To not put the house back to what it was?

[QuantumDog2]

I've rented the house I live in currently for nearly 9 years. When I moved in it was a new build and we were the first to live here, so obviously a buy to let. The walls were all trade paint magnolia and the carpets were cheap, exactly the way new builds are presented as standard.
Over the years I've decorated it and made some improvements like extending the patio and I spend £1400 on new flooring for the lounge because the carpet was worn out by that stage and looked grotty.
Now I'm leaving as I've bought somewhere with my partner, but contractually apparently I have to return the property the way I found it. I'm 6 months pregnant now and don't fancy donning my overalls and climbing ladders to paint. What would you do? I feel like after 9 years here and the time and money I've spent on the place (although my choice totally) I shouldn't really be penalised, but I expect I will lose my deposit?

@GreyhoundG1rl
Oh shit, sorry. That wasn't even a comment to me, was it.

No offence, but are you an amnesiac? I Itold you yesterday that you sounded like a broken record and that I was done explaining to you. Then you pop up again like a new poster. confused

@QuantumDog2, @GreyhoundG1rl was responding to @HelpMeFindAUsername, hence why she has quoted her post ...

Tell them the reason you can't have viewings is because to have a team of decorators in emulsioning the house for top to bottom.

Plus you have gardeners in putting the garden back how it was.

And once it's all done the viewings can resume 😁

Also...if you know any teenagers who are handy with a roller, buy some emulsion and get them to do it. £10 an hour? My kids have always helped me decorate and are fab with a roller or paintbrush.

@GreyhoundG1rl

I have lived here for ten years but I've had the gardens landscaped and works done, fitted new bathroom and new kitchen, skimmed walls and ceilings, redecorated everywhere multiple times, replaced all flooring etc. Everything is to a high standard. In a house you don't actually own? You can't possibly know the landlord definitely won't sell up.

I know my landlords won't sell up, 100% fact. They have a number of properties & no intentions of ever selling any of them, they're to solely be rented then passed through their family with clauses of not selling on. All are mortgage-free.

it'd need a repaint after 9 years anyway. The landlord has made a tidy profit over the years. You'll probably lose your deposit, but who doesn't after 9 years?

Why should you lose the deposit after 9 years just because??
The LL should have to pay long term (good) tenants a bonus frankly. They could have had multiple tenants in that time, with all the additional costs of agent fees and contracts, making good each time, void periods when the property was empty (even just a week, several times).
And it's ridiculous to expect people to live in a house for several years and then leave it as if they had never been there. I don't think anyone should be charged for wear and tear. That's what happens when people occupy a house, scuffs on skirting boards, worn down carpets etc. The same would happen if the landlords were living there too.

Tenants pay a lot of money for HOME. They should be able to make it a home. (Within reason obviously).

You're suggesting that she should have put down rugs because the LL's carpet wasn't fit for purpose? Are you sure?

@DameFanny
Which is cheaper, both in the short term and long term?

Her own rug or the new flooring she bought and installed plus whatever the LL wants to dock from her security deposit? Bear in mind she could take her own rug with her when she moved and the carpet underneath would show few signs of wear and tear.

Buying and installing new flooring in a house you don't own is honestly one of the silliest responses to worn carpet in a rental that I have ever come across.

The OP has spent nine years shooting herself in the foot.

It wasn't even painted for the first year that the OP lived there.

@SuperstoreFan - it was painted. The OP didn't like magnolia.

"When I moved in it was a new build and we were the first to live here, so obviously a buy to let. The walls were all trade paint magnolia and the carpets were cheap, exactly the way new builds are presented as standard."

@mathanxiety

You're suggesting that she should have put down rugs because the LL's carpet wasn't fit for purpose? Are you sure?

@DameFanny
Which is cheaper, both in the short term and long term?

Her own rug or the new flooring she bought and installed plus whatever the LL wants to dock from her security deposit? Bear in mind she could take her own rug with her when she moved and the carpet underneath would show few signs of wear and tear.

Buying and installing new flooring in a house you don't own is honestly one of the silliest responses to worn carpet in a rental that I have ever come across.

The OP has spent nine years shooting herself in the foot.

What? With three young children the hardwood flooring has been a piece of piss to keep clean. One of the motivating reasons for getting rid of the manky carpet was how much time I'd save cleaning it, hoovering and mopping up spills. On that basis alone it's been worth it. And I knew I would leave here roughly about 5 years after installation and was very happy with the knowledge I'd have to leave it behind for the landlord.

Maybe the right thing for you to do would be live with a manky carpet for years on end and make no improvements. Maybe you're not house proud and don't like visitors, I don't know. I could never live like that though. I did what was right for me and my family and I don't regret it. Not one bit.

@mathanxiety

It wasn't even painted for the first year that the OP lived there.

@SuperstoreFan - it was painted. The OP didn't like magnolia.

"When I moved in it was a new build and we were the first to live here, so obviously a buy to let. The walls were all trade paint magnolia and the carpets were cheap, exactly the way new builds are presented as standard."

And again, you're off the mark. It was a fine watery paint just to seal the plaster. If there was a dirty mark on the wall and I wiped it with a soft damp cloth it would remove the 'paint' and expose the plaster, it was that thin. I had to leave it for a year to dry out before painting it properly.

I have lived here for ten years but I've had the gardens landscaped and works done, fitted new bathroom and new kitchen, skimmed walls and ceilings, redecorated everywhere multiple times, replaced all flooring etc. Everything is to a high standard.

Did you do all of this with the approval of the owner of the property?

If not, did you give any thought to liability issues with tradespeople doing work you ordered in a property which you do not own?

What if a kitchen fitter dropped your new cabinet on his foot?

What if your electrical work resulted in a fire?

What if a plumber managed to flood the bathroom and cause water damage to walls, ceilings, etc?

@mathanxiety

I have lived here for ten years but I've had the gardens landscaped and works done, fitted new bathroom and new kitchen, skimmed walls and ceilings, redecorated everywhere multiple times, replaced all flooring etc. Everything is to a high standard.

Did you do all of this with the approval of the owner of the property?

If not, did you give any thought to liability issues with tradespeople doing work you ordered in a property which you do not own?

What if a kitchen fitter dropped your new cabinet on his foot?

What if your electrical work resulted in a fire?

What if a plumber managed to flood the bathroom and cause water damage to walls, ceilings, etc?

I'm sure this person got permission, but what's it to you if tenants want to spend their own money improving their living conditions? As long as the LL approves it it's fuck all to do with anyone what this person spends his/her money on.

"When I moved in it was a new build and we were the first to live here, so obviously a buy to let. The walls were all trade paint magnolia and the carpets were cheap, exactly the way new builds are presented as standard."

I am quoting your post there, @QuantumDog2.

There is a difference between a mist coat and 'paint'.

Maybe the right thing for you to do would be live with a manky carpet for years on end and make no improvements. Maybe you're not house proud and don't like visitors, I don't know. I could never live like that though. I did what was right for me and my family and I don't regret it. Not one bit.

Well, you kinda do. This whole thread is full of your entitlement, and now rage, that you made all these unnecessary and costly improvements to a property you were renting - and despite making no such agreement with the landlord, you are expecting to be recompensed for them by being allowed to move out without returning the walls to magnolia, as per the actual agreement of tenancy, because you blew thousands of pounds renovating a property you don't own. I'd call that regret. And spite. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face, currently, in refusing viewings, instead of communicating your concerns directly to the landlord. All of this is poor communication and entitled expectations.

I'm sure this person got permission, but what's it to you if tenants want to spend their own money improving their living conditions? As long as the LL approves it it's fuck all to do with anyone what this person spends his/her money on

It's assuming all sorts of things with no basis whatsoever for your assumptions that has got you to the point where you may well lose your security deposit, @QuantumDog2.

And fwiw, I'll direct my posts to whoever I please, and on whatever topic I want to address.

Spending money adding to the value of someone else's property is crazy to the max.

Spending money on someone else's property and running a risk of injury to person or damage to property in the course of your projects is mind-blowingly irresponsible.

One of the motivating reasons for getting rid of the manky carpet was how much time I'd save cleaning it, hoovering and mopping up spills. On that basis alone it's been worth it. And I knew I would leave here roughly about 5 years after installation and was very happy with the knowledge I'd have to leave it behind for the landlord.

Maybe the right thing for you to do would be live with a manky carpet for years on end and make no improvements. Maybe you're not house proud and don't like visitors, I don't know. I could never live like that though. I did what was right for me and my family and I don't regret it. Not one bit.

I could never live like that either. So I got my young children to eat in the kitchen, at the table.

I rented from 1988 to 1995 and again from 2011 to the present. That's seventeen years in all. I've been in my current home for the last ten years. I've kept all my homes neat and clean and kept track of any maintenance requests to my LLs over the years to cover my arse. I've always got my full security deposits back.

You may regret your choices yet. You have an agreement with your LL which you are choosing - out of pique it seems - to ignore. This isn't your house you are living in.

@WineInTheBlood

Wow so either the agent is deliberately lying to you or really doesn't know what they're talking about. Of course you can legally stop viewings, you're under no legal obligation to allow viewings 🙄

I really hope you can find the proof that you paid for the flooring. It sounds like you're going to need it for the tenants deposit scheme people.

As a tenant, there is a right to quiet enjoyment so you can refuse access.

However, if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement contract about end of tenancy viewings (assuming here are arranged with appropriate notice] the. You WILL be in breach of contract.

By refusing to allow access, you are placing the landlord in a position where they could legitimately claim for loss of rent from you, if they cannot secure a new tenant until you have moved out, either via TDS or small claims. So I would suggest you listen to the estate agents advise rather than seeing access as a bargaining tool.
The tenancy contract is the key, as others have said.

However, if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement contract about end of tenancy viewings (assuming here are arranged with appropriate notice] the. You WILL be in breach of contract.

This is incorrect because the law (in this case the right to quiet enjoyment) overrides anything in the contract. Lettings agents put all sorts of crap in their contracts that is legally unenforceable - they could write that you have to surrender your left kidney on leaving the property but that doesn’t mean they could enforce it.

@Postdatedpandemic

Has your landlord really done no maintenance on the property in nine years?

I know, when we rented if a carpet wore out he’d replace it, I would be buying carpets in a place I didn’t own. Sounds like they’ve got a good deal here OP.

You want it all ways - you changed the carpet, which was probably new when you moved in as it was a new build, so apart from possibly cheap, not sure how it was manky.

you did the garden because you wanted enjoyment from it (like the flooring) and now you're complaining about the LL gaining monetary value from it.

You're whining because they want the walls returned to neutral as you agreed to

After a new house is firstly plastered it can't take normal paint directly on to it.

If you do it will simply dry and peel off.

The first coat is a mixture of an undercoat with water.

This watery mixture is painted on first and is absorbed by the plaster providing a base for future paint.

You can't avoid this step.

The walls will have a chalky white appearance where the plaster can early be still seen.

Putting this on is the bare minimum and IMO constitutes unpainted walls.

That a house was IMO an unpainted house when the OP moved is indicative of the absolute cheapest, nastiest job a LL could do and I have never heard of it.

No wonder the OP couldn't contenance this for years.

The LL wants the place to be returned to magnolia having never properly painted the house in the first place.

Complete CF.

@billy1966

After a new house is firstly plastered it can't take normal paint directly on to it.

If you do it will simply dry and peel off.

The first coat is a mixture of an undercoat with water.

This watery mixture is painted on first and is absorbed by the plaster providing a base for future paint.

You can't avoid this step.

The walls will have a chalky white appearance where the plaster can early be still seen.

Putting this on is the bare minimum and IMO constitutes unpainted walls.

That a house was IMO an unpainted house when the OP moved is indicative of the absolute cheapest, nastiest job a LL could do and I have never heard of it.

No wonder the OP couldn't contenance this for years.

The LL wants the place to be returned to magnolia having never properly painted the house in the first place.

Complete CF.

Thank you so much @billy1966

I know this is AIBU, and there are a crew of posters who love to have a go and call you 'entitled', regardless of what you do. I always expect it when I post here.
But what's entitled about being a good tenant for nearly a decade? What's entitled about trying to get through without being a financial burden on your landlord? What's entitled about making improvements to the LL's property at their agreement out of your own pocket? What's entitled about making those improvements, happy in the knowledge that at some point in the future you'll be giving them to the property owner?

And what's entitled about expecting your tenant to leave all the improvements they made to your property at their own expense, after paying well above your mortgage for nine years, being a model tenant and then expecting them to decorate your whole house for you, again at their time and expense, when you've never lifted a finger or put a lick of paint anywhere in the house yourself?

I don't resent ANY of the money spent over the years. It was my choice and I feel I've had my enjoyments worth. I will however, resent spending weeks and large sums of money painting the LL's house up for the next tenant when they never did that for me.

@billy1966

After a new house is firstly plastered it can't take normal paint directly on to it.

If you do it will simply dry and peel off.

The first coat is a mixture of an undercoat with water.

This watery mixture is painted on first and is absorbed by the plaster providing a base for future paint.

You can't avoid this step.

The walls will have a chalky white appearance where the plaster can early be still seen.

Putting this on is the bare minimum and IMO constitutes unpainted walls.

That a house was IMO an unpainted house when the OP moved is indicative of the absolute cheapest, nastiest job a LL could do and I have never heard of it.

No wonder the OP couldn't contenance this for years.

The LL wants the place to be returned to magnolia having never properly painted the house in the first place.

Complete CF.

This is what I said multiple times, and no-one seems to get it! OP can't turn the house back to what it was!

However, if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement contract about end of tenancy viewings (assuming here are arranged with appropriate notice] the. You WILL be in breach of contract.By refusing to allow access, you are placing the landlord in a position where they could legitimately claim for loss of rent from you, if they cannot secure a new tenant until you have moved out, either via TDS or small claims. So I would suggest you listen to the estate agents advise rather than seeing access as a bargaining tool.The tenancy contract is the key, as others have said

Complete and utter rubbish, as already explained,the contract is not the key. OP does not have to give any access and the LL cannot claim loss of rent from OP...she's paying rent, and while she is living there she has the right to quiet enjoyment. She has no obligation whatsover to facilitate viewings for the LL so he can instantly have rent the second she is gone.

There's no way in hell a new build house would have been sold with just a mist coat. It would have had a coat of proper paint too, and waiting 'a year for the plaster to dry out' is ridiculous, fresh plaster dries in a few days - even the new plaster over the heavily saturated wall where my roof had been leaking for years dried out in 6 months. Either way, again, you signed the tenancy agreement with the walls that way - why didn't you agree something with the LL then? Why did you take the place if it was such a hovel? When you agreed to put it back to magnolia why did you not point out that it was just a mist coat (which I don't believe it was)?

Do not pay any attention to silly posts accusing you of being entitled to want to live in a house that was actually painted.

Your house was an unpainted house and the LL is a complete CF.

People always call people with boundaries "petty".

The LL is the height of petty IMO and should be embarrassed at asking for a house to be painted when it was never painted in the first place.

Stick to your guns and don't touch the grass before you leave.

I can't believe the amount of maintenance of the property you have done.

The next tenant needs giving a heads up that the LL is a lazy, entitled CF who doesn't do a thing to maintain the property.