[the truth]

ok instead of being accused of being a daily mail reader who bashes benefits cheats heres a real life tale
ive rented a house to a couple with 7 kids
its a 4 bedroom semi nothing special
ok so I get paid the benefits direct


they then buy 2 dogs, I haven't got an agreement in place as they were supposed to be mates.....then they start breeding dogs
so a year in and im told by workers I sent there the house is a state....so I check it out and its a disaster, I tell them to clean it up, they don't....I write and ring the council to find them a place but try finding a place for 9 people...2 dogs and puppies
so it gets worse, they then contact the council to stop the benefits and the council pays it to them for 2 months

I get into the mother of arguments with the council for this absurd decision....they keep the 2 months claiming the house is such a state a ;eak has damaged some of their equipment.
ok now in all the time theyre there they have never given me a contact number and the only times they've ever told me theres a problem ive had workers there within a day or 2.


the bathroom done, roof over the spare room, fencing etc
but it seems they haven't kept me updated with problems...even though I see them out each weekend on the beer and they know my number and address they simply haven't bothered to tell me the problems........he tells me one day we have a leak, I send a plumber several times he cant get an answer, he goes back and back and fixes the leak....theres water inside a wall, the windows haven't been opened theres wet clothes all over the radiators and the condensation does enormous damage...more blackness in the walls. I pay to have an industrial dehumidifier in the room with most damage costs £90 to rent for a week. they take it and a week later give it back, they didn't put it on, in case it cost electric....the next time I sent workers every worker refuses to work there because of the state of the place....in the end it must have been 10 workers at least said theyd only go there when its empty

so I send an eviction letter...2 months
finally they leave, hallelujah
but guess what....they wont hand over the keys and they leave 120+ rubbish bags , mattresses , stained nappies, bottles , cans, fag butts, wood , strewn everywhere........holes in walls,beer soaked carpets, walls black with dampness, plaster hacked off, the list goes on
within a week of them leaving environmental enforcement ring me....I direct them to the tenants, ah but they've gone he says its on you now....ah but they haven't given me the keys ring them

so it goes on.......they claim they cant afford a ski;, they haven't got a working car to come and get the rubbish.....so muggins here has to pay for a skip (soon to be there again) and paying workers to clear away their disgusting sub human filth

so the enormous damage to property falls on me, the enormous clear up operation falls on me, the environment falls on me, the enormous fixing up the house bill will run to thousands....this lot now land on another unsuspecting victim....seen them out drinking Friday and sunday without a care in the world.....leaving me with a 6 month rebuild

take from that story what you will

[Glenn.]

Surely you should have a had an in agreement in place before letting the house to them. Regardless of whether they were mates. In short, yes, it does fall on you.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Surely you should have a had an in agreement in place before letting the house to them. Regardless of whether they were mates. In short, yes, it does fall on you.

I knew their parents who arranged it but as you rightly say I should have had an agreement. trouble is because theyre on benefits (probably £700 a week mind) they claim to have no cash so how the heck do you chase down benefits claimants for anything, let alone £10,000 of damagee

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by the truth

I knew their parents who arranged it but as you rightly say I should have had an agreement. trouble is because theyre on benefits (probably £700 a week mind) they claim to have no cash so how the heck do you chase down benefits claimants for anything, let alone £10,000 of damagee

It seems you have had a costly lesson. I feel sorry for you, because years ago I had a small guesthouse and during off season I was persuaded by the local council to take in a family who were awaiting re-housing. The council official failed to tell me why they had left (been chucked out) of their previous property. In less than a week I had to demand that the council remove them. The mother had no control over her kids and just sat drinking tea, smoking and watching tv while the kids ran wild.
It's a sad fact of todays society, that parents are not held responsible for their offspring. The government actively encourages this by paying for large amounts of children, when the parent or parents have no hope of themselves supporting such large families.
If all the political parties only paid for the first two children, I think we would soon see a reduction in these large irrisponsable families.

[Cherie]

Even if you had an agreement the law comes down on the tenants side all the time, HOWEVER, you say you knew the parents, did you not know them also, did you pick up any references from their previous landlord, did you not think with 7 kids the wear and tear on the property just through normal life would probably outweigh any profit 9 people in a four bed is alot of people, you have learned a few lessons that is what I take from this story.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by the truth

ok instead of being accused of being a daily mail reader who bashes benefits cheats heres a real life tale
ive rented a house to a couple with 7 kids
its a 4 bedroom semi nothing special
ok so I get paid the benefits direct


they then buy 2 dogs, I haven't got an agreement in place as they were supposed to be mates.....then they start breeding dogs
so a year in and im told by workers I sent there the house is a state....so I check it out and its a disaster, I tell them to clean it up, they don't....I write and ring the council to find them a place but try finding a place for 9 people...2 dogs and puppies
so it gets worse, they then contact the council to stop the benefits and the council pays it to them for 2 months

I get into the mother of arguments with the council for this absurd decision....they keep the 2 months claiming the house is such a state a ;eak has damaged some of their equipment.
ok now in all the time theyre there they have never given me a contact number and the only times they've ever told me theres a problem ive had workers there within a day or 2.


the bathroom done, roof over the spare room, fencing etc
but it seems they haven't kept me updated with problems...even though I see them out each weekend on the beer and they know my number and address they simply haven't bothered to tell me the problems........he tells me one day we have a leak, I send a plumber several times he cant get an answer, he goes back and back and fixes the leak....theres water inside a wall, the windows haven't been opened theres wet clothes all over the radiators and the condensation does enormous damage...more blackness in the walls. I pay to have an industrial dehumidifier in the room with most damage costs £90 to rent for a week. they take it and a week later give it back, they didn't put it on, in case it cost electric....the next time I sent workers every worker refuses to work there because of the state of the place....in the end it must have been 10 workers at least said theyd only go there when its empty

so I send an eviction letter...2 months
finally they leave, hallelujah
but guess what....they wont hand over the keys and they leave 120+ rubbish bags , mattresses , stained nappies, bottles , cans, fag butts, wood , strewn everywhere........holes in walls,beer soaked carpets, walls black with dampness, plaster hacked off, the list goes on
within a week of them leaving environmental enforcement ring me....I direct them to the tenants, ah but they've gone he says its on you now....ah but they haven't given me the keys ring them

so it goes on.......they claim they cant afford a ski;, they haven't got a working car to come and get the rubbish.....so muggins here has to pay for a skip (soon to be there again) and paying workers to clear away their disgusting sub human filth

so the enormous damage to property falls on me, the enormous clear up operation falls on me, the environment falls on me, the enormous fixing up the house bill will run to thousands....this lot now land on another unsuspecting victim....seen them out drinking Friday and sunday without a care in the world.....leaving me with a 6 month rebuild

take from that story what you will

I'm sorry to hear of this 'The Truth', but sadly it's far from a rarity and it would not have mattered a jot if you HAD have had an Assured Shorthold Tenancy in place or any other type of contract, so don't be too hard on yourself there.

You should always credit check applicants, take up references, issue an AST and Section 21's, and take extensive photographs of the property - internal and external - and get the new tenants to agree and sign a detailed 'Inventory' in addition to taking a realistic Tenancy Deposit or 'Bond' which should be entrusted to a 'Tenancy Deposit Scheme.

However, NONE OF THE ABOVE REALLY PROTECTS THE LANDLORD if he gets a rogue tenant - especially if the tenants are in receipt of benefits.

I could fill 300 pages on here with WORSE stories - all perfectly true - and landlords across the UK could add 500,000 pages more at least.

You simply have ZILCH chance if your 'perfect' tenants on benefits turn out to be bastards, and you will just have to take your losses in your stride and put this terrible incident down to 'experience'.

I am one of the increasingly few private landlords in my area who still let to Benefits tenants, and I have some really decent, honest tenants who keep themselves and the property in spotless condition, many of whom have been with me for years.

They are, however, in the minority, and I have had hundreds of dirty, deceitful, dishonest, 'low-life's' over the years who have cost me £100's of thousands of pounds - yes, £100's of thousands of pounds - in unpaid rent, extensive damage to property, ensuing rent voids enforced when properties have had to be completely renovated again once the scum have finally vacated (usually when they themselves have been ready to leave and not until) and in refurnishing and re-equipping the properties due to damage and theft.

The local council's Housing Benefit Departments ALWAYS advice these scum tenants NEVER to voluntarily leave the property but to WAIT UNTIL LEGALLY EVICTED, even when such departments have been made FULLY AWARE that the thousands of pounds they have paid these bastards in housing benefits HAS NOT been used to pay rent but squandered by the tenants themselves - usually on drugs and drink - and even though they have been made fully aware that this scum have committed 10's of thousands of pounds in damage.

And should the fecked up Housing Advice or Social Services become involved - GOD HELP YOU - because they do not CARE about TRUTH or JUSTICE or BEING FAIR, they see only a POOR CLAIMANT and a RICH LANDLORD. Yes - it comes down to PREJUDICIAL perceived POLITICS; the 'Have's' and 'Have not's' the Left versus the 'Right', and it does not matter if the truth is that you have worked hard all of your life, borrowed extensively from the bank to help buy your 'investment' property, borrowed to renovate it to a really good standard and let it deliberately to 'claimants' because of your own socialist political persuasion. Nor will it matter if in real terms the actual disposable income you have left every week after working your gonads off, is but half that of the tenants who have shafted you.

THE HOUSING BENEFITS, THE HOUSING ADVICE CENTRE, THE SOCIAL SERVICES do not give two flying fecks for any of the above 'TRUTHS' - they see only poor claimant VICTIMS and another 'PETER RACHMAN' landlord.

The law DOES NOT PROTECT THE PRIVATE LANDLORD.

You can have right on your side. You can have been as merciful, humanitarian, charitable, socialist and philanthropic as Mother Theresa and Andrew Carnegie rolled into one in your motives for letting property to 'claimants' and in your subsequent treatment of them, but if it transpires that they are rogues, then you are FECKED - pure and simple.

It costs money to EVICT even the most disgusting rogue tenant and should you take the litigation route to try to recover your losses, then even if you 'win' your case - How do you (or any legal entity for that matter) enforce the judgement and ACTUALLY see any money from scumbags who 'KNOW THE ROPES' and 'HAVE NOTHING' (nudge, nudge, wink wink) and who do not respect themselves let alone the law or anyone else?

My sympathy is with you 'The Truth' but all I can tell you in all honesty is forget it and use the experience to help guide you for future decisions.

Remember the immortal and ever truthful words of Clare Booth Luce; "No Good Deed Ever Went Unpunished' and you won't go far wrong I'm afraid to say.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

It seems you have had a costly lesson. I feel sorry for you, because years ago I had a small guesthouse and during off season I was persuaded by the local council to take in a family who were awaiting re-housing. The council official failed to tell me why they had left (been chucked out) of their previous property. In less than a week I had to demand that the council remove them. The mother had no control over her kids and just sat drinking tea, smoking and watching tv while the kids ran wild.
It's a sad fact of todays society, that parents are not held responsible for their offspring. The government actively encourages this by paying for large amounts of children, when the parent or parents have no hope of themselves supporting such large families.
If all the political parties only paid for the first two children, I think we would soon see a reduction in these large irrisponsable families.

More COMMON SENSE from my Jenny.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Even if you had an agreement the law comes down on the tenants side all the time, HOWEVER, you say you knew the parents, did you not know them also, did you pick up any references from their previous landlord, did you not think with 7 kids the wear and tear on the property just through normal life would probably outweigh any profit 9 people in a four bed is alot of people, you have learned a few lessons that is what I take from this story.

All true, I'm afraid Cherie. Putting it down to 'experience' is the only way not to lapse into insanity I'm afraid, but it's a great shame that such scumbags will now probably ensure that yet another good landlord does not ever take on claimants again as tenants because they are not all like that - in my experience - but learning to filter out the scum from the genuinely decent is an art which I still have not fully mastered.

[Josy]

Sorry for your troubles.

That however is ONE family, you can't generalise against every person on benefits.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

All true, I'm afraid Cherie. Putting it down to 'experience' is the only way not to lapse into insanity I'm afraid, but it's a great shame that such scumbags will now probably ensure that yet another good landlord does not ever take on claimants again as tenants because they are not all like that - in my experience - but learning to filter out the scum from the genuinely decent is an art which I still have not fully mastered.

It is easy to get caught as some people can present with a completely different persona, you can only put it down to bad experience and move on.

[user104658]

Blame Maggie. Local councils shouldn't have to be shelling out housing allowances to be given to private landlords in the first place. That entire system is a shambles and costs a fortune. Wouldn't be happening at all if all of the council houses hadn't been sold off. Hilariously, most of those ex-council houses are now in the hands of private landlords, with the rent being paid by the council! Facepalm.

"Hello, would you like to buy my car? It's £6000. And then I'll rent it back from you for £150 a month for the next forever. Good deal, yes? "

[DemolitionRed]

A good informative post Kirk and TS, I very much agree with you.

Having come from the estate agency world where we did lettings, I have to say, its not only benefit people that do this. When I read your post it reminded me of a very expensive house let I did in West London where a professional couple with children and dogs trashed a 2k a week house before vanishing into the mist without trace; costing both the agency and the landlord many thousands in lost revenue and repair bills. Unfortunately its a risk with any tenants, benefits or not.

Its all about risk awareness and due diligence when you come to letting a property, especially to friends or benefit receivers.

A hefty protected deposits and equally important are guarantors. In this particular situation you should of been able to claim from their guarantors. Benefit tenants that can't come up with guarantors are very risky.

Regular inspections by the agents or landlords. A contract that will stand up in court that you never allow to run over six months will give you the landlord a lot more protection. A right to enter under an accepted notice period and a set of keys for yourself are really important.

Are you saying you can't presently gain entry to the property?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

A good informative post Kirk and TS, I very much agree with you.

Having come from the estate agency world where we did lettings, I have to say, its not only benefit people that do this. When I read your post it reminded me of a very expensive house let I did in West London where a professional couple with children and dogs trashed a 2k a week house before vanishing into the mist without trace; costing both the agency and the landlord many thousands in lost revenue and repair bills. Unfortunately its a risk with any tenants, benefits or not.

Its all about risk awareness and due diligence when you come to letting a property, especially to friends or benefit receivers.

A hefty protected deposits and equally important are guarantors. In this particular situation you should of been able to claim from their guarantors. Benefit tenants that can't come up with guarantors are very risky.

Regular inspections by the agents or landlords. A contract that will stand up in court that you never allow to run over six months will give you the landlord a lot more protection. A right to enter under an accepted notice period and a set of keys for yourself are really important.

Are you saying you can't presently gain entry to the property?

A brilliant post Red.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Blame Maggie. Local councils shouldn't have to be shelling out housing allowances to be given to private landlords in the first place. That entire system is a shambles and costs a fortune. Wouldn't be happening at all if all of the council houses hadn't been sold off. Hilariously, most of those ex-council houses are now in the hands of private landlords, with the rent being paid by the council! Facepalm.

"Hello, would you like to buy my car? It's £6000. And then I'll rent it back from you for £150 a month for the next forever. Good deal, yes? "

It's not so simple T.S I'm afraid. No one, not even Margaret Thatcher, can be blamed for 'rogue' tenants - that is the fault of the despicable, low-life scumbags themselves pure and simple.

THEY are the one's availing themselves of good quality accommodation. THEY are the one's CLAIMING HOUSING BENEFITS with which to live in such accommodation RENT-FREE, and the source of which, is the hard-pressed tax-payer. THEY are the one's who CONSCIOUSLY and WILLFULLY ELECT NOT TO USE such Housing Benefit for the purposes for which it has been granted -- TO PAY THE RENT. THEY are the one's who ELECT instead to use it to pay for LUXURIES - be such luxuries GAMBLING, DRINKING, or DRUGS or whatever. THEY are the one's who TRASH properties by slovenly misuse. THEY are the one's who STEAL furniture and Fixtures and SELL THEM.

Before I continue - let no one accuse me of sullying the reputation of all claimants or 'tarring them all with the same brush', because I have already stated that NOT ALL CLAIMANT TENANTS are the same, and I also agree with DemolitionRed that non-claimant rogue tenants also exist (as I have detailed in earlier posts on other threads) but as we are discussing here specifically ROGUE TENANTS ON BENEFITS, I would greatly appreciate it if no one misrepresents what I am stating in any response.

The 'Blame' culture in the UK is a sword which swings two ways.

Denying the very real existence of these crud rogue tenants is to be delusional. Every council in this country has huge rent arrears, and the vast majority of tenants responsible for these areas are tenants on benefits. This is a FACT. So 'Private' Landlords have no exclusivity when it comes to bad tenants and nor is private rented accommodation to blame.

The simple truth is, that though her policies did not help, this country would still have an housing crisis without Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy, and the reasons - which will be unpalatable to some - are many and diverse, and too numerous and complex to detail here, but briefly;

A) A benefit culture which ENCOURAGES the breeding of children without any deference to affordability, or the consequential future economic needs of such children once they mature ie; 'Planning by the parents for their children's future'.
B) Immigration.
C) Market Forces.
D) The state of the 'General Economy'.
E) Our draconian and punitive Tax System.

It is as well to firmly bear in mind also, that - like all 'scams' - Thatcher's 'Privatisation' schemes and 'Shares Sell Off' and her 'Right To Buy' policy COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SUCCESS without THE GREED and ACTIVE PARTICIPATION of tens of thousands of OPPORTUNIST WORKING CLASS people -- most of who were hitherto traditional 'grass roots' LABOUR PARTY supporters and voters. -- who availed themselves of the chance to personally profit from 'The Right To Buy' and the 'Shares' sell off from once Nationalised Industries.

Equally important to remember, is the fact that subsequent LABOUR governments SANCTIONED Thatcher's policies by default by doing zilch to reverse them.

Thatcherism may have widened the schism between the 'Have' and 'Have Not's' in the UK, and may have bolstered the 'Feck You I'm Alright Jack' attitudes which have always existed, but she could not have done so without the support of the great working classes who prostituted their principles and 'jumped ships' for a profit.

Thatcherism is a very complex fascinating subject worthy of its own thread.

[Niamh.]

Yeah, even if you're renting to friends you should still have gotten a proper contract done up. Shame though, I don't envy you

[user104658]

I'm not saying that there aren't huge and varied issues with housing, just pointing out the ridiculousness of selling off housing stock only to then rent it back, which is effectively what councils have done. On the street I was living on up until a year ago, a council / ex-council street, I would say there were only about 25% of houses still council owned, maybe 10% living in a house that they owned themselves, and the rest all ex-council, private rent. We were paying £550pcm for EXACTLY the same house as the one directly across from us, which was still "council", and I think the council rent was less than £250. We pay our own rent, but, of course, there were others in private houses on the street on LHA with the council paying out £550pcm for houses that they used to own, and sold off for a pittance - probably less than three years worth of rent. So they sold them and have by now paid out enough to have bought them back 5 times over. Madness.

Where I live now, a well-off and sought after small village, there are only a handful of council houses at all. There weren't a huge number to begin with, but the ones that there were would have been snapped up almost instantly when right to buy was introduced. The location makes them far more valuable than their material worth (which is incidentally also what has so far priced us out of buying and stuck renting privately ).

The non payment of rent is also a complex issue. Gambling, drink and drugs are vices borne of people having miserable existences. All three offer a buzz and oblivion, and gambling, being honest, and really sadly, is partly people who really believe that they can make money and have better lives. They fool themselves on a daily basis into believing that they are in profit.

Anyway, it's a sad fact that some just can't control their spending or their habits, which is why (and shock horror, I'm agreeing with The Truth!) it's ridiculous that councils are so hesitant to pay direct to landlords. I do think people should be given a CHANCE to receive it as cash and pay the landlord themselves - but if a landlord approaches the council about non-payment and the tenant is getting LHA then it should be switched to the landlord immediately. Sometimes it's not even a vice. Some people just have an inability to manage money. Benefits being paid every 4 weeks and rent monthly doesn't help there, of course, if someone is struggling to buy food and there's a lump of LHA sitting for weeks waiting to be paid it must be tempting to "borrow" from it.

The issue of damage there's really no excuse for, though. I don't really understand why people wouldn't WANT to take care of a property they're in... They have to live there, after all.

Then again, that goes the other way too. Our current landlord is SUCH a cheapskate that it's not even funny. The guttering leaks, it's 30 to 40 years old, it needs replaced but he's just sent a couple of dodgy blokes to "clean it out" three times instead. It's not helping. Starting to have damp issues in the top corners upstairs - nothing that I can't cover cosmetically indoors and the rooms themselves aren't damp but it WILL be damaging the property long term. He doesn't seem to care. Also won't consider installing an extractor in the kitchen even though there are huge condensation issues when cooking, but again, his call. He also sent a guy to re-seal around the bath and he did such an abysmal job that I had to scrub it off and re-apply it myself.

We even replaced the living room flooring (ancient carpets replaced with good quality laminate) and we ripped out a horrendous 70's gas fire and fireplace and found a gorgeous open fireplace hidden beneath! At a cost of almost £1500 out of our own pockets, but we're in a 2 year tenancy and were getting so miserable with the state of it that we had to do it ourselves. We were embarrassed to have kids friends over. I suppose that's the benefit of him not caring though - he gave us written permission to basically do what we want in terms of changing and decorating the house. So we've upgraded his property for him. Which does sort of piss me off. Might put it all back before we move out .

Sorry... This turned into a bit of a rant!

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not saying that there aren't huge and varied issues with housing, just pointing out the ridiculousness of selling off housing stock only to then rent it back, which is effectively what councils have done. On the street I was living on up until a year ago, a council / ex-council street, I would say there were only about 25% of houses still council owned, maybe 10% living in a house that they owned themselves, and the rest all ex-council, private rent. We were paying £550pcm for EXACTLY the same house as the one directly across from us, which was still "council", and I think the council rent was less than £250. We pay our own rent, but, of course, there were others in private houses on the street on LHA with the council paying out £550pcm for houses that they used to own, and sold off for a pittance - probably less than three years worth of rent. So they sold them and have by now paid out enough to have bought them back 5 times over. Madness.

Where I live now, a well-off and sought after small village, there are only a handful of council houses at all. There weren't a huge number to begin with, but the ones that there were would have been snapped up almost instantly when right to buy was introduced. The location makes them far more valuable than their material worth (which is incidentally also what has so far priced us out of buying and stuck renting privately ).

The non payment of rent is also a complex issue. Gambling, drink and drugs are vices borne of people having miserable existences. All three offer a buzz and oblivion, and gambling, being honest, and really sadly, is partly people who really believe that they can make money and have better lives. They fool themselves on a daily basis into believing that they are in profit.

Anyway, it's a sad fact that some just can't control their spending or their habits, which is why (and shock horror, I'm agreeing with The Truth!) it's ridiculous that councils are so hesitant to pay direct to landlords. I do think people should be given a CHANCE to receive it as cash and pay the landlord themselves - but if a landlord approaches the council about non-payment and the tenant is getting LHA then it should be switched to the landlord immediately. Sometimes it's not even a vice. Some people just have an inability to manage money. Benefits being paid every 4 weeks and rent monthly doesn't help there, of course, if someone is struggling to buy food and there's a lump of LHA sitting for weeks waiting to be paid it must be tempting to "borrow" from it.

The issue of damage there's really no excuse for, though. I don't really understand why people wouldn't WANT to take care of a property they're in... They have to live there, after all.

Then again, that goes the other way too. Our current landlord is SUCH a cheapskate that it's not even funny. The guttering leaks, it's 30 to 40 years old, it needs replaced but he's just sent a couple of dodgy blokes to "clean it out" three times instead. It's not helping. Starting to have damp issues in the top corners upstairs - nothing that I can't cover cosmetically indoors and the rooms themselves aren't damp but it WILL be damaging the property long term. He doesn't seem to care. Also won't consider installing an extractor in the kitchen even though there are huge condensation issues when cooking, but again, his call. He also sent a guy to re-seal around the bath and he did such an abysmal job that I had to scrub it off and re-apply it myself.

We even replaced the living room flooring (ancient carpets replaced with good quality laminate) and we ripped out a horrendous 70's gas fire and fireplace and found a gorgeous open fireplace hidden beneath! At a cost of almost £1500 out of our own pockets, but we're in a 2 year tenancy and were getting so miserable with the state of it that we had to do it ourselves. We were embarrassed to have kids friends over. I suppose that's the benefit of him not caring though - he gave us written permission to basically do what we want in terms of changing and decorating the house. So we've upgraded his property for him. Which does sort of piss me off. Might put it all back before we move out .

Sorry... This turned into a bit of a rant!

No T.S. - far from being a rant, it's a well written balanced post of which I totally agree. (sit down T.S and recover )

It is inexcusable that councils were ever forced to sell off housing stock at a loss, and equally as unforgivable that policies were ever made law which forbade the use of revenue from such sales to be utilised on the building of new homes to replace such lost stock.

There is also no excuse for any tolerance of 'rogue' landlords - private or corporation - and though there are now official schemes in place which seek to address this problem, they are too few and as yet fairly impotent.

I strongly believe in 'affordable' decent housing for all, and have always endeavored to provide just such. I have had good tenants and still have, but if only my efforts and the quality of my accommodation had been appreciated by all of those who I had let property to. If only.

[Livia]

Surprised that they got a couple of dogs and you knew they were breeding them, but left it a year until you checked up.

On the bright side, you saved a couple of hundred quid getting a proper agreement in place.

[Kizzy]

Agree with TS about the removal of social housing into private hands this has created a new breed of greedy private landlord who is not interested in where, why or who they rent property, all they care about is watching that benefits cheque appear in the bank.
The properties are sub standard and poorly maintained, the only time these landlords become aware of any issues is when the change in legislation paid housing costs direct to the claimant, suddenly there are problems as landlords become aware of issues only whilst chasing payment.
Not saying this happened here, but reading recent media articles this is happening more and more frequently.

[user104658]

To be fair - the "greediest" landlord I've had was my landlord in a private Uni shared house. A multi-multi-millionare who actually built the houses himself, dozens upon dozens of them, to rent out to students. The houses themselves were excellent - brand new, very high standard - and he had a full-time maintenance guy you could call day or night and he'd be out in a flash to sort whatever needed sorting. All great. Until at the end of two years tenancy, you spend two days cleaning and making sure everything is immaculate, move out, and he keeps the entire security deposit citing a huge list of outright lies as the reasons. This was before they had deposit protection in Scotland so there was absolutely nothing we could do about it. When we started saying he was lying, and said that we would recommend no one rent from the bloody thief, he just laughed at us and said "now now, you wouldn't want to be accused of slander would you?". Bleh. We (4 of us) had been paying £300 a month each for two years - a total of nearly £29,000 - with no issues at all and then at the end of it, he just blatantly stole an extra £1500. Bleh.

I've seen both ends really. There's the one I have now who doesn't give a stuff about the property, my last one was OK while we were in the house but again a bit "fussy" with deposit, trying to claim for ridiculous things. Thankfully this time it was protected and they were knocked back for most of it, but the process itself got a bit nasty.

Landlord before that was amazing, it had been her own house and she was just renting it out herself, and she got it spot on really. Always on the ball if there was an issue but otherwise stayed out of the way (overbearing landlords = awful), really wanted us to think of it as our own home (contrast this to student landlord who would occasionally let himself in to use the toilet!) and she even bought us a load of shopping when she had been in to paint the utility room, unplugged the freezer and forgot to switch it back on. Most landlords would consider that "tough ****" .

In general though, I do hate navigating the rental market. Some landlords are awful, some tenants are awful... some landlords are even more awful because they've had bad experiences with awful tenants... and so on. I would so love to buy .

[Niamh.]

Sounds like you needed Judge Judy back then TS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Sounds like you needed Judge Judy back then TS

She would have taken one look at him and given us all of the money . For a millionare, he looked really scruffy and dodgy! I would have questioned it, had I not also met his wife who was dripping with bling and driving a rather expensive looking car...

[Marsh.]

It's always the ones with money that are the most selfish and greedy.

[the truth]

the system over protects the tenants and offers zero protection for landlords....I tried everything in my power to maintain the house. Why would any landlord allow leaks and damage to their house and ignore it? when its going to cost them tens of thousands in the long term? there is motivation for landlords to maintain their properties and they are accountable if they dont, there is no motivation for tenants to do likewise and they are totally unaccountable.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

She would have taken one look at him and given us all of the money . For a millionare, he looked really scruffy and dodgy! I would have questioned it, had I not also met his wife who was dripping with bling and driving a rather expensive looking car...

paid for with stolen deposits no doubt