I'm a landlady....

[SomeOtherGirl]

I'm going to try to word this carefully. It's to do with making different life choices but it's in a sensitive area which could imply that I'm being judgemental. I don't mean to be. I'm just wondering if this sounds normal to the ears of anonymous mumsnetters.

So we have a rental property - our old place. I will try to give as much info as possible though some probably isn't totally relevant, but people might ask otherwise :-)

A nice couple moved in and they have a baby.

The deposit was covered by the council, and the monthly rent is £600, which was to be paid by them. They are on UC - they had asked me if I minded and I answered of course not!

I am 75% sure that the guy has a job of some description as he talks about it on Facebook.

They moved in and after the first month immediately fell into arrears, with a late partial payment and then a missed payment. They are a little more than a month behind on rent.

I did some research and found that the UC people can pay us about 90% of the rent directly to us, which sounded easier for everyone so I applied for that and all has been well, aside from the outstanding rent.

We asked the tenants if they can catch up this money and they said they'd have to do so in drive and drabs. This was last autumn. They have yet to make a payment but with Christmas and then corona virus I didn't push it. UC said we could apply to have it taken out from their other benefits in small chunks but I think the debt needs to equate to two months for this.

So now there are some bits and bobs to do maintenance wise so we've been looking at that and working out how to sort them out.

In the conversation, we asked if they'd be able now to start repaying the arrears as it would help with sorting out the maintenance bits. They said they could only do £10 a month as they have to pay for other stuff - namely Sky which they have at £90 a month.

I was really surprised at this. We rely on this rent as an income. I'm not able to work at present and we live modestly. I know people tend to think of their landlord as being Mr megabucks but it's not like that with us. We have netflix at 5.99 a month and thats the extent of our entertainment luxuries.

I'm just surprised that a lovely couple who get their housing costs covered plus additional benefits - and a job - see repaying this rent debt as so low priority.

Am I a bit mad? Should I sell the place?
I've not got cross with them or anything about it by the way. But I am wondering if I should sell it. They wanted me to come change a lightbulb recently. I think they've also moved an older step child in, which is fine I guess But they didn't mention it.

I try to be a really considerate landlady as far as I can but it's never going to be a perfect situation.

Just wondering what your thoughts are ? Obviously not planning on evicting them over this.

^ all these musings are pretty irrelevant to the issue in hand.

*She needs to be thankful because she has worked hard to buy a property that she is able to rent out ? Maybe some of your clients should have done the same thing ? Maybe these people should have done the same thing ?

Making money off the state ? She is getting ( or rather trying to get ) legal rent . Are you going to say the same thing about supermarkets where your clients or others on benefits spend their benefits ? They are making money off the state ?

FFS really !*

Agree, Stuffed Penguin. Very surprising a devt advisor has this opinion, when they know that rent/mortgage is the first outgoing on any expenditure listing. One would like to hope a debt advisor would remain impartial.

Why is it that LL are viewed as money making greedy bastards when the business model is the same as housing associations? The majority of HAs have tenants that are on UC/housing benefit also. Some of the properties they rent out have concrete floors, absolutely nothing in. The private rental sector offers a much needed housing service and LL often get the raw end of the stick. Tenants can live many months rent free, build up huge arrears and in some cases, it can take wwll over a year to get them out. Local authority housing teams, tell tenants as part of their advice, to stay in the property until the court order is stamped and the bailiffs turn up.

My DBIL had been a LL for 20 years, he has had varying types of tenants, from the ones that mess around with payments, not always people on UC either, to struggling tenants who are terrified to ask for help.

This isn't about me I own my own home
You're making money from that, then...

Massive bold fail there. With typos. Eugh

Please be thankful that you have the option to take possession of your house and think about the privilege of being a landlady. You are making money off the state; yet you are judging your tenants for claiming the help they need because they are not paid enough wages to afford housing costs in the first place
And sadly this is the attitude of too many, who as another poster stated higher up, genuinely think that people who have more than them, regardless of how they got there, don't deserve it more than they do, so it's ok to treat them with contempt.

Sadly I've experienced that exact attitude with two tenants, when I was still in housing denial and wanted to be a nice landlord. The first tenant was a single mum and when she stopped paying went on about how I couldn't u derstand what it was like as I was clearly privileged. She had no idea that I'd been a single mum of a toddler and baby when I bought the house and only managed because I never stopped working ft and was only on maternity leave for a few months when O could very much have taken the benefit route which would have left me not much worse off, but I didn't and that allowed me to buy the property.

Landlords can't win. They are all seen as money Machi es who have the great life. They are supposed to be understanding, caring and welfare officers in which case, they are expected to inquire about their tenants personal details.

However, when they are vilified when they seek much less intrusive information to ensure they are likely to be reliable tenants.

Its all pick and choose to suit.

I do totally agree though that you are not in the right position to be a LL OP. Do you have a buy to let? If so, the interest you have to pay should be low and you should have enough cash to look after the property even if the rent is not paid for a month or so. You can't be a good LL and rely on the monthly rent to provide a safe and comfortable home. This is not fair on tenants. If it is the case, then you should indeed sale the property.

They could call Sky and speak to the Retentions department if they haven’t already done so.

Sky are very good at offering a 50% discount for a few months if customers are struggling to meet bill payments. You’re not asked to provide evidence.

Could that be something to be mentioned?

And also, don’t rely on Zoopla for a fair valuation. Look on Rightmove Sold for a fair comparison.

Its about time Generation Rent stood up and took some responsibility

IME it’s not a generational thing, it’s an attitude thing. Whether that attitude is learned or ingrained I don’t know. But of the tenant neighbours I’ve had who caused problems, one was in his late 40s/early 50s and who jacked in his job to live on benefits when he fell out with his employer; one was an alcoholic in his 60s who seemed to be marking time until retirement; and only one set were in their 20s/30s and could therefore be called “Generation Rent”.

Of course, it won’t help if they have debt advisors like a PP, who doesn’t seem to think that people such as these should take responsibility for themselves.

Could that be something to be mentioned?
Why should it be? To be insulted and told it's none of OP's business? Should she maybe pay for them to get on budget management course? Where does it end?

OP has no responsibility for them. Getting emotionally involved is the worse thing you can do.

Plus for a large family having a tv package on top of the Internet may be their ONLY 'leisure' expenditure. I see families every week who don't spend a penny on the gym, eating out, going to the cinema/theatre/gigs, days out with the kids, buy books/mags/records etc because they can't afford to

Er, paying £90 a month for Sky isn't the only way to get a comprehensive TV service. You can get Freesat, Freeview, Now TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus.

In fact you could get all of those for about a third of what they're paying for Sky TV, which is ridiculously expensive and a total waste of money for most people. Inexcusable to be paying for a top level TV package when they can't pay their rent on time.

Surely any adult here would cancel the sky subscription and take the hit of the charges, call up sky, explain the situation theyre in and offer them the £10 a month to sky and use the remaining £80 towards rent.

So long as they have the Internet they have access to entertainment, Netflix for £9 a month or even just watching YouTube, they could read any of the free domain books together as family entertainment, buy board games to play together from ebay or free cycle, play free online games with their kids, sky is one of the more expensive Internet brands they could easily switch to someone cheaper.

They're clearly living above their means with no indication that they're even trying to fix the issue, sell the property, you seem very nice and generous to put up with this for so long, you don't deserve this kind of headache.

Eeeeeeeok How much money do they owe you? Is it causing you financial hardship or is the issue you want your tenants to live a lowers standard of lifestyle than you?

The OP has said that the debt is just more than one month's rent and has been owing since last autumn (quote with the reason below as well), the OP says she is not currently working due to ill-health so I don't think it's fair that she has to subsidise someone else's lifestyle, no!

I think the excuse the gave was it was used for a birthday party. Bit of a wtaf moment for me hence I got straight on the blower to UC.

OP, just get the Section 21 issued to remove them at the end of the tenancy or as soon as you can. They are not going to pay.

@drspouse

This isn't about me I own my own home You're making money from that, then...

I kind doubt it. We live In a crappy area and house prices haven't gone up much or ata ll since we have bought it. If there was any start owned housing I could access ethically I would.

Anyway its interesting that you have chosen to ignore everything else I've said. Which includes that making money from a home you live in is a different thing. At this point I'm not proposing we get rid of the housing market completely. I did also say the tenant's chouces seemed poor. But there's obvs going to be no pleasing you. I can be happ in the knowledge that my views are based in care for other in society. What is your need to defend landlords based on? Have a lovely day

I rent and I even I think they're a disgrace. In fact, it's morons like this that give tenants who need top ups a bad name.

I would tell them, officially, to pay back X amount. If they refuse, they will need to apply to court for a means form. In it they will be legally required to list ALL their incoming money, so if the male is working illegally that will be interesting. They will need to provide bank statements, and show their outgoings.
The court will then decide what is a "necessary" expense, such as food and essential travel, and what isn't, like stupidly expensive sky.
The threat of that alone could sort it out. £10 is ridiculous.
If not, you need to give them a fault eviction and list the arrears, the fact they expect a light bulb to be changed. That will make it clear to the council that they are at fault for their eviction so they can't queue jump due to homelessness on people who have been evicted through no fault of their own, it will be classed as intentional homelessness.
I would think if you detail this, in writing, then the threat may see them cough up.
But do not call them, keep everything in writing from here on out.

making money from a home you live in is a different thing.
How is it different?
You are keeping that house out of the property pool. You'll stay in it if it's too big, keeping a family with more children out of it. You'll stop a family that can't afford to buy from living in it.
You are saving money by owning, over 20-30 years you'll make money, if not in the short term.
You can't have "I'm a good homeowner but everyone else should rent from the state". You're keeping your house from being rented.

@Eeeeeeeok

I don't agree with making money from property so don't like landlords. But yes seems an odd way to prioritise money. However yiu don't get to decide what they spend their money on. Also I assume the sky will include Internet and line rental? How much money do they owe you? Is it causing you financial hardship or is the issue you want your tenants to live a lowers standard of lifestyle than you?

To answer your last bit directly, yes, doing the works without the £700 that they owe me is causing financial difficulty. However it is my responsibility to do the work. Some plaster has come off the wall and it needs repairing. It is a recent problem which they have just recently told me about. They don't have a lower standard of living than me. I would say it is similar but different. They have a top sky package. I don't. I treat them as I would be done by but I don't feel they are returning that courtesy. But they are polite and so on. As pps have said I think they are perhaps just unable to prioritise.

Somebody said upthread that sky is some people's only entertainment. Perhaps but - £90? Really? I cant afford that. We have 5.99 Netflix and the local library.

We both live in two bed flats. They have their costs for housing and living expenses covered by the taxpayer. That's fine, it's what the country voted for. I don't claim benefits. But I do cover all maintenance in their home.

The house is on an interest only mortgage, and I pay tax on all rent. If the house is sold it will cover the mortgage and there will be very little left, except they will have nowhere to live I guess.

I'm for helping people. That's why I absolutely accepted DSS. But sometimes people push it. There's a homeless shelter opposite my house and some of the people who live there very often stand and swear the worst obscenities outside my toddler's window. Why? Some people don't understand the responsibility that comes with living in a world with other people. It's a shame but that's how it is.

And yes I used to be a teacher so maybe i should just go jump off a bridge ☹

I'm a bit confused about the collecting rent via UC - do they not owe two full months at this point?

@drspouse

I'm a bit confused about the collecting rent via UC - do they not owe two full months at this point?

No, a bit more than one month. It's a hangover from before when UC started paying directly.

Are they now paying the 10% that's "theirs" on time? Or not?

@drspouse

making money from a home you live in is a different thing. How is it different? You are keeping that house out of the property pool. You'll stay in it if it's too big, keeping a family with more children out of it. You'll stop a family that can't afford to buy from living in it. You are saving money by owning, over 20-30 years you'll make money, if not in the short term. You can't have "I'm a good homeowner but everyone else should rent from the state". You're keeping your house from being rented.

What are you even talking about? This argument makes no sense. If I didn't own my home it wouldn't be rented out. To who by whom? Are you ok? I don't own my home to make money from it I own it (with 90% mortgage) to have somewhere secure to live. In our society this is my only option. It's different because being a landlord or property investor is about choosing to make money from a resource not everyone has access to. Also my home is small so it's never going to be too big for the two of us.

Also yet again you've chosen to ignore the ques I asked and argue a nonsensical point. So once again why are you so invested in defending the rights of people to make money from property? Once again I know my interests are about what is good for society can you say the same? Doesn't seem like it.

@drspouse

Are they now paying the 10% that's "theirs" on time? Or not?

Yes.

What are you even talking about? This argument makes no sense
It does make sense for those who live in a bigger house than they need. Equity growth for larger houses will be more than that for smaller flats, so if you are a couple living in a 3 + bedroom home, you could say that you are making money out of that house and keeping it from a larger family that requires 3 bedrooms.

That's a bit pushing it and a bit of a silly statement but not that much more than saying that all LLs are greedy because they are making much money out of it. In my case, I am making no profit from it on a monthly basis as a result of the increasing tax toll, the only benefit is the build up of equity so indeed no different to prove who stay in their big house after the kids have left with the intention to sell when they retire and live off the equity, or dare they, buy two property and become LLs at this point.

If I didn't own my home it wouldn't be rented out.
Why not? If you think nobody should profit from housing then you are saying the government should own all housing, so yes, it would be. Unless you are saying it would be empty, but if the government owned all housing, they'd be allocating it, so chances are it would be lived in too.

You are gaining by not paying rent (which is more expensive than mortgage) and by getting a return on your investment over time.

being a landlord or property investor is about choosing to make money from a resource not everyone has access to.
Rather like owning a shop and selling stuff, running a farm and selling food, or running any business, you mean?

I just don't see a practical alternative to allowing private landlords. What's your suggestion? You are no better as a house owner, you can't claim you are, so make some practical suggestions.

There are lots of problems with our current housing system. @dontdisturbmenow as you have highlighted older people on top big accommodation is one too. I actually didn't say landlords were greedy. Greed and feeling it is unethical are different things. My issue is on regard to access to secure housing being effectively a scarce resource.

Also as our housing system is so problematic we have issues with the type of housing available too. So suitable housing for older people to downsize to is also an issue. They often don't need or want the same things a starter home would provide. Equally when people are older they need more support to move so this can be a barrier.

For me making profit from property is just a small part of a wider system which means people can work hard and not afford a home that is secure. Which then leads us to discussions about a £90 sky bill (which seems obscenely high!)

@SomeOtherGirl Oh, in a way, that's a shame, as if it crept up to 2 months' worth you could ask for that to be collected!

I guess you just have to keep nagging them and suggesting a slightly higher rate of pay back than £10 a month!