Me and the GF have toyed with the idea of being landlords at some point. Trouble is I think I'd be crap at it by the sounds of things, I'd only want to rent out a place I could live in, not lavishly but comfortably.

TBH I think that he refuses to pay for the basics, that sets off warning bells for me. The doorbell does not work; No TV aerials. There is a satellite dish but just bare cables in the living room; no curtains or blinds; and they are the sorts of things that cannot easily be transferred to a new address. There are gaps around the doors and windows so large that you can see daylight through them. Yet the place has only recently being refurbished. Obviously to a very low standard. It all adds up to why I am already planning to move.

If you are going to rent, carpets and curtains are what I would think of as basically essentials. Insulation is pretty important but landlords do not even bother. Though I suspect that as long as you make sure that it is habitable then you would probably avoid being declared Britain's worst landlord (see Adidan on Landlords from Hell: Dispatches on channel 4 on Monday at 8pm.)

Renting's a buyer's Market, just make sure the place is right before you move in.

We had a look around, and lived in, some good awful places when we were renting. However, out of the many one sticks out, it was a nice flat in Edinburgh and when we moved out the company dealing with it quickly gave our deposit back with the interest it had accrued while they had hold of it.

On the other end of the spectrum in Edinburgh another, not cheap flat, seemed to consider heating as an optional extra. The then tenant said it was warm, well, in the summer when the sun shone.

I know that's how it's supposed to work but it just goes to show when it's the sole one that sticks out in my memory.

Just starting now.

I wonder if they will do a balance and show evil tenants in the future as well.

Oh I am sure that there are a few of them, and landlords deserve as much protection from them as well, though I suspect that bad tenants are a symptom of a bad landlord. Though if there was enough decent accommodation then this would be less of a problem.

That IMHO is a crock of [LIFTED]. A bad landlord is a bad landlord a bad tenant is a bad tenant.
Its about respect for the property you live in or you want someone else to live in.
Speaking from personal experience, you can be a great landlord and still end up with a tenant from hell. You only find out after the bastard has moved in.
Also from personal experience, you can be a great tenant. Looking after the property, paying the rent and suddenly find yourself being evicted because the bastard didn't pay the sodding mortgage.

Quite so.

Exactly - I have a number of horror stories from my mate who was a landlord about what some tennants used to do to the property

I am not disagreeing with you. I know of one person who was treated badly by a landlord so had a huge party which trashed the place then spent the weekend stripping it of all its copper pipes and fittings. floorboards, carpets tiles locks etc.


I do agree with that. Though in such circumstances why cant the tenant stay and pay the bank or building society rent directly? Or even buy the place if they want? That way the banks still get paid and get a buyer at same time. Maybe tenants should have absolute rights in those cases, such as staying or being able to make an offer, or take over the mortgage.

They are probably renting because they cannot get or do not want a mortgage.

Banks certainly don't want to be landlords in this respect. But if a landlord defaults on the mortgage then I would have no problem if banks were forced to allow tenants to remain for the rest of the contract. There would be knock on effects to buy to let landlords though, quite possibly a good thing.

Yes but if the rent exceeds the mortgage then what is wrong with them taking on a repayment mortgage at that same level?


Yes to the end of the contract, but why not longer? Far too many homes would come on to the market at once and would depress house prices still further, increasing the bank losses.

How about not meeting the other criteria to have a mortgage in the first place. They might be high risk other than financially being able to make repayments. You can't suddenly force the banks to give out mortgages when they've just been blasted for giving them out too easily.

Only if the renter wants to buy and they are creditworthy enough to take on the mortgage. If the tenant is an undischarged bankrupt they could rent until they are in a position to buy. I would not suggest that banks take on un-creditworthy risks.