Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

Original poster

Right to buy - finding good tenants

47 replies

FlatRat · 11/08/2015 07:53

DP has a council flat which he has been renting for years. We've decided we want to live together, which means we have an empty flat. We could give it up, or buy it through the right to buy scheme for £19,000, which it seems stupid not to do.

The plan is for him to buy his flat, move into our house full time, then let it out.
But how do we find good tenants? We don't need to get market rent for it; it's enough to cover the bills and the mortgage payments. If we offered it at a lower price over a longer period, would we be able to pick and choose a better tenant? How would we find such a person?

OP posts:
milliemanzi · 11/08/2015 13:42

I wouldn't buy a council house at a discounted price and then leave it empty for 5 years, no.

RandomFriend · 11/08/2015 13:48

would we be able to pick and choose a better tenant?

If you are looking for a tenant at a period in the year when many rental properties change hands, and the price is a little below the market rate, you may have two parties offer to rent your property at the same time. Then you would be able to pick.

However, you can never guarantee who is going to turn out to be a "good" tenant. An employed person can lose their job; a couple can break up; professionals can be very demanding tenants. It is always a risk and you need a cushion of three months for the mortgage payments, in case for any reason the rent it is not paid.

If you rent to a foreign student, a letting agent will charge the full six months or one year rent up-front, so you know that you will get the rent every month.

If tenants wreck the house, you may need up to 10K to put right the damage (although with 10K you would also be improving the property).

elementofsurprise · 11/08/2015 14:08

Random However, you can never guarantee who is going to turn out to be a "good" tenant. An employed person can lose their job ...

Why would this make them a bad tenant? They don't start smashing up the property, playing loud music day and night, and dealing drugs the minute they get handed a P45. Hmm The only issue would be if the property is much more expensive than housing benefit would pay; the OP has made it clear this isn't the case.

FWIW I've been on benefits the entire time in my current property, and my landlord lets it below market rent (now) because I am "a good tenant".

professionals can be very demanding tenants

??
Do you mean they want the property kept to a reasonable standard and will say so because they have the means to move on if necessary? Unlike the poor and desperate who don't want the landlord to evict them for making a fuss...

RandomFriend · 11/08/2015 14:25

elementofsurprise, I was thinking of a good tenant as one that kept to their obligations in the tenancy agreement, in that they paid the rent more or less on time and in full. Changes in circumstances (job, relationship) may mean that, mid-way through a tenancy, they are no longer able to pay the rent.

Do you mean they want the property kept to a reasonable standard and will say so because they have the means to move on if necessary?

No. I think landlords should follow the rules and keep the property in a reasonable standard. By demanding professionals, I was thinking of a tenant that requested beds, which were duly supplied (brand new), and then rejected by the tenant because he didn't like divans.

Actually, a good tenant would inform a landlord if there is a problem with the property, so that it can be fixed in good time. A really bad tenant fails to mention that there is a serious problem, resulting in a build up of the problem that costs a lot of money and inconvenience to everyone to put right as an emergency.

I am an accidental landlord and have had mainly good experiences, but some unfortunate ones as well.

TheClacksAreDown · 11/08/2015 14:26

It is a bit galling that this is allowed (assuming it is) but I don't blame the OP for taking advantage, most people would.

One thing you could consider is that some housing bodies will take properties and their management on for at least 3 years. You get guaranteed rent but you often have to make certain things up to their standard before they begin. I don't think you can break the leases though so not suitable if you think there is any real risk that DP would need to move back.

specialsubject · 11/08/2015 14:58

a normal tenant pays the rent on time, informs the landlord of problems with the property, allows access at a mutually convenient time when the landlord needs to fix or maintain things, doesn't smoke inside if not allowed, heats/ventilates so place doesn't get mouldy, maintains garden as per tenancy (if applicable), keeps a standard of cleanliness so vermin are not attracted, is a reasonable neighbour.

like a normal person, really.

a normal landlord keeps legal obligations up to date (gas safe, deposit), fixes things when needed in a timely fashion, maintains when needed, only visits with prior arrangement with tenant, isn't bothered if tenant uses floor as wardrobe as long as above things apply. And insures to cover home emergencies, urgent fixes, malicious damage, non rent-payment and legal costs.

bad people don't do these things.

iAmSiri · 11/08/2015 16:09

specialsubject I'm in the same position as the Op's dp. Despite having lived in my council house for 14 years I will be giving it up when I move in with my dp so that another needy family can have it.

RandomFriend · 11/08/2015 16:35

*Specialsubject" yes, having good insurance cover can help a lot, especially for an accidental landlord or a landlord with a single property.

OP, if your DP goes ahead, he should take out a good insurance policy.

specialsubject · 11/08/2015 16:38

siri wow. Refreshing that 'ethics' is not always a county east of London!

full insurance for all eventualities is ESSENTIAL for all landlords, accidental, first-time or otherwise. Malicious damage isn't included by some of the big names; as the tenant has a right to be in the property, if they do start getting vicious (and I know people who've had this threatened) that is the only cover that will do.

legal expenses is also essential, as you may have a tenant who can only get a council house by being forcibly evicted through the full expensive process. If they leave at the end of their section 21 they are counted as 'intentionally homeless' and don't get help.

you also need this cover if you get a professional non-payer.

small minority, big expense if it happens to you.

Original poster
FlatRat · 12/08/2015 11:04

specialsubject I'm not sure why siri's stance more ethical than my DP's. You could argue it's unethical of her to take away her children's chance of being able to afford a place to live when they're older. There are exceptions, obviously, but for most young people working hard and saving your money isn't enough for them to be able to afford a home of their own, and that's a situation that doesn't look like changing anytime soon.

It is not a desirable area, but it's a nice flat, with nice neighbours who all own their own property. We're going for it. Thanks for the tips regarding insurance and agents.

OP posts:
OldRoan · 12/08/2015 11:12

If I were you, OP, I think I'd probably be doing the same.

But I'm not. DP and I ARE the young people you mention. We are trying desperately hard to save a deposit for our first home together. We're in London, living with my parents, both in full time jobs and, realistically, we either need to save £30k for a deposit or I need to move jobs (we couldn't justify the travel expenses for both of us to commute back to the centre).

It seems desperately unfair that you can have a whole house for less than the deposit we need.

Original poster
FlatRat · 12/08/2015 11:28

It seems desperately unfair that you can have a whole house for less than the deposit we need.

That's because it is desperately unfair.

When I was 18, living in London in the 1980s, I nearly bought a really nice, big 3 bedroom flat on the edge of Blackheath Common for £26,000. I could have got a mortgage, but decided against it and moved away from the city. I'd be a millionaire now if I had bought that flat.

The thing is, my DP's kids are now 13 and 15 and in a few years time will be in the same position as you. He wants to help them if he can, and this is the only way he can do it.

OP posts:
OldRoan · 12/08/2015 11:30

This is basically the eternal mumsnet debate about saving tables in cafes (is it ok for one person to hold a table whilst the other queues, meaning the person at the front of the queue can't sit down). Just on a bigger scale.

WhatKatyDidnt · 12/08/2015 11:39

This wretched government is promoting this madness. It is sickening!

HappenstanceMarmite · 12/08/2015 11:46

Stinks.

Oliversmumsarmy · 12/08/2015 11:46

incidentally there is a rumour that Corbyn wants to extend right to buy to private tenants. Should this happen (lots of ifs) there are going to be a lot of evictions

I would think the mortgage companies would have something to say about it.

PigletJohn · 12/08/2015 12:03

Perhaps it is a way of opening up the question of thatcherite policies.

"Is it right to force the owner of a home to sell it, below value, to the current tenants?"

Does it become any more right depending on who the owner is, and if you like them or not?

specialsubject · 12/08/2015 13:31

good point, PJ.

the owners of the council houses are you, me and everyone else in the country.

SevenAteNine · 12/08/2015 13:33

But then, the more extreme factions of the left want to force the wealthy to sell their homes below market value.

It's interesting that the further away from the centre you look, the more you start to see similarities.

specialsubject · 12/08/2015 13:33

BTW OP not for me to judge. Not in your position, but I think I would struggle to look that gift horse in the mouth.

PigletJohn · 12/08/2015 13:38

seven, the more extreme factions of the right have been forcing owners to sell their homes below market value for many years.

When do think it started being "wrong?"

SevenAteNine · 12/08/2015 13:42

I'm not sure it's my place to say.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page