wrong with the place. Are the electrics safe for example.

Don’t see car hire companies getting this much grief

They are shysters but they are not generally hiring to people who can't afford to buy a car, it is an addition to holiday or business travel. You might occasionally hire a car to cover a period without one, eg if it's been in an accident and you don't get a courtesy car.

Yes they are making money out of other people, but having a hire car is not a human right, having somewhere to live is.

They are shysters but they are not generally hiring to people who can't afford to buy a car,

They are absolutely doing that! So many people driving round in cars worth 20/30K plus who haven't got 20/30K of their own!!

Keeps coming back to the fact that you need to take control of your own destiny. It’s that bloody simple

I take your point about house = human right though!

You'd think neglectful, scruffy landlord. You would question what else was wrong with the place. Are the electrics safe for example
Exactly so you're left with attractimg desperate tenants maybe with poor references or ccjs more likely to not pay or look after the property or having to pay for someone to redecorate the place again costing when as a LL you might not have the instant cash to do nor the time.

In this case scenario, it comes to common sense to demand no painting or picture hanging of ultimately you will manage to get good tenants who are happy to abide to this.

Am I missing something or are people seriously comparing renters not being able to decorate how they'd like to the horrific tragedy which is Grenfell Towers fire?

I really don’t understand all the antagonism towards landlords. And no, I’m not one. I’m 31 now and have been privately renting since the age of 22 (in student halls 19-22), it’s only in the past few weeks I’ve finally bought my own house (mortgaged obviously, and with a partner). There is no way i could have done it sooner as it’s taken this long to study and work our way up the career ladder and save enough for a deposit. We deliberately didn’t have children until we had enough money to buy a house as we knew it’d be even more difficult once we had a baby. We did start trying admittedly once the house purchase was underway. If we’d had kids sooner we would have really struggled to buy, that was the trade off we made.

For the past decade I’ve been thankful for the landlord/letting system as without it where would I have lived? Not everyone can afford to buy a house, not everyone wants to (some don’t want the massive commitment and being rooted to one spot), where would they live without people who do own homes renting them out? I don’t really see any other option and I don’t think it’s anyone else’s duty other than mine to provide me with a place to live, whether that’s buying or exchanging rent money for somewhere to reside.

I’ve never expected to be able to make changes to the places I’ve rented or to own pets as it’s not my house, sure it’s my temporary home but it’s not mine and I have no right to make alterations unless expressly approved. It would seem just as weird to try and wallpaper the bedroom in a rental as to get the paint changed on a lease car.

I don’t plan to ever become a LL, it’s out of my financial capabilities to ever get a second property (we saved for this house entirely on our own without any family support or free housing like living with relatives to save), but if I were to do so I’d see it as providing a home for someone who requires one and who might otherwise have nowhere to live. And frankly I think people always forget in these discussions to mention that there’s a great degree of risk in being a LL too, just like there is as a tenant, given the number of people who don’t respect the fact it’s not their property to damage/alter.

Be annoyed at the societal changes that have made it difficult for young people to buy property when only a generation or two ago it was much more achievable. But it’s pointless being mad at one side of the LL/tenant relationship, both are benefiting and both are taking on an element of risk. The phrase ‘I’m paying their mortgage’ has always really annoyed me with its naïveté: you forget the second part which is ‘and they’re giving me a roof over my head in return’. It’s not altruism on either side, it’s a mutually beneficial exchange.

And yes this was always my view even back when I assumed I’d never be able to buy a property and I’d always be renting. I don’t think renting is anything to be ashamed of or that landlords are some kind of bogeyman just because they’re renting out property to someone who can’t or doesn’t wish to buy.

Why do people always want a medal for saving for a house "entirely off their own backs with no help from family"?

"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. "

Let's face it. That is not the typical landlord/renter scenario, is it?

Nearlythere1 show me where I asked for a medal?

I mentioned it to preempt the incoming ‘but you’re privileged to have received money from family/inheritance/been able to live with parents while you saved’

Although actually, although I don’t expect a medal (the house is reward enough), I am proud that we managed to pull this off. For someone who grew up assuming that home ownership was completely out of my league and not even a consideration, being able to buy a property is the culmination of several years of blood, sweat and tears and not something I’ll ever take for granted. So yep, I am pretty chuffed. Why do some people have to be so nasty as to try and crush someone’s pride at achieving something?

Why do people always want a medal for saving for a house "entirely off their own backs with no help from family"?
Who is asking for a medal? It is only ever mention because of the standard assumption that young people who manage to become home owners could only possibly do so with help from their family rather than saving through stringent sacrifices.

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

Who's home is it then? I'm paying rent for it to be my home. It's the LLs property, but my home. I expect to be able to do things so I can appreciate and enjoy that home, a coloured wall, or a picture. A dog. It's by far my largest outlay as it is for most people. I don't expect to alter the place beyond all recognition, I don't expect to paint the place in bright red gloss and just leave it, I don't expect to have a dog sanctuary. Just normal things that normal people do.

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.
But then the LL is getting paid to deal with those things, they're running a business as people keep pointing out, they're getting paid to fix the boiler if it breaks, to renew the windows when they wear out, repair a door where the mechanism has broken just through being used normally - the way some people carry on you'd think that these types of things never happened in houses that are owner occupied. That it's always the tenants fault rather than a fact of life that things break. And the LL will still own those things when the tenancy ends, not the tenant. Again, I'm not talking about remodelling the entire house a ripping down walls here, which obviously a tenant should not be allowed to do, but I don't see how putting up pictures or having a wall with wall paper or a colour paint on is such a massive deal, as long as it's put back to a standard when they move out.

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?
But tenants do have risks renting, two of the main ones being never knowing when you're going to have to up sticks and move - and that leads to financial outlay and a great deal of inconvenience - at someone else's choice. And the risk of going without your deposit until an LL is forced to give it back in some circumstances. Admittedly the protected schemes have helped a lot with that side of things. Also as mentioned above, being held responsible for stuff that isn't your fault, doors and windows get used, when things get used, eventually they wear out. Isn't that part of any business? Having to replace equipment that has worn out or broken? Used by the people paying to use it? The LL chooses to run the business, but everyone needs somewhere to live, some people do choose to rent, others have no option but to rent - and to live by someone else's rules.
It's like LLs want it all, they want the rent to make their business work, to pay the mortgage so they have a pension or an asset at the end of it, but they also want to not pay anything out to the upkeep of that asset they're going to or already own, and have no risks in the business.

Let's face it. That is not the typical landlord/renter scenario, is it?
Almost 50%of landlords only own one property for rental so no, I don't think it is that atypical.

Swing you really think most renters are sitting around with massive pension pots and great jobs?

If that is the case, it's probably because they live somewhere else temporarily and have property elsewhere. It is FAR from typical.

Keeps coming back to the fact that you need to take control of your own destiny. It’s that bloody simple

Two threads, hundreds upon hundreds of posts and your sole takeaway was that useless soundbite above.

swingofthings yeah, I thought it was noteworthy to mention given that of the people I know who’ve managed to buy (I’m thinking now of about eight couples/singles), none of them did it without either a cash gift from relatives, an inheritance, or living rent free with a parent for a couple of years. None of those options were open to us (though I’ve always felt strongly that if I did it I’d want it to be something we achieved as independent adults, not because we got a handout, in the case of cash gift or living rent free... inheritance, well it’s your money) so we did it a few years later then the others but under our own steam. It does seem to be very rare so I don’t blame people for making the assumption that the only young people who can buy have done so due to the above factors.

Btw for anyone upset at not being able to hang pictures: look up Command Strips. You can decorate your place then :)

, but I don't see how putting up pictures or having a wall with wall paper or a colour paint on is such a massive deal, as long as it's put back to a standard when they move out.

Personally, neither do I, and I've allowed tenants to put up picture hooks, shelves and paint as long as they're not dark colours, but no tenant has ever put the property back to the way it was whenever they took it on, especially as they can claim fair wear and tear.

A property is a tenants home, I agree completely, but when tenants want to be able to do things like have a dog, which will automatically mean the carpets need replacing when they leave, there could be scratches on doors or whatever and none of the costs of fixing those things will be down to the tenant because of fair wear and tear, then it makes sense for the LL to say no.

If I knew that I could take a bigger, non refundable deposit to allow animals, and I knew that any costs of damage would be covered by the tenant even if it cost more than the deposit, if I wouldn't have to fight to keep any deposit and it was expected that tenants return a property in the same state it was taken on, then I'd be able to afford to be a lot more flexible about pets. But ultimately, because the law fails good landlords, its good tenants that suffer.

@IAmAlwaysLikeThis There all types of people renting. Many nurses, police officers, social workers, teachers rent and will have access to a very good pension.

Tenants AND landlords come in all shapes and forms.

swing, indeed, but can we not pretend that landlords are anything other than generally better off than tenants?

As for teachers etc having 'a very good pension'...well, that's just not true. A decent pension, for some. 'Very good' isn't how I'd classify it.

swing, indeed, but can we not pretend that landlords are anything other than generally better off than tenants?
But there are also likely to be older. Many of these horrible tenants were young people who rented for many years and many current tenants will become home owners.

I became a home owner at 29, rented for 10 years and who knows I might find myself renting again one. Nothing is set in stone.

If teachers pension is not very foid, I'd love to know which us!

Oh gosh, swing, ok, you win, landlords are very very poor and tenants have tons of money and are just taking the piss.

Are you happy now?

Re, Grenfell Because it all comes back to how tenants are treated Ive shared loads of other examples in the Grenfell Aftermath thread on the News board. Including about a fire in Plymouth The main doors to a block of flats needed fixing. The tenants asked and asked for them to be fixed for over two years and were belittled and ignored like the Grenfell residents were. Some would be arsonists kept coming in and trying to set fires.The HA knew this because they were told time and time again. One day the arsonists went from would be arsonists to arsonists because they were successful. The same HA has been bullying disabled tenants to get rid of disability aids because they say are a fire hazard. I shit you not. Ex firefighter who im in contact with says they are talking shit.
Its called tokenism.

This is why the Grenfell residents and other tenants (including my group) are wanting a full wider arcing social housing enquiry.

The fire ive mentioned in this post happened POST Grenfell.

They get away with ignoring and threatening tenants BECAUSE of the hostile climate towards tenants. Because tenants are seen as "lesser" Demonstrated on these threads only too well.