'Accidental' landlords

[1down]

We inherited a property in a retirement block about 3 years ago, when we became the owners we tried to sell it for 4 months but 3 other places in the block were also for sale and it wasnt getting any interest. Property is in great state, but obviously a limited pool of buyers. We managed to get a tenant in it until August when he moved out. Since then we tidied it up again and re marketed. Its well priced, in good condition but just not selling. The economy and the 65+ requirement is proving to be a big issue.
At the moment it is costing 400 a month to sit empty when you take into account service charge ( high, due to the type of property) and council tax.

Were looking at renting again and have had 2 offers on it to rent in a month. Both have then failed the referencing.

Next stop is looking to rent through the local council, if its something they do.

Anyone have any experience of renting through a council? Problems? Concerns? Reasons to do or not to?

Ooops cross post with parasolparaiso.

MN isn't the best place for advice because anyone who's a landlord is scum of the earth apparently. Also according to MN no one can be an accidental landlord because worst case scenario is you should be paying someone to live in the property because you are stopping someone else buying it 🙄

I've no advice to offer because your situation isn't the same as mine and the over 65 part definitely makes it harder. I hope you get some good advice on here and not just unhelpful snarky comments.

I joke with my parents that if they ever try to buy one of these properties, I will have them sectioned as a result and take control of their finances. Not that they would - they know a con when they see it.

Round here, they sell for way less then the original price and rent for about the same as the service charge. Oops!

they are notoriously difficult to sell!

Look on the national leasehold campaign group in fb

Here is an extract from one of the linked articles about why retirement flats are a millstone around people's necks. Whatever the inheritance version is of a poisoned chalice, these flats fit the definition.

Retired college lecturer Jane Weake's in-laws, Arthur and Betty, bought a McCarthy & Stone two-bedroom apartment in Risingholme Court, Heathfield, East Sussex, for £273,950 in 2007. Betty died shortly afterwards aged 89, and in 2012, Arthur moved into a care home.
'He tried to sell the property for four years, but there were no takers because the service charges were so high — £9,000 a year to Peverel [now FirstPort], the management company appointed after McCarthy & Stone had sold on the freehold,' says Jane, 68.

'Arthur died in 2016, aged 103, and it took us another four years to sell the flat after that — for just £50,000.

For the four years he was no longer living in the flat, and the four years after his death, subsidies on meals he wasn't eating, and cleaning he wasn't receiving were still included in the service charges.'
In total, the loss of equity and service charge bills amounted to more than £290,000 for Jane and her family.
'My father-in-law would have been devastated if he had known that this is what happened to the inheritance he had planned for us,' says Jane.

My friend inherited a retirement flat from her step mother. She ended up spending four years paying the service charge on that empty property, before finally selling it for a third of its value (which of course was then eaten into with agent and legal fees).

Inheriting a flat you don't want, and having to rent it out simply to meet the monthly service charges that you can't afford otherwise, has to fit the term 'accidental' landlord pretty well, I'd say.

I do understand the disappointment, but the point is, it's inherited, so even if they flog it for £20k, whatever's left after fees is gifted money. It sounds like a nightmare to rent, so I'd avoid that.

But surely the value is whatever someone is willing to pay?
If that's less than the original price so be it.
Choosing to rent it out instead is fine, but it's not an accident.

@saraclara it wasn’t sold for a third of its value, it was sold for a third of its initial cost.
If your friend had marketed it for 50% of the cost when it first went to market, it most likely would have stood out as a ‘bargain’ and gone quickly.
These retirement apartments certainly look like they are indeed not the inheritance people think they are.

The scandal for me occurs at the purchase point. This is when these companies manage to persuade people to vastly overpay for them in the first place.

Older people are targeted, because they are often living in hugely valuable homes and are looking to downsize, often at the very point when they are vulnerable. We often get brochures for these houses posted through our letterbox, because of the demographic of our neighbourhood.

If your relative is in their 60s, and has 20 years in which the value drops, you know they have had a happy retirement, then you can comfort yourself that it is money well spent. If they are in their 80s, and live there for a couple of years before having to move on, that's a hell of an expensive write-off. So I do feel sorry for the OP, because these companies are such sharks, and I certainly don't plan to buy one now I'm reaching that age!

There was something in the other thread that jumped out at me. One of the posters pointed out that when people look to buy retirement flats they want something that is in ready to move in condition because they don't have the energy or inclination to do a lot of work on a property. If necessary, I would try and make the property look as though it were in move in condition by repainting and getting new carpets if necessary, although I'd probably draw the line at a new kitchen or bathroom.

We did that when we inherited. The kitchen and bathroom are in great condition. Freshly pained then and again now. New carpet. New boiler. It's a really nice flat and if it wasn't for the age restrictions it would let or sell in days.
The block was new when my nan got the flat, so it is a relatively new build, under 20 years.

Good luck. I hope you manage to sell it in the new year.

Same here. When my MIL passed away we inherited her apartment. (think Macarthy Stone sort of place.)

Took us over a year and 3 prospective buyers. We lost out on what she’d payed for it. The monthly standing charge put some off. ( we had to pay the same whilst it was on sale)

We too were accidental landlords as she rented it from us until her house sold.

It could only be sold to 70+ Which ruled out many.

And they took a cut of the sale price.

We got a tenant in..
Essential every penny from the rental is now getting put aside, then when this man leaves we will have enough in am account to cover a chunk of empty time to get it sold. I'm hopeful he stays a year or 2, then I will have a year or 2 of costs put aside so if it takes 18-24 months i have it covered.

Sadly these sort of properties may seem ideal when a person wants to downsize but they are very difficult to sell.

A better option is just to buy an ordinary small property/ flat when downsizing

Yes but some people want the security of having a warden on site & weekly visits from useful professionals like hairdressers, chiropodists etc plus the option to eat meals on site and someone else maintaining the grounds. They do have certain advantages over buying your own small bungalow, say. Just have to be very aware of the disadvantages as well as advantages.