Afternoon, honourable members! I have a dilemma and was wondering if you could share your views on this. I am due to be posted abroad in the near future and having thought long and hard, decided to rent my property here rather than sell. Most of my belongings are going into storage, but I am not quite sure whether to leave any furniture and white goods in the property for tenants to use. I understand that rent is higher for furnished properties, but my agents advised me against it. I, myself, am not sure as if I was a tenant, I would at least prefer to have such commodities as cooker and wachine machine. What do you think? And as always, many thanks in advance...

Think it depends on the individual circumstances and what kind of tenants you are aiming for. For example, if you are targeting young professionals or workers who'd relocated into the area, they would probably need all in place and will be prepared to pay higher rent. Disadvantages are that if there's a fridge in the property and it breaks, it's landlords responsibility to repair or replace it as it was part of the property. Choice is yours and hope you'd find right tenants!

I would say the answer to the question "to furnish or not to furnish" lies in time period you are planning to let the property. i believe that if the tenant is renting a house or a flat for a long period, he or she or maybe they would like to have their own things surrounding them, whereas those who are renting for a couple of months might find it problematic to buy new sofas and armchairs .
but anyways, having a fridge and a stove installed by the landlord is always a great plus!

You also need to bear in mind that the furniture and furnishings for that matter (if made after 1950) must meet certain fire resistance regulations. As far as white good are concerned, it may be worth to consider insuring these or inserting a clause in the agreement that these will not be replaced upon their breakdown (unless of course you are prepared to replace these).

Mary Poppins, on the contrary, I would suggest having a clause in the agreement, which says that furniture and other landlord's property Has To Be Replaced Upon Breakdown. However, it should be the tenant, not the landlord, who will be in responsible for replacement

I can see both of your points, Mary Poppins and P.B.Smith. If it's tenants fault, then yes, they should be responsible for replacing damaged furniture. But what if there is an electrical fault with the white goods or general wear and tear, why should tenants be replacing these?

imaster, the landlord should include contents insurance option into his insurance policy, which generally covers damage from such perils as fire, flood, explosion, etc. however, i'm not sure it will cover the damage caused by tenant's negligence.

dont think the house insurance will cover against wear and tear or if the actual appliance is faulty and packs in. and believe that if the item is there when tenants move in, they would expect it to be replaced if it breaks through no fault of their own.

If anyone is looking for a source of cheap but good furniture - have a look at The Chair Company - www.thechair.co.uk - they have a great range of very affordable furniture - all very well made and good for the buy to let market. Or any other market for that matter! Apologies for the plug, but really think they provide great stuff! Great for that chic and modern look!

Just checked the site, the name speaks for itself: its just tables and chairs! I should av been clearer when writing the above post. When i faced the dilemma whether to let my apartment furnished, i had white goods and beds in mind rather than tables and chairs. Anyway, in the end I did leave some furniture at tenants request.

I am agree you.