Landlord-tenant relationships centre on rent, repairs, renewals, property personalisation, alterations, and pet policies, shaping diverse experiences and expectations.
Motivations: Most landlords started with personal circumstances—inheritance, savings, or wanting to help family. A few were driven by social values, aiming to house people in need.
Find out more
Security of Tenure: Tenants’ security of tenure varies; trust, pragmatism, and stability aid wellbeing, while landlord changes, Section 21 notices, and precarity fuel anxiety.
Find out more
Relationships: Tenant–landlord relationships vary widely, influencing security, repairs, and wellbeing; issues include power imbalance, agent responsiveness, discrimination, and community support networks.
Find out more
Energy Efficiency and Residential Management on a Farming Estate
This case study explores the operations of a farming estate in Suffolk that is a large residential landlord with a large number of properties. Over time, the estate has evolved from a traditional model, with housing provided as part of agricultural employment, to a more commercially driven approach.
Landlord-tenant relationships revolve primarily around rent, repairs and maintenance, and renewal or termination of the lease, along with questions about tenants personalising the property, making alterations, and whether they can have a pet. These relationships unfold in several diverse ways.
Most landlords favour proactive and speedy approaches to repairs and maintenance, with many encountering no substantial problems. Properties were often refurbished after they were bought or when tenants left – new kitchens or bathrooms, for example, as well as decoration. Ahead of formal government announcements, two landlords had brought their properties up to EPC C-rating. Another had invested in preventative insulation after identifying structural issues that were causing damp and mould.
Most allowed tenants to decorate, usually with caveats about colours, and some allowed them to make their own improvements, occasionally jointly funding major items like new kitchens or bathrooms. Most had good relationships with contractors and tradespeople, though some struggled and others noticed costs increasing. One landlord with flats was frustrated by the freeholder not maintaining the block and communal areas despite high service charges.
Few landlords had experienced tenants needing physical aids and adaptations to live comfortably and safely in the property. One older tenant’s family had fitted a stairlift and the landlord was open to considering further adaptations.
Landlords described many tenants as reliable and responsible, paying rent on time and taking care of the property, the trust built up often resulting in long-term tenancies. Several landlords used variations on the phrase, ‘it is my property, but their home’.
Good relationships and communication resolved issues without having to take formal action.
While some tenants were friends and relatives, one landlord said they treated one of their tenants as if he were their son. Others kept relationships supportive but professional, helping resolve financial difficulties but not wanting to become a ‘substitute father’. Some provide additional support to tenants, especially those housing people who had been through difficult circumstances. This ranged from information about services available in the local area to helping a tenant flee domestic violence by offering another property from their own portfolio. Most had given time for tenants to repay rent if they experienced short term financial difficulties.
Some kept a ‘regular check’ through inspections, while others wanted tenants to have free reign in their homes. One ‘turned a blind eye’ occasionally, including when a tenant had made unauthorised alterations but otherwise maintained the property well. Most allowed pets, either on a case-by-case basis with additional deposits or insurance, or reluctantly. One landlord was happy to have dogs but not cats, another thought having a pet helped tenants to feel at home, meaning they were likely to stay longer. Only a few of the landlords we spoke to maintained a ‘no pets’ rule.
Though one landlord had ‘never had a bad tenant’, most had at least one poor experience. Tenants had left without notice, owing large sums of money, and landlords found their properties had been ‘trashed’ after regaining possession. Some lost tens of thousands of pounds due to rent arrears and property damage.
One landlord negotiated extensively with a tenant’s representative to ensure improvement and avoid eviction. Routine inspections found blockages due to food and oil put down the sink, flooding from the bathroom causing damage to the boiler, broken plug sockets, the cooker hob encrusted with food, and filthy carpets. None of the repairs had been reported.
Damp and mould problems were usually attributed to tenants not heating and ventilating the property and drying clothes on radiators. One landlord felt compelled to take eviction action due to concerns about the impact of mould on a tenant’s health. Their plumber alerted them by refusing to work in the property. The government and the housing ombudsman have challenged assumptions that damp and mould are caused by tenants’ ‘lifestyles’[1]. Landlords often feel differently.
Several landlords thought tenants often lacked ‘basic skills’ and ‘common sense’, asking for lightbulbs to be changed, or heating to be fixed without checking thermostats. They lack the pride in home that owner-occupiers have, and some thought tenants could be irresponsible – not cooperating with gas safety checks or not paying rent due to addiction issues. One had tenants smoking cannabis while their plumber worked in the property, and in front of their own children. Damage was caused by pets or by children, and a few landlords said tenants often wanted gardens but did not maintain them.
For HMO landlords, close living arrangements could intensify problems. Some letting properties to people classed as vulnerable experienced issues of ‘chaotic’ behaviour and serious criminal activity. One said that letting one ‘bad apple’ into an HMO can spoil a household and while they operated as a socially responsible landlord, their caring nature was taken advantage of.
Tenants had allowed others to move in, causing overcrowding and turning properties into ‘unauthorised HMOs’. Others passed properties to unauthorised occupants, failed to return keys and, in one instance, took the landlord’s washing machine. Two landlords had tenants trying to improve their position on council waiting lists, either exaggerating problems with the condition of the property or asking for an eviction notice to be served. In neither case were the tenants rehoused by the council.
Experience led some landlords to change the profile of their tenants – letting HMOs to professionals, for example. One landlord stopped letting to local college students because properties were being over-occupied and left in poor condition. Another said they now preferred letting to divorced men as they make the most reliable tenants.
Several landlords had served section 21 notices for ‘no fault’ evictions – before selling a property, enabling a family member to move back in, and ending the tenancy of a family friend paying considerably below market rent. They had also served section 21s for tenancy breaches, including rent arrears, property damage, and criminal activity. Some were aware of landlords serving the section 8 notices intended for breaches of tenancy and experiencing excessive waits for court hearings, with further delays when tenants put in a defence, or because property records were not fully up to date.
Landlords expressed frustration at the advice and encouragement given to tenants, particularly by councils, that tenants should remain in the property after a section 21 notice expires or risk being considered intentionally homeless. Landlords must then apply for a court order and often a warrant of eviction, extending the repossession process and increasing rental loss.
A few had used section 8 notices, one successfully representing themselves in a rent arrears hearing, while others halted action when tenants left or reduced arrears. Others had used the abandonment procedure after learning tenants had left without notice, frustrated at not having the right to enter their own unoccupied property and incurring further monetary loss. One landlord tried to recoup unpaid rent through the small claims court and though the application succeeded, little money has so far been recovered.
Landlords have adapted to changes in the way deposits tenants pay when they move in are managed, shifting from informal practices to a government scheme designed to give tenants more protection. Several landlords thought the way they handled things previously was simpler and based on mutual trust .
Many landlords preferred not to withhold deposits, accepting small amounts of damage as fair wear and tear and undertaking cleaning as a business cost. The level of damage occasionally made it necessary, though sometimes the cost of the refurbishment far outweighed the level of the deposit.
Some landlords had been contacted by council environmental health teams after tenants made complaints, or else complaints were made about their tenants. One landlord carried out extensive repairs to remedy a mould problem they insisted was due to the tenant not ventilating the property. Another was contacted about outstanding heating repairs that had not previously been reported. Others supported tenants to resolve rubbish accumulating outside the property and a rat infestation, while one was spoken to about dog mess in the garden, which they thought was the tenant’s responsibility rather than theirs. A couple of landlords thought the council ought to take more responsibility for tenants who were paid housing benefit by the council, believing them to be, in practice, council tenants.
Safe Suffolk Renters’ clear advice and guidance helps landlords let and manage properties with confidence.
Our research collected more detailed information on key themes which are illustrated with case studies.
Most landlords started with personal circumstances—inheritance, savings, or wanting to help family. A few were driven by social values, aiming to house people in need.
Tenants’ security of tenure varies; trust, pragmatism, and stability aid wellbeing, while landlord changes, Section 21 notices, and precarity fuel anxiety.
Tenant–landlord relationships vary widely, influencing security, repairs, and wellbeing; issues include power imbalance, agent responsiveness, discrimination, and community support networks.
[1] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, UK Health Security Agency, and Department of Health and Social Care. Understanding and Addressing the Health Risks of Damp and Mould in the Home. GOV.UK. Last updated August 15, 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/damp-and-mould-understanding-and-addressing-the-health-risks-for-rented-housing-providers/understanding-and-addressing-the-health-risks-of-damp-and-mould-in-the-home–2.
Housing Ombudsman. Spotlight on Damp and Mould – It’s Not Lifestyle. Published October 2021. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-reports/spotlight-on-damp-and-mould/.
