To ask would you bother being a landlord in this situation?

[Letitrow]

I am fairly unexpectedly being posted abroad for 3 years with work, DH and our DC are moving too so our 3 bed house that we own will be essentially vacant for that period- we definitely want to move back there after this posting though so aren't looking to sell.

As we are in the fortunate position of having all expenses paid for the move, including not having to pay accommodation, I'd love to rent it out whilst we are away (rental properties are in great demand and short supply where we are) for a very small charge. Be more than prepared to invest of course to make sure it meets all of the standards for rental, the boiler is only a year old and everything maintained to a high standard and have family nearby who could help assist if anything needed doing 'in person' and we'd obviously pay for repairs etc.

Only issue is I don't want to come back at the end and have to go through a lengthy process to get our home back. Even if we were up front for the period it was available for I am aware there are (rightly) tenancy laws that mean it's not always that simple. There's also the risk of damage and stuff but that would be covered by insurance so not overly worried perhaps naively about that, and aware it's only a tiny minority where that happens.

Landlords or anyone really, would you go for it? It seems a shame to leave it empty (well just family and friends going to check on it periodically and run the water etc) for 3 years but similarly could it all go very wrong?

Oh and get permission to let from the mortgage company and register as an overseas landlord.

I can’t understand most of these responses. Only on mn is there demonisation of all tenants. It’s ridiculous.
Of course it would be wise to let it out.
Most tenants are perfectly normal, law abiding people. I’m a tenant myself! I’ve never vandalised a place in the whole of my life funnily enough.
Make sure you pick your tenant carefully, it’s not difficult.
Why charge below the going rate? Just charge the rent you think it’s worth.
Alternatively leave it empty for a few years and suffer the consequences-damp, repairs left to get worse etc.

It's a terrible idea TBH. I have experience of renting from someone who was a reluctant landlord renting their own home. They had too much emotional attachment to the property and couldn't accept someone else living there. They just wanted someone to pay the mortgage for them. They had no interest or means to deal with the upkeep of the property.

I think the “demonisation” of tenants is because most of us have actually had bad personal experiences!
I’ve had 3 long term tenants so far, all of them vetted thoroughly, seemed perfectly nice, good jobs, checked references, no visible issues during tenancy…
First one was okay, but was behind on rent in her last few months, and it was quite hard to get the last rent out of her although she did pay eventually.
Second one was a nightmare, smoked inside the flat, flooded the bathroom (the layer underneath the flooring was all moldy), I ended up having to renovate the whole place after he left. Needless to say his tenancy was the opposite of profitable for me, I would have been better off leaving the place empty.
Third one so far so good so I’m hoping it stays that way.
It’s a hit or miss and you have NO way of predicting who might cause issues in future (apart from the most obvious ones).

I’m not saying it’s great, I spent many long years being a tenant, and with mixed experiences with landlords as well. But I’m definitely seeing why someone doesn’t want to rent out their house, and even more with all the tenant protection rules that make it quite hard to get your place back in a reasonable state.

That being said, leaving the house empty for 3 years is not ideal and will probably cost you some £££ in repairs when you come back.

I thinking renting it to someone else in the army is a good bet. Maybe someone on a posting to your base that coincides with your overseas posting?

If you do decide to leave it empty you will need to sort insurance as most policies say your home cannot be left empty for more than 30 days.

I'm a (good) tenant, and I'm also an accountant. When I first started doing tax returns for landlords I couldn't believe just how many have issues with damage (not just the odd broken thing, absolutely trashed houses, or recently a whole house that was painted bright pink including the bathroom suite!) and/or getting tenants to leave.
As a renter I totally understand the issue with getting tenants to leave in the current market, when I needed to move 2 years ago I very nearly had to stay past my eviction date, but the damage is obviously absolutely not ok. I'd say at least 60-70% of my clients have had issues at one point or another.

OP, I have a small house that I inherited that I rent out. I was reluctant to do so and it sat empty for several years as a result. It genuinely didn't fair well including us missing signs of a leak that caused extensive damage. In the end, I got a tenant I know - not first hand as a friend, but someone I'm aware of through work and who I felt wouldn't abuse problems or damage. It has worked out great. Something to think about?

Do not do it, OP.

You will have real issues getting the tenants out - it's a nightmare. It's often not the tenants fault, but lack of properties for them to move on to. I helped rent out a family member's house many years ago but I would not be a landlord now, far too stressful.

You will be able to get it back , you can evict tenants if you want to move back in.
Put it on with an agent for 2.5 years. Would be a problem if you needed to come back unexpectedly though.

@greyhairnomore no one is disputing that legally yes of course the LL will get possession of their property again. It belongs to them, their name is on the title deeds. It's the fact that it can be such a hugely lengthy, stressful and expensive business which makes LL think it's not worth the hassle. There's still a massive backlog in the courts. If a tenant has no where else to go (due to massive shortage of properties) they will remain in the house until they are actually evicted through the courts. Who in their right mind wants that potential hassle?

If I were the OP I would Airbnb it, or possibly do a corporate let if it was very clear that the company was, for example, placing an employee there for a fixed period they were working in the area.

The last thing I'd do is let it at below market rate (which seemed to be what the OP was leaning towards) for some desperate family needing a home. How will they ever move on from that? Once you want your house back, they'll have zero incentive to move and quite possibly won't be able to afford anything else in the area, won't want to change their kids schools, their own jobs etc. Factor in as well the new proposals about LL not being allowed to say no to pets without a very clear reason.... honestly, I know as a pp said, hopefully long term this will mean a shift in things so that social/affordable housing is more readily available in the U.K. and private Rentals won't be such a big slice of the pie... but that's years off!

The reality right now is that while renting privately is really tricky for tenants, it's not an attractive proposition for LL either. Lose lose! It doesn't work for anyone.

For a short term proposition I really wouldn't. If you do get a destructive tenant then it will eat any profit you might have seen. It complicates your taxes. The stress of someone refusing to leave your house and damage it are really horrendous. The only landlords left will be big corporate ones but that will shrink the rental market even more and put rents even higher.

All you have to do is read through the advice on here when someone can't find an onward rental. The standard advice is to stay until the bitter end of the process so they are made homeless. That process is lengthy and will cost you vast amounts of time and money. That's the only way for most people to get help from the council. It's utterly broken when that's the system.

Ok so a lot to consider and chief among them is that fixed term tenancies are set to end. Every tenancy will become month to month once the new legislation comes through. Next consider that you will have a problem with insurance if the place is empty for more that 28 days at once. However what you could do and what I would do in your situation is to have a lodger. That way you have someone living there for the insurance you get some rent but not as much as if they had the whole place to themselves BUT from the legal side of it you never have "tenants". You will have to keep the bills in your name and you will not have as much income tax to pay because there is a rent a room allowance. If you had a tenant you would have to pay income tax on the whole of the rent because it would be added to your income.

Why at below market rent given there will be the same amount of wear and tear / hassle etc?

Morally abhorrent not to want your furniture potentially destroyed, things broken etc.

I am living overseas with a house in the UK. Before i moved overseas i had just renovated it and bought everything brand new so didnt want to rent it out. Ive been asked if someone could rent it and i said no. I stay in it when i visit on holiday, i dont want the hassle of doing it all up again when i return. I dont want my new things in storage. I dont need the rent money. I have a mortgage on it so i doubt it would be profitable for me. I would only change my mind if i really needed the money.

Quite strangely it has been Government policy for a while to discourage people from renting places out. Changes to tax, insulation standards via EPS certification and various other regulatory interventions have made it less attractive. It looks like there are further changes in the pipeline. And even before any of that there's quite a lot of risk involved in terms of credit control, fixing damage and potential legal costs.

It does rather depend on your moral code, but we've taken our cue from our elected representatives, and my conscience is clear

No. If they decide to stay the law is on their side. You will lose.

Airbnb?

This.

An Amateur/accidental landlords scenario nearly always ends in tears. They don't know what the legislation is, what they are supposed to doing, and then they get emotionally invested, and there are usually ructions.

Letting agents etc are often worse than useless.

I'd forget the idea.🙂

I wouldn’t under charge - sometimes people don’t value something or look after it as well if it is cheaper. Do you have someone who can look after it while you are away?

I think leaving the place empty is also a risk - you could get squatters, or more mundane things like leaks, mice, rats.

I would rent it out - but bear in mind that you may not be able to return immediately to the property, you might have to wait and rent elsewhere for a while. If you choose sensibly, you won't get tenants who take the piss.

Leave CD a property empty for 3 years? You would have squatters innit within months. I really wouldn't leave it empty. Air bnb? A lot of work possibly but might be worth a go?

DS and DDIL have just had this dilemma (though DS’ new job - which comes with accommodation - is open ended ie it’s nothing like a fixed term military posting). They have reluctantly decided to sell their beautiful house (which they bought for DS’ previous job, which didn’t come with accommodation) because of the pitfalls of renting. They plan to buy a tiny bolt hole in their home city just to keep on the property ladder.

You take your morals from the Tory party?

Imagine if 5m people decided to keep a house in the U.K. just for the occasional trip back?

I love that I sound like a crazed fantasist that I believe shelter is a human right. There are enough homes/buildings in the U.K. for everyone to live in, in secure ways. As a nation we have chosen to pretend there are not, and that we need to build more. It’s pure marketing from U.K. Property Plc of which every homeowner is a paid up member.

I did exactly this and never ended up going back to the property so still rent it now. I was originally only supposed to be away for a year but it ended up being 6. In that time I had saved a good deposit for a bigger house. My circumstances are slightly different as I met my husband and stared a family when we come back to the UK which meant it wouldn't have been big enough anyway and we also ended up in a completely different area of the country. I've now rented it out for 13 years. Generally the contract is for 12 months and then when it's coming to an end, I'm approached by the management company to see if I want to continuing renting it out. The current tenants have been there 7 years. They pay about £100 a month under market value as I appreciate that they're really good tenants and I'd rather have peace of mind that they're looking after the place than more money, but I only knew they were good tenants once they were in. I know see it as part of my retirement plan. The mortgage is almost paid off so it was a good decision for me

The Ministry of defence used to rent a house a few doors down from me. It meant a string of army officers in uniform over about 15 years being seen occasionally. The landlord sold the house a couple of years ago. I know DH lived in a house with a couple of other trainees that the company he worked for rented. That’s the only way I would consider renting out.