ex landlord advertising house for rental!

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

No, you're wrong there. And some people need to shift their attitude regarding their tenants and the prospect of people living in rented accommodation long term. It is their home, they may not own it, but it's where they make their home.

No. The tenant may consider it their home, the owner considers it a rented property. If they consider it their home and stop paying rent, your attitude will soon change to "it's my property, if you don't pay the rent, get the f**k out".

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

No. The tenant may consider it their home, the owner considers it a rented property. If they consider it their home and stop paying rent, your attitude will soon change to "it's my property, if you don't pay the rent, get the f**k out".

Actually, yes, I as a landlord had always considered the house as the tenants home, and the tenants always considered the house their home. I have never had to change my attitude as they never stopped paying rent. I had a very secure and mutually respectful & professional relationship with them. Are you a property owner that has had bad tenants?

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

My tenants furnished the whole house and often replaced the furniture too, they also carried out repairs and fixed things. They considered it quiet their home and I considered it quiet their home.

Most LLs would not be happy with that, they would want to maintain control over the property, ensure repairs are carried out to their standards, inspect regularly and insure none the lease is not being broken by hanging painting or removing furniture etc.

You had a lax attitude to your rental which was your choice but it's not how most would want to operate.

At the end of the day nobody renting should have the expectation that the house they currently reside in will be available to them for any more than a few years at the absolute most, they don't own it, they have no claim on it and they simply have to face this fact.

justagirl

Just a question for the OP - did you keep your previous Landlord updated with your contact details? ie. address etc .... if not, and the property has not been sold - they can say they had no way of contacting previous tenants.

Bob24

I find this discussion around whether a rental property is the tenant's home fairly theoretical and not too important in practice.

Whether people call it home or not, fact is that they are living in the property as per a contractual agreement and:
- they legally have some protections in terms of what they are entitled to
- they legally have some obligations towards the landlord
- the property doesn't belong to them and under specific circumstances they can be asked to vacate it at a few weeks notice

If people call "home" a place where you are happy to go back to affect work/college and spend your weekend in, it can be called home. But if people call home a place whereto you envision living for the rest of you life, then this isn't it. But it's just different opinions of what home means and doesn't change the contractual relationship between tenants and landlords.

John_Rambo

Bob24 wrote: »

I find this discussion around whether a rental property is the tenant's home fairly theoretical and not too important in practice.

Whether people call it home or not, fact is that they are living in the property as per a contractual agreement and:
- they legally have some protections in terms of what they are entitled to
- they legally have some obligations towards the landlord
- the property doesn't belong to them and under specific circumstances they can be asked to vacate it at a few weeks notice

If people call "home" a place where you are happy to go back to affect work/college and spend your weekend in, it can be called home. But if people call home a place whereto you envision living for the rest of you life, then this isn't it. But it's just different opinions of what home means and doesn't change the contractual relationship between tenants and landlords.

I found if they considered it a home they looked after it better. That's in everyone's interest.

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

Most LLs would not be happy with that, they would want to maintain control over the property, ensure repairs are carried out to their standards, inspect regularly and insure none the lease is not being broken by hanging painting or removing furniture etc

I know. It’s ridiculous. Inspections about hanging a painting with those little tac hooks you get in IKEA? Worrying about the tenants furniture? Talk about stressing over nothing. I didn’t have the time for that crap.

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

You had a lax attitude to your rental which was your choice but it's not how most would want to operate.

The more they felt it was there home, the better they looked after it.

Fabian Poor Volleyball wrote: »

At the end of the day nobody renting should have the expectation that the house they currently reside in will be available to them for any more than a few years at the absolute most, they don't own it, they have no claim on it and they simply have to face this fact.

That’s your experience renting, as I pointed out, it’s short term for you. You’re interested in stop gap, handy, low cost house shares. Respectfully, you’d wouldn’t be the type of person I rented the property out to. I went for a more mature, family orientated tenant that didn’t need to be inspected, babied or minded.

davo10

John_Rambo wrote: »

I found if they considered it a home they looked after it better. That's in everyone's interest.



I know. It’s ridiculous. Inspections about hanging a painting with those little tac hooks you get in IKEA? Worrying about the tenants furniture? Talk about stressing over nothing. I didn’t have the time for that crap.



The more they felt it was there home, the better they looked after it.



That’s your experience renting, as I pointed out, it’s short term for you. You’re interested in stop gap, handy, low cost house shares. Respectfully, you’d wouldn’t be the type of person I rented the property out to. I went for a more mature, family orientated tenant that didn’t need to be inspected, babied or minded.

Why are you insisting that LLs consider their property as a tenants "home"? It's a building with a mortgage that is rented to a paying tenant. As long as they pay their rent and look after, they have the protection of tenancy law, when they don't, they have to leave (eventually). You cannot make an owner accept that the tenant has an emotional attachment to the property, this is a business transaction and should always remain so.

John_Rambo

davo10 wrote: »

Why are you insisting that LLs consider their property as a tenants "home"? It's a building with a mortgage that is rented to a paying tenant. As long as they pay their rent and look after, they have the protection of tenancy law, when they don't, they have to leave (eventually). You cannot make an owner accept that the tenant has an emotional attachment to the property, this is a business transaction and should always remain so.

Sorry, maybe I gave the wrong impression or you misunderstood me, but I’m not insisting on anything.

I just made some observations that some landlords can’t accept that their property is someone elses home. They use asterisks and inverted comma’s when describing the property as someones home.

(I’ve been though this already if you read through the thread).

I have found, if you let go of the emotional attachment regarding the property and accept it’s a home to someone else things go a lot smoother. Renting it out unfurnished is a huge factor here. I have found the tenants looked after the property when they really felt is was their home.

(I’ve been though this too if you read through the thread).

That’s all!

Seth Brundle

Who gives a feck whether the LL accepts whether the tenant considers it a home?
As long as both sides stick within the law then all should be ok. In the OP's case, it looks like the LL didn't.
Now can people shut up about whether it's a home or not because I (and I suspect others) don't care!

Hesthea

davo10 wrote: »

Why are you insisting that LLs consider their property as a tenants "home"? It's a building with a mortgage that is rented to a paying tenant. As long as they pay their rent and look after, they have the protection of tenancy law, when they don't, they have to leave (eventually). You cannot make an owner accept that the tenant has an emotional attachment to the property, this is a business transaction and should always remain so.

I think you are failing to understand what he is trying to say, or maybe its just me who is simply not getting it.

As a LL he gives his tenants freedom to live in the house and make their own rules about it as long they take good care of it/ respect their neighbors. When someone looks for a place to live they want stability. A place they can consider as their own even though they do know that eventually, if something happens, they will have to leave. But the main point is: as long as they pay for it, it is their home.

I have lived in a place that had all kinds of rules. It was more like living in a school dormitory than anything else. At that time it didn't bother me. As a working single parent i barely have time for myself much less for other people. Meanwhile, i got kicked from the property because the landlord wanted to increase the rent way above the 4%. He was the type of LL that invaded my home without my knowledge or consent. I found out in a not very pleasant way that he was doing it when i arrived home to have my door unlocked and my bathroom trashed (he had gone there to fix something and it seems he was in a bad mood doing it). That was when i realized that all the times the door of the house was unlocked/ open was because he had been there (also got the confirmation of the person who collected the rent). Since that incident my kid never again was able to sleep alone. She is still scared over it. Not to mention, most of the time i had to wait weeks for him to fix anything or send someone to fix it.

The property i am living at the moment, i consider it my home (like the previous one). I live on it, cook, clean, take care of my child and so on. It is mine for as long i can afford it. The moment i can't pay for it its when i will inform my landlord about it and will start looking for something more "affordable" and habitable. I have no complaints about my new LL by the contrary.

When we, tenants, rent a property for us it is our home, for LL a business. We know that. But this is our way of living since we cannot afford buying a house (at least, i know, i will never be able to afford one). The same way there are bad tenants there are bad LL so lets all try to get along well and not be disrespectful of each other by putting everyone inside the same bag.

anodos wrote: »

I lived in a shared house for the last 5 years, with others who have come and gone. The landlord served us notice to leave as they were selling the property. Two months after us moving out the property is back up on daft with a couple of carpets replaced for 1000e a month more (it's in a rent pressure zone). If I go through the RTB is there much that they can/ will do? I have signed a new lease elsewhere so it's not really practical to move back in.

I see they are probably breaking section 34 of 2004 tenancy act.. just unsure will anything be done and if it's worth pursuing. Any ideas? Thanks

After 4y your contract gets automatically renewed and you are protected for another 4y if before that time the landlord didn't give you all a document stating otherwise. He also needed to give you a signed statutory declaration saying they want to sell the property.
He can only put it in the rent market after spending 6 months without success in selling it. After that, he needs to give priority to its previous tenants (in this case you and the others that were living with you), if they are not interested then he can rent it to someone else.