Previous LL reference: "They werent the best, but they werent the worst..."

Zulu

Just got the following reference for some potential tenants:

LL: "Always paid rent on time"
LL: "They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

When I pressed what that means, I was told:
LL: "I want to be honest. Ah they were grand."

ME: Were they dirty?
LL: "No not dirty, just not very tidy"

ME: Did they break anything?
LL: "No"

ME:Would you rent to them again?
LL: "Ah. ...Yeah, I suppose I would".

So, it's not the "glowing" reference you might like, and in fairness, it seems quite honest. But it's not leaving me super enthusiastic, and I'm left a bit puzzled.

There are a number of questions popping into my head now following the phone call, but what do you think? Run a mile, or go ahead?? I only met the wife and she seemed grand.

(I should clarify, the LL was a bit reluctant throughout.)

Silverfish

Zulu wrote: »

Just got the following reference for some potential tenants:

"Always paid rent on time"
"They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

When I pressed what that means, I was told:
"I want to be honest. Ah they were grand."

Were they dirty?
"No not dirty, just not very tidy"

Did they break anything?
"No"

Would you rent to them again?
"Ah. ...Yeah, I suppose I would".

So, it's not the "glowing" reference you might like, and in fairness, it seems quite honest. But it's not leaving me super enthusiastic, and I'm left a bit puzzled.

There are a number of questions popping into my head now following the phone call, but what do you think? Run a mile, or go ahead?? I only met the wife and she seemed grand.

(I should clarify, the LL was a bit reluctant throughout.)

Usually means they requested fixes that the landlord didn’t want to do.

Dav010

Zulu wrote: »

Just got the following reference for some potential tenants:

"Always paid rent on time"
"They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

When I pressed what that means, I was told:
"I want to be honest. Ah they were grand."

Were they dirty?
"No not dirty, just not very tidy"

Did they break anything?
"No"

Would you rent to them again?
"Ah. ...Yeah, I suppose I would".

So, it's not the "glowing" reference you might like, and in fairness, it seems quite honest. But it's not leaving me super enthusiastic, and I'm left a bit puzzled.

There are a number of questions popping into my head now following the phone call, but what do you think? Run a mile, or go ahead?? I only met the wife and she seemed grand.

(I should clarify, the LL was a bit reluctant throughout.)

Chances are the LL had a lot to say, but may not have wanted to for GDPR reasons. If it doubt, wait for a better tenant, don’t look back and think that things just weren’t right when they moved in.

Ray Palmer

Silverfish wrote: »

Usually means they requested fixes that the landlord didn’t want to do.

Once you don't have to justify that in anyway I still guess you have absolutely no way of even been vaguely able to know this.

OP
The landlord is crazy giving any kind of reference like that. The only reference I would ever give is how long they were tenants. They would also be questions that I don't think you should be asking.

Zulu

Ray Palmer wrote: »

OP
The landlord is crazy giving any kind of reference like that. The only reference I would ever give is how long they were tenants. They would also be questions that I don't think you should be asking.

Well thats what the written reference stated.

The above was from the phone conversation, not recorded.
How else is a LL to determine whether to rent or not?

Samuel T. Cogley

Run.

Any answer other than yes to did they pay the rent on time is a massive red flag, and fair play to the guy for even telling you.

Zulu

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Run.

Any answer other than yes to did they pay the rent on time is a massive red flag, and fair play to the guy for even telling you.

Interesting. Why?
Surely, he would have said "no, I wouldn't rent to them again"?

Sorry not meaning to "argue" or labor the point, just interested to know.

Samuel T. Cogley

Zulu wrote: »

Interesting. Why?
Surely, he would have said "no, I wouldn't rent to them again"?

Sorry not meaning to "argue" or labor the point, just interested to know.

If anyone ever asks me if I would "rent to them again"/"employ them again" I'd always say yes. No creates too many questions that could lead me to saying something defamatory. I'd actually probably pause a bit and say "Ah. ...Yeah, I suppose I would".

If you're not running at this point I'd at the very least be looking for proof of on time rental payments such as banks statements.

Ray Palmer

Zulu wrote: »

Well thats what the written reference stated.

The above was from the phone conversation, not recorded.
How else is a LL to determine whether to rent or not?

References are worthless. Due to liability laws you can say nothing. Job references are now this limited and they will not answer questions. Don't ever give a reference like this yourself over the phone. You do not know who you are talking to or if it is being recorded.

Marcusm

Dav010 wrote: »

Chances are the LL had a lot to say, but may not have wanted to for GDPR reasons. If it doubt, wait for a better tenant, don’t look back and think that things just weren’t right when they moved in.

And he is thus just as misinformed as everyone else about GDPR; it’s about how data is processed and stored. Storing in the human brain doesn’t count and the answering of questions from memory at the behest of the tenant is simply outwith the ambit of GDPR.

Lofidelity

Its not unknown for a LL to give a bad tenant a good reference in order to aid their departure and become somebody else's problem.

Gumbo

Silverfish wrote: »

Usually means they requested fixes that the landlord didn’t want to do.

Usually means the tenant was so bad I couldn’t even lie in writing.

Lofidelity

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Did you mean good there?

No. Somebody told me that their tenant had started paying rent late, then in parts and then stopped altogether.

They were told they had to go and LL gave them a good reference and said they would not pursue them for the outstanding rent if they left asap.

Samuel T. Cogley

Lofidelity wrote: »

No. Somebody told me that their tenant had started paying rent late, then in parts and then stopped altogether.

They were told they had to go and LL gave them a good reference and said they would not pursue them for the outstanding rent if they left asap.

Sorry reread what you'd written and deleted my comment. Definitely a case that good references are given to get shot of people.

pwurple

"Always paid rent on time"
"They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."


I'm not clear there on who was saying what.

Does that above mean they answered your question about paying rent on time with "They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

If so, don't touch them with a barge pole.

If the answer to , "Did they pay rent on time" was "Always paid rent on time", and the second line about not being the best or worst is about something else then they are most likely fine, you have a possible odd previous landlord who can't put his finger on what was wrong.

Lofidelity

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry reread what you'd written and deleted my comment. Definitely a case that good references are given to get shot of people.

Yeah, he didnt like doing it but was already down a few grand and paying rent elsewhere so he thought a bit of grease on the wheels would help things progress.

Zulu

pwurple wrote: »

"Always paid rent on time"
"They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."


I'm not clear there on who was saying what.

Does that above mean they answered your question about paying rent on time with "They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

If so, don't touch them with a barge pole.

If the answer to , "Did they pay rent on time" was "Always paid rent on time", and the second line about not being the best or worst is about something else then they are most likely fine, you have a possible odd previous landlord who can't put his finger on what was wrong.

Sorry for confusion. It's the later. No objections to rent being paid, but something else they weren't explicitly calling out. Which I'm reading as either "they werent perfect" or "they were a f'in disaster", and I can't gauge which...

Silverfish

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Once you don't have to justify that in anyway I still guess you have absolutely no way of even been vaguely able to know this.

OP
The landlord is crazy giving any kind of reference like that. The only reference I would ever give is how long they were tenants. They would also be questions that I don't think you should be asking.

Well, they were clean. They paid rent. They didn't break anything.
By process of elimination, the only other reason for interaction with the landlord would be contact in relation to items requiring the landlord's response or input, e.g items in need of repair. So I would deduce that they were asking him to repair or replace things that he didn't feel like repairing or replacing.

Zulu

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, they were clean. They paid rent. They didn't break anything.
By process of elimination, the only other reason for interaction with the landlord would be contact in relation to items requiring the landlord's response or input, e.g items in need of repair. So I would deduce that they were asking him to repair or replace things that he didn't feel like repairing or replacing.

Humm, you sure you aren't taking his words to literally? The concern is that he's saying what he needs to say to protect himself, but in a way that introduces doubt; its exactly what he isn't saying...

Dav010

Zulu wrote: »

Humm, you sure you aren't taking his words to literally? The concern is that he's saying what he needs to say to protect himself, but in a way that introduces doubt; its exactly what he isn't saying...

Go with your gut instinct, personally I think there was enough in the previous LLs lack of enthusiasm for the tenant to put me off. Why take the risk?

davindub

Op some people I've dealt with are negative about everything, I think from this person "grand" is probably as good as he can manage.

pc7

If you have other options to let too take them, do not take a chance. Was he their last landlord (is he trying to get them out), really don't even risk it if you have someone else to look at.

Ray Palmer

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, they were clean. They paid rent. They didn't break anything.
By process of elimination, the only other reason for interaction with the landlord would be contact in relation to items requiring the landlord's response or input, e.g items in need of repair. So I would deduce that they were asking him to repair or replace things that he didn't feel like repairing or replacing.

What a bizzar read of what he said.
1) he didn't say they were clean.
2) they obviously didn't pay rent on time all the time as he said they weren't the worst. That means they didn't pay on time.
3) they didn't break anything

Some leap to say that they want something repaired the landlord didn't want to repair.

Obvious they didn't as tenants meet the basic requirements of tenants but you want to make it out like the landlord is in the wrong with absolutely no information.

Zulu

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...
2) they obviously didn't pay rent on time all the time as he said they weren't the worst. That means they didn't pay on time.
....

For clarity, he said they paid on time. (and ultimately said he would rent to them again)

maurice1

Its a lot cheaper to leave a place vacant than to have to deal with a bad tenant / RTB.

Ray Palmer

Zulu wrote: »

For clarity, he said they paid on time. (and ultimately said he would rent to them again)

That is not what you said in the OP

Zulu

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is not what you said in the OP

Apologies, I've updated quotes to clarify.

Fol20

Due to defamation etc most ll only provide generic references. Likewise as other have pointed out, if he is their current ll, some will provide glowing references to get rid of them.

The best reference is not the current ll but the one before as he is more likely to provide an honest opinion once the tenant is out. When I mean honest, the feedback this ll has received is as much of a negative review you can get. It’s everything he isn’t saying that is clear this tenant is not perfect - run a mile and be glad you dodged a bullet.

endofrainbow

A reference is more about what it doesn't say than what it does.

Silverfish

Zulu wrote: »

Humm, you sure you aren't taking his words to literally? The concern is that he's saying what he needs to say to protect himself, but in a way that introduces doubt; its exactly what he isn't saying...

I don’t know the man or the tenants, just going on experience & what you wrote - either way it’s enough to put me off them. Anything less than glowing references would make me avoid them.

the_syco

Zulu wrote: »

LL: "Always paid rent on time"
LL: "They weren't the best, but they weren't the worst..."

With a yes or no questions, anything but a yes is a no. So I'd see this as a no.

Zulu wrote: »

ME:Would you rent to them again?
LL: "Ah. ...Yeah, I suppose I would".

The pause usually means "fcuk no".
It's like the "would you rehire this person", and the person says "ah..................................................................yes", as opposed to just "yes". It's not a bad reference, but it's not a good one either.