Good tenant

Ray Palmer

People are often coming on here and referring to themselves as good tenants. The seem to refer to minimum standards of a tenant as being good. Just wondering what people think as of a good tenants.

Bad Tenant:
1) Doesn't pay rent on time
2) Damages property
3) Doesn't keep the place clean
4) Complains about things that can't be changed (traffic noise, bird noise etc...)
5) Complains about things that were visible at viewing (can we have a separate shower installed)
6) Tries to hold the LL responsible for everything from car damage to burglary

Standard tenant:
1) Pays rent on time
2) Informs LL of issues quickly
3) Keeps place clean
4) Doesn't damage anything or repairs it correctly if they do

Good Tenant:
1) Does stuff to improve the place (LL paying costs)
2) Calls tradesman for issues (LL paying costs)
3) Keeps you informed of issues in the neighbourhood.
4) Repairs minor problems with out complaint (hinge loose, door handle replacement etc...)


There is what I think of the top of my head. People who pay their rent of time seem to like to consider themselves good tenants as opposed to standard tenants. If people want to say good and bad landlord stuff start another thread and keep this on tenants.

Trent Houseboat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People are often coming on here and referring to themselves as good tenants. The seem to refer to minimum standards of a tenant as being good. Just wondering what people think as of a good tenants.

Bad Tenant:
1) Doesn't pay rent on time
2) Damages property
3) Doesn't keep the place clean
4) Complains about things that can't be changed (traffic noise, bird noise etc...)
5) Complains about things that were visible at viewing (can we have a separate shower installed)
6) Tries to hold the LL responsible for everything from car damage to burglary

Standard tenant:
1) Pays rent on time
2) Informs LL of issues quickly
3) Keeps place clean
4) Doesn't damage anything or repairs it correctly if they do

Good Tenant:
1) Does stuff to improve the place (LL paying costs)
2) Calls tradesman for issues (LL paying costs)
3) Keeps you informed of issues in the neighbourhood.
4) Repairs minor problems with out complaint (hinge loose, door handle replacement etc...)


There is what I think of the top of my head. People who pay their rent of time seem to like to consider themselves good tenants as opposed to standard tenants. If people want to say good and bad landlord stuff start another thread and keep this on tenants.

Doesn't a tennant have to contact the landlord before doing either of these things?

Ray Palmer

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Doesn't a tennant have to contact the landlord before doing either of these things?

Yes, didn't think I needed to spell that out considering the LL is agreeing to pay the costs

Trent Houseboat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes, didn't think I needed to spell that out considering the LL is agreeing to pay the costs

Well number two looks as though you're suggesting a tennant paint the walls or have any auld conman look at that broken pipe and demand the landlord pay.

drumswan

A 'good tenant' is one who holds to his obligations when renting. Likewise, a 'good landlord' does the same.

In any business a 'good customer' is one who pays you for agreed services without any messing.

smellslikeshoes

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Standard tenant:
1) Pays rent on time
2) Informs LL of issues quickly
3) Keeps place clean
4) Doesn't damage anything or repairs it correctly if they do

What you have there as standard tenant is actually much closer to a great tenant.

Pawwed Rig

Pretty good analysis Ray. There are probably alot more points that could have been made regarding noise, neighbours, bills etc but I think you got the broad point spot on.

Zulu

I'm a LL & a tenant. I consider myself a "good" tenant because I do more than is expected of me.

That is to say, paying rent on time and in full is expected. Not damaging the property is expected. Maintaining the property is expected.

I've repainted their bathroom (with their permission) with paint I had myself - so no cost to them.
I've put down grass seed improving their lawn (at no cost to them).
And, ultimately, I'm honest with them. (Which I think is something missing from your list!)

Pawwed Rig

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

What you have there as standard tenant is actually much closer to a great tenant.

If you use an employement situation analogy - exactly meeting the terms of your contract is a minimum expectation so you would not be getting highly rated or the big bonus at the year end. Exceeding your basic terms and being proactive on issues will get you the bonus and high rating. A tenant barely meeting terms is a minimum expectation. To describe that as good would be overstating the point.

djimi

Im not sure why there is a need to differentiate between a "standard" tenant and a good tenant; as far as Im concerend there are good tenants and bad tenants - those who abide by their obligations and those that dont.

Your definition of a good tenant seems to be one who never bothers you for anything to do with the property...

wirelessdude01

Would have thought that you list as standard would for most people both tenant and landlord be considered in reality a great tenant.

Ray Palmer

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Would have thought that you list as standard would for most people both tenant and landlord be considered in reality a great tenant.

Why? They are standard agreed things that are a minimum.

The point is if you consider that as great you completely miss what is just plain normal and expected.

The suggestion that somebody must be a good or bad tenant is also concerning. What happened to normal and just meeting your obligations that you agree to on renting?

wirelessdude01

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why? They are standard agreed things that are a minimum.

The point is if you consider that as great you completely miss what is just plain normal and expected.

The suggestion that somebody must be a good or bad tenant is also concerning. What happened to normal and just meeting your obligations that you agree to on renting?

Once the place is kept in a good state and rent paid on time then they are a great tenant. I rent rooms in my house and once they do that they I consider them a good/great tenant. I wouldn't expect anyone for example to cut the lawn, paint their room etc. When I used to be a tenant I wouldn't have liked to be asked to do any of these things either. Usually they are included in the tenancy agreement anyway.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why? They are standard agreed things that are a minimum.

The point is if you consider that as great you completely miss what is just plain normal and expected.

The suggestion that somebody must be a good or bad tenant is also concerning. What happened to normal and just meeting your obligations that you agree to on renting?

Well let me turn it around for a second; do you consider yourself to be a good landlord or a standard one? If you consider yourself to be a good landlord, what do you do for your tenants that would be considered to be above and beyond the legal obligations?

I really dont see the point in differentiating between "standard" and "good"; surely they are the same? As in, would you not consider a tenant who looks after the place, pays their rent on time and gives you no grief to be a good tenant?

Pawwed Rig

I think the thread comes from, and Ray can correct me if I am wrong, the many different threads on here where tenants are stating how lucky a landlord is to have them with the example of always paying rent on time being cited as a positive. The point is that receiving rent on time is a minimum expectation of the contract similar to a landlord providing washing facilities. I never described my landlord as a great landlord for giving me a fridge for example.

Zulu

djimi wrote: »

Well let me turn it around for a second; do you consider yourself to be a good landlord or a standard one? If you consider yourself to be a good landlord, what do you do for your tenants that would be considered to be above and beyond the legal obligations?

They asked me for a microwave, and I got them one. They broke a window and I replaced it without quibble (or deduction from deposit). I let them change the rental period and gave them a "break" from their payments in order to get their finances in order.

I didn't have to do any of that.

Am I great?

Ray Palmer

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Once the place is kept in a good state and rent paid on time then they are a great tenant. I rent rooms in my house and once they do that they I consider them a good/great tenant. I wouldn't expect anyone for example to cut the lawn, paint their room etc. When I used to be a tenant I wouldn't have liked to be asked to do any of these things either. Usually they are included in the tenancy agreement anyway.

Well if that is how you feel. I don't get it as that is a minimum by agreement. I don't class that as good as good in this case refers to better than minimum.

djimi wrote: »

Well let me turn it around for a second; do you consider yourself to be a good landlord or a standard one? If you consider yourself to be a good landlord, what do you do for your tenants that would be considered to be above and beyond the legal obligations?

I really dont see the point in differentiating between "standard" and "good"; surely they are the same? As in, would you not consider a tenant who looks after the place, pays their rent on time and gives you no grief to be a good tenant?

Read the first post, as it was completely predictable somebody would choose to "turn the table". Start another thread if you want to discuss LL.

I explained difference that good is doing something beyond minimum other wise you are just standard IMHO. If you consider doing what the minimum is good than you have low expectations or rate "good" very lowly.

wirelessdude01

So Ray, do you only have great tenants?

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Read the first post, as it was completely predictable somebody would choose to "turn the table". Start another thread if you want to discuss LL.

Its a perfectly valid question Ray, unless you believe that there is one rule for landlords and another for tenants? Again I ask, if you consider yourself to be a "good" landlord, what do you do for your tenants that is above and beyond your legal obligations?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I explained difference that good is doing something beyond minimum other wise you are just standard IMHO. If you consider doing what the minimum is good than you have low expectations or rate "good" very lowly.

I consider good to be the opposite of bad.

What you are referring to is exceptional. If you feel that an exceptional tenant is one who basically never contacts you and sorts out all of their issues on their own then more power to you, but dont try and pretend that a tenant who basically does what is expected of them is anything other than a good tenant.

For what its worth I know what you are getting at, but you have gone about explaining it in an entirely arseways manner.

Ray Palmer

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

So Ray, do you only have great tenants?

I never described great tenants.:P

No I have a mix of the 3. I have one tenant I have to tell to clean the place and now have to visit to inspect she has the place clean every two months

pwurple

I would really describe a good tenant as someone who doesn't do damage and pays the rent on time.

I wouldn't be any happier if tenants went above and beyond. Just don't wreck the place, keep to the contract and I'm perfectly happy to give excellent references.

I've a tenant at the moment who refuses to open windows, never turns on the heating, and has taped up the ventilation system. It's a hairdressing unit, so hot water and steam are on the go all day long. I can see a condensation problem, the walls and ceilings look damp some of the time, which will possibly lead to mould or other issues. She pays the rent on time, and gives no other problems, but I can see this is doing damage so it's a pain in the neck to be honest. No amount of chats or letters is resolving it, so I'm in a bit of a pickle with her now. She says she doesn't want to pay for heating, and she finds the ventilation is drafty. I know times are tough for small businesses, so I don't want to be a monster about it, but I'll be the one she demands a new ceiling from, or complains to if mould starts growing.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Its a perfectly valid question Ray, unless you believe that there is one rule for landlords and another for tenants? Again I ask, if you consider yourself to be a "good" landlord, what do you do for your tenants that is above and beyond your legal obligations?



I consider good to be the opposite of bad.

What you are referring to is exceptional. If you feel that an exceptional tenant is one who basically never contacts you and sorts out all of their issues on their own then more power to you, but dont try and pretend that a tenant who basically does what is expected of them is anything other than a good tenant.

For what its worth I know what you are getting at, but you have gone about explaining it in an entirely arseways manner.

You want to talk about LL feel free to start your own thread. I set the topic on the thread.

You want to argue semantics about good yet freely admit you know what I mean.

Doing the bare minimum does not make you a "good" tenant neither does the absence of doing bad. It is clear what the meaning is here and has now been defined. I doubt you would call a customer a good customer if they didn't steal anything and paid for their goods.

wirelessdude01

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I doubt you would call a customer a good customer if they didn't steal anything and paid for their goods.

Would think any shopkeeper would consider them a 'great' customer!!!. Paid for their goods and didn't take anything extra for 'free'.

syklops

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I have a mix of the 3. I have one tenant I have to tell to clean the place and now have to visit to inspect she has the place clean every two months

Define "Clean the place"

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You want to talk about LL feel free to start your own thread. I set the topic on the thread.

If you want to have double standards then please stop wasting everyones time.

You want to argue semantics about good yet freely admit you know what I mean.

And the whole thing is entirely down to semantics. The opposite of good is bad; I dont see where there is a middle ground. By suggesting that a tenant who pays their rent on time, doenst give grief and looks after the place is somehow not a good tenant then you are suggesting that they are a bad tenant, and quite frankly you are wrong in saying this. They are still a good tenant, just perhaps not as exceptional as you would like them to be.

I doubt you would call a customer a good customer if they didn't steal anything and paid for their goods.

A good customer is one who pays for the good/services they recieve in a timely fashion. I dont expect anything more from them than that, nor would I consider them to be anything other than a good customer just because they "only" pay what they owe on time.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

If you want to have double standards then please stop wasting everyones time.

.

Don't have anything to add on the topic don't post. Want to talk about something else create your own thread. That is not double standards it's ring fencing the topic of the thread. If you feel it is a waste of your time then why are you here? Very easy to avoid wasting your time.

Ray Palmer

syklops wrote: »

Define "Clean the place"

In this case it means making sure she doesn't let her rubbish build up inside and outside. Not to leave damp clothes on the floor or dry them inside. Remember to open a window. Clean the cooker and fridge. Basic hygiene stuff and not the likes of a few cobwebs.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Don't have anything to add on the topic don't post. Want to talk about something else create your own thread. That is not double standards it's ring fencing the topic of the thread. If you feel it is a waste of your time then why are you here? Very easy to avoid wasting your time.

Its not an off topic question; I am simply turning the same criteria back on you and asking if you consider yourself to be a good landlord and why? If you dont feel that you should be judged by the same criteria then that is double standards.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Its not an off topic question; I am simply turning the same criteria back on you and asking if you consider yourself to be a good landlord and why? If you dont feel that you should be judged by the same criteria then that is double standards.

No it's not. You can't understand why not my problem. Want to talk about LL start your own thread. Simples. You got the answer you are going to get

Zulu

@djimi: Its clearly not what the thread is about. If you are so defensive about LL discussing what makes good tenants, then you should really ask yourself: is this the thread for you?

percy212

I call troll. This has to be a joke.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

In this case it means making sure she doesn't let her rubbish build up inside and outside. Not to leave damp clothes on the floor or dry them inside. Remember to open a window. Clean the cooker and fridge. Basic hygiene stuff and not the likes of a few cobwebs.