DAMP - who's issue?

Premier_2

HGLTsuperstar wrote: »

,... is that is it not up to LL to prove there was no damp before I moved in?

No.

People don't usually have records recording levels of dampness to prove no damp exists. People produce records to prove damp exists. If the LL doesn't agree, you need to prove the damp existed when you moved in and that it was the same damp that caused the damage to the ceiling tiles (that's some serious rising damp!) rather than condensation caused by you and your failure to ventilate the property correctly.

HGLTsuperstar

Premier - forget about the blooming ceiling tiles - I never said they were damp-affected just that they were the less-than-ideal polystyrene type - you seem fixated on them!
The rising damp hasn't reached them yet!!!

tbs624

H- what about either of these?

tbs624 wrote: »

Holly - what provisions were there for ventilation in the different parts of the flat -size of windows, extractor fans etc?

Did you air the property when cooking, showering etc ? Did you regularly hang wet washing up indoors?

We *are* trying to help you pull together anything that may help you or point out anything that may hinder you...

Hanniebis

Premier is right. Your LL does not have to prove that the damp wasn't there before you moved in, you have to prove that it WAS there. As a tenant you should obtain an agreement with your landlord about the state of the flat when the tenancy begins. If you have any proof of the damp that was present when your tenancy first began, that might be of some use in persuading your LL not to charge your deposit. Good luck, hope it works out for you.

clutton_2

did you sign an inventory when you moved in ?

tbs624

Hanniebis wrote: »

Premier is right. Your LL does not have to prove that the damp wasn't there before you moved in, you have to prove that it WAS there. As a tenant you should obtain an agreement with your landlord about the state of the flat when the tenancy begins. If you have any proof of the damp that was present when your tenancy first began, that might be of some use in persuading your LL not to charge your deposit. Good luck, hope it works out for you.

Hanniebis-always interesting to hear other people's views and clearly you are entitled to your own thoughts on whether Premier is right.

However, my own view is that you perhaps are misinterpreting the situation around tenancy deposits. The deposit money belongs to the tenant - if a LL wants to deduct from it, then the LL has to be able to justify those deductions: this means saying "the flat has been returned to me in x condition, but I can show that it was in fact in y condition."

Completing an inventory is generally down to the LL/LA, although clearly it is in both parties' interests for one to be completed.I would always suggest, as others do on this board, that any tenant who is not given an inventory by the LL should draw up their own with photos/film (with dated newspaper etc on show). Similarly, my thoughts are that any LL who doesn't bother with inventories is a fool and is leaving him/herself open to be played for one.

Tenants need to do their bit by keeping the property reasonable well aired & heated etc & keeping wet washing etc to a minimum,plus any damp issues should of course be brought to a LLs attention asap really so that s/he can do something about them. However, I think that judges/adjudicators are quite used to seeing situations where a tenant feels that they don't want any form of confrontation or difficulty with a LL/LA so will put up with damp etc that could be down to repair/maintenance issues. It's just not a straightforward area to deal with.

Hanniebis

tbs624 wrote: »

The deposit money belongs to the tenant - if a LL wants to deduct from it, then the LL has to be able to justify those deductions: this means saying "the flat has been returned to me in x condition, but I can show that it was in fact in y condition."

tbs624 wrote: »

any LL who doesn't bother with inventories is a fool and is leaving him/herself open to be played for one.

I apologise if I got some things wrong, and I appreciate that it's not a black and white area. However, I thought that if, for whatever reason, there is no proof available at all (inventory, etc) from either party as to the state of the property before the tenancy began, then the benefit of the doubt will fall on the LL/LA and not the tenant? If this is not the case, then it's quite likely I got that impression from hearing too many bad stories of tenants not knowing their rights and over-assuming a LL/LA's power.

Anyhow, thanks for the head's up.