Bingo! The "sure it's tax deductable" line really irks. That means you pay less tax, but also have lower profit.It doesn't mean they don't cost anything.
It's incredible how many people do not understand this.Bingo! The "sure it's tax deductable" line really irks. That means you pay less tax, but also have lower profit.
You have to provide appliances per minimum standards list.own washing machine,
You might want to have a read of the regs lest you end up having to crate a thread here in a few years bemoaning your tenant taking you to the RTB for fairly straight-forward grievances.Way to go for small landlords.
Leaving out the minimum requirements on white goods and of course, the non-ubquitous microwave, this is something I am considering. Under RPZ, I am not aware of any stipulation that a property must be relet at both same rent and same condition/terms (furnished) to a new tenant.As soon as our current tenant moves out we will only rent on the basis of non furnished apartment.
There is no stipulation that would allow an alteration of contents to allow you bypass the increase limit,Under RPZ, I am not aware of any stipulation that a property must be relet at both same rent and same condition/terms (furnished) to a new tenant.
When a tenant leaves however, I believe you could remove furniture & relet at the same rate but unfurnished (ex appliances per regs).alteration of contents to allow you bypass the increase limit,
And increase rent beyond the RPZ limits?When a tenant leaves however, I believe you could remove furniture & relet at the same rate but unfurnished (ex appliances per regs).
I didn't see anyone suggest that they would do that; and neither did I.increase rent beyond the RPZ limits
That's rather cryptic. I never said anything about increasing the rent. Quote:no stipulation that would allow an alteration of contents to allow you bypass the increase limit,
must be relet at both same rent and
@DannyBoyD did not suggest it eitherAnd increase rent beyond the RPZ limits?
Yeah, I misread it.That's rather cryptic. I never said anything about increasing the rent.
There is no obligation outside of that in the minimum standards regs. In a landlord's market it makes financial not to invest in furniture or fittings beyond the legal minimum, you will be limiting the pool of potential tenants, but so long as you can find some who are happy to supply their own and who you are are happy with then you're on a winner.I do not get why I or another property owner should have to let furnished or be legally obliged to continue letting furnished.
In better supplied markets that's the trend alright, fully furnished attract considerable more rent, I'd imagine unfurnished properties here are attracting pretty similar rents to fully furnished right now though.An unfurnished let substantially below current market rents for a similar property is a significant opportunity for a tenant, especialy if they are saving for a home of their own. The savings on rent will buy a lot of furniture in ikea that they will own for their new home, and the low rent helps them achieve their goal.