My wife and I have been looking at rental houses available in our area and I’m genuinely surprised at how poor they seem to be at present. I know some tenants don’t look after rental properties as much as they should but as a landlord myself, I wouldn’t want to rent out a house that is in a generally poor state of repair.
We are talking about one house that has built in units in the bedroom with one door being missing completely, and the hinges for that door having been snapped off so that the blistered chipboard is showing, laminate flooring being really spongy when walking on it, really dirty grout around the bath, kitchen units falling apart and being 25+ years old.
Another house had wallpaper that was filthy in some areas and literally peeling off the walls in others, one bedroom had damp issues and a very questionable combi boiler that must have been 30+ years old.
Another house we saw had an en-suite shower that wasn’t working at all, toilet that was dripping. Cupboard doors hanging off in the really greasy kitchen.
My question is, if you were moving to a house you could see yourself living for 5+ years, would you rent a house if you as a tenant had to spend money getting it up to a standard you’re happy living in? Excluding ‘basic decorating’ as everyone’s taste is different but thinking of ‘immediately needee decorating’, replacing kitchen taps, potentially kitchen cupboard doors, major tidying up of gardens, etc?
I am a LL and tenant does not need to spend a penny to fix my house. All I expect is to look after it. If they do little snagging issues I appreciate but I do not expect them to fix it unless they broke it and it is not normal wear and tear. Just keep away from it! Why do you think you have to spend money?
I genuinely wish I’d taken photos of the two properties we’ve seen recently. The reason for my thread is that even though the one property is in a complete state, my wife really wants the house because of the space it offers and the massive garden (for the kids benefit), so it’s a toss up between paying the same price for a better quality house with a much smaller garden (plus competing with others for said house) vs a relatively run down house with more space and a massive garden.
As a landlord myself, when we rented our house out we specifically said to the tenant that we weren’t planning to decorate because it’s down to their taste but would if they wanted us to…they wanted the house sooner so we agreed to not decorate. The painted walls were all white, though needed freshening up, and the wallpapered walls (done by previous tenants) were all done to a good standard. But, we went round the entire house before they moved in and fixed any little issues (door handles coming off, curtain rails loose, etc) and replaced all lightbulbs and smoke/heat alarms, etc.
I think my main frustration is that three of the houses we have seen have all had things broken/missing that clearly will not be fixed/replaced before a tenant moves in. The one house (the one the wife likes), has been painted white (very amateurishly) and paint is all over the brass light switches, door handles, etc, as I say, cupboard doors missing completely, integrated dishwasher with the door front missing (that actually looks like it was the original dishwasher when the house was built 26 years ago)… and loads of furniture stashed in various cupboards/rooms that the EA has confirmed will be left in the house.
My instinct is that as nice as we could make the house (with a couple of grand spent), why should we do that work when the landlord clearly can’t be bothered (unless the EA has simply not told the landlord).