Tenant has abandoned property

@AlmostSummer21

In your situation it sounds wise to rent out the property.

That doesn’t make you an accidental landlord though. It’s a decision you are making because it’s the best one for you.

The whole “accidental landlord” thing is highly irritating because it’s very normally not accidental, but a decision made for a specific benefit - like in your case.

Just focus on being a good landlord and then when threads come up, like this one, you can have comfort knowing that you’re a decent landlord, who knows their responsibilities, renting a good quality properly at a fair price. I don’t feel bad when I see threads on here because I know I’m a good LL. my tenants are well looked after, have a good quality adapted properly at a very fair rent while they wait for social housing (I’ve tried selling mine to the council three times so far). I don’t make a huge profit but I’m similar to you in that mine are about using the property for now until it’s needed so mega profit isn’t, and never has been my aim.

Just don’t pretend you’ve been forced into it or it’s accidental. Because it’s not. It’s a choice. Being the logical obvious choice doesn’t make it accidental.

@YetMoreNewBeginnings

As I said earlier 'unintentional' is probably a better word than 'accidental' but I think there's a better word for it out there.

where exactly have I said I was forced into it? Neither 'accidental' nor 'unintentional' imply forced.

There isn't a term for situations like mine where I didn't set out to buy a property to let it out. But there should be. I don't see any reason why renting out a property to someone wishing to rent it, is a bad thing. There a DIRE lack of social housing. Private landlords not renting houses out isn't going to suddenly make buying them possible for people.

I have been a landlord before & I'm also one of 'the good ones' thanks. The houses I rented out previously were investment properties, which we sold as each tenant family moved on, during/after the life changing events that have landed me in this sub par situation I'm in now.

the Govt changes (that largely don't benefit tenants) are why I'm no longer really happy to be a landlord again.

I'm more than happy with protected deposits, annual gas safety checks (I'd do that anyway obligatory or not) all that kind of thing, it's the rest that makes it unappealing. Plus the sheer bloody unpredictability of getting good tenant's that take care of the property.

There isn't a term for situations like mine where I didn't set out to buy a property to let it out. But there should be. I don't see any reason why renting out a property to someone wishing to rent it, is a bad thing.

There is.

Its choosing to be a Landlord.

Why you have such an issue with just accepting that that’s what it is is baffling. You have a property. You have choices. You are choosing to be a Ll.

No need for twisting and finding other words for it.

It is what it is.

It’s certainly not “unintentional” as you are looking at all your choices for the property and choosing this one as the best for you.

A Landlord is regarded as the same as a self-employed person in regard to income and Tax. You have to fill out a tax declaration every year. The rent you collect is an INCOME just as an Electrician gets his income.

You can not sit in a restaurant and order a 3-course meal - but recklessly decide you will NOT read the prices - then complain when the bill seems more than you wanted to spend. The fact is one side produces food and rink - (the restaurant) the other side agrees to pay for the food (you). You know it is not free.

That doesn’t make you an accidental landlord though. It’s a decision you are making because it’s the best one for you
I concur... She looked at the situation, weighed up her options and decided that out of the options that were available the best one for her was to become a landlord, there was no accident, it was a conscious and deliberate plan.

You could've ended up with her refusing to pay rent for a long time. I'd pay her deposit back and just get on with clearing her stuff out. It's a lesson for next time. Then get it rented back out but do it properly this time.

"Reluctant" might cover this sort of scenario, I guess.

But it's still a choice, even if it's made reluctantly.

But it's still a choice, even if it's made reluctantly
Yes!
the way I see it this is a person who, either through bad luck bad judgement or some combination thereof, is in a situation where none of the options are especially good. So they weigh it all up and choose the least worst option.

You can call it an accident because an element of bad luck was involved at some point in the chain of events, but surely that applies to any outcome that we face, there is always some element of chance.

Worth bearing in mind though, that a tenant can't just abandon the property and assume that that is the end of the tenancy. Their is a process for ending the tenancy and a notice period as well - check the tenancy agreement for the length of notice required. The tenant needs to provide notice and is liable for the rent up until that date. Worth reminding them of this and of your intent to pursue unpaid rent as well as the costs of clearing the property (keep receipts).

Technically you do have to return the deposit (and you're more than a bit silly for not protecting it - those laws are there to protect everyone). Having said that, there are a couple of things worth bearing in mind....

One of the most common reasons landlords end up out of rent is because it isn't worth the expense of tracking down and then pursuing tenants that have abandoned a property. For your tenant to recover up to 3 x their deposit to which they may be entitled, there will need to be a formal process. This makes it much easier for you to pursue unpaid rent and additional costs. Effectively, this means that both of you would be well advised to engage in a sensible cost/benefit analysis. Depending on the amount of the deposit, it might be that you would benefit more from pursuing your tenant for rent owed and costs, even if you do need to pay back more than the unprotected deposit was worth.

I'd consider retiring as a landlord though.

The tenant is knowledgeable enough to have flagged up to the OP that they know the deposit is unprotected.

The OP would be taking a hell of a gamble that the tenant didn’t realise the gas safety cert issue, or wouldn’t pursue that.

And that would be much a bigger issue for the OP than the deposit and notice.

Its a very carefully worded message from the tenant surrendering the property, giving permission to get rid of left belongings and making sure the OP knows they know she hasn’t fulfilled her obligation to protect the deposit. They sound knowledgeable.

Ah, I hadn't realised the length of the thread, so clearly some more detail that I hadn't read - sorry. The comments about the tenancy not having been ended still apply (express surrender needs to be formally accepted by landlord to be valid) but I agree that if the landlord had failed to fulfil gas safety responsibilities then they should count their losses and count themselves lucky.

Are we still discussing whether a landlord who thought that it was OK not to protect their tenant deposit and not to have gas/electricity checks in place for years, and therefore broke the law, should get any more money from the tenant?

Frankly this landlord should count themselves lucky that the tenant has vacated the property and that they won't be taken to court and heavily fined for failing to do their legal duty.

Pay the deposit back and get out of the letting business...


@Eitherconfusedorbefuddled

''The tenant needs to provide notice and is liable for the rent up until that date. Worth reminding them of this and of your intent to pursue unpaid rent as well as the costs of clearing the property (keep receipts).''

Good luck with pursuing anything since they would have to explain why they broke the law by failing to register the deposit and do the required safety checks every year...