Advise on damage caused by tenants

tbs624

envelopes wrote: »

I have every right as a landlord to ask my tenants to clean the said property so that it remains to the same level of cleanliness as it was when it was first occupied by said tenant - if my contract stipulates proffesional carpet cleaning then that is waht is needed IF the carpet is in need of cleaning - if it ain't, i don't expect it

Yes, a tenant must return a property in the same condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, FW&T excepted -however, you can put what you like in a contract but that doesn't mean that the clause will necessarily stand if the matter is pursued to court or adjudication. You can only ask for cleaning to be carried out to a professional standard if the same level of cleaning had been done prior to start of the tenancy, and you have evidence of that. It may be held by the courts to be an unfair contract term if you do not allow the tenant to clean the property to that standard themselves - I have to say that many of the firms that describe themselves as "professional cleaners" seem to have lower standards than the average person who does their own household cleaning.

envelopes wrote: »

.....now, if i was talking about the cleaning of windows, well as long as they are washed then i don't make it a rule that it has to be done by a window cleaner

That's good, because you can't stipulate that and expect it to stand.

envelopes wrote: »

but where a carpet in a property may cosy in excess of £1000 and be a good quality wool carpet then i want it cleaning by an expert and not a DIY vax leaving me with a carpet that no longer fits.

You could ask for it to be cleaned with due care, & perhaps leave leaflets about which type of machine/cleaning method prevents shrinkage. And of course if the tenants did clean it in a manner that caused it to shrink it could be argued that they'd be liable for the damage.

envelopes wrote: »

LOts of things to take into consideration.

Yes, there are and that includes not trying to impose poorly worded contracts on your tenants. However, It is distressing when a tenant trashes a property, and in those cases the tenant should clearly pay to put matters right, and if a LL agrees to the tenant having pets this does not mean that the LL has to expect to pick up the bill for cleaning up carp or repairing replacing scatched or pet-urine stained carperts or furniture. Many LL ask for an additional deposit before agreeing to pets to cover this issue.

Northants_Simon

I have never seen a carpet look good after 20 years. For a start they look dated.

This is from a tenants point of view. Our landlord fitted the cheapest carpet in one of the rooms of our house. After just a couple of years it started falling apart where the door opens into the room. This is the landlords fault for not fitting a good carpet and secondly not taking a bit off the bottom of the door to stop it rubbing on the carpet. When tenants get blaimed for this sort of thing they become annoyed.

The carpet in our bedroom was old when we moved in 10 years ago, and is now looking well past it's best. Instead of changing it the rental agency moaned at us about the state of what must be a 15 year old carpet.

4 years ago the landlord agreed to put a new carpet in the lounge (the old one dated back to the 1970's). Once again the cheapest carpet was chosen, so we paid the extra for a better carpet. However the landlord wouldn't pay for underlay or anything else. The old carpet had dark coloured patches caused by damp coming through the floor (which is wood). The new carpet was put down directly over the wood floor and now has dark patches of damp/mould coming through. Once again the rental agent blaimed us for this on an inspection.

So now the landlord will loose good tenants who have lived in his house for 10 years. During that time we have personally paid towards or in full for cavity wall insulation, carptes, kitchen worksurfaces, laminate floor.

If you have good tenants, look after them.

SABJ

i think they should have to pay to leave it the way they found it, so what if the carpet is 10 they must of been happy with it when they moved in doesnt matter how old or shabby it is doesnt mean they can make it worse,i wouldnt be happy if some one had a house off me and because it was old left it looking shabby
i would make them repair or clean it or what ever needs done, if they agreed when they moved in to clean the place when they leave thats what they should have to do


btw- im not a landlord or tenant just a nebby reader of mse heehee

LittleMissAspie

envelopes wrote: »

You misquoted thats highly immoral, unjust, unfair and libellous, abusive and offensive.

Bit over-sensitive aren't you.

Btw, stop saying that your rental properties are your home, they're not.

rs82uk

And this is why landlords are held in such low regard.

Scumbag Landlord says to his/her partner:
"I say dear we have had the carpet in our rental property for 10 years, lets replace it with that lovely laminate stuff we see on the telly."
Scumbag landlord's partner says in response:
"Wont that be awfully expensive?"
Scumbag Landlord says to his/her partner:
"Don't worry dear we will steal our tenant's deposit claim the carpet was brand new when they moved in and use that to fund our lovely new laminate"

tbs624

rsootarsing wrote: »

And this is why landlords are held in such low regard.

Yawn .....all LLs?

Do *try* not to generalise.

Not *all* LLs behave poorly towards their tenants , any more than *all* tenants are "scumbags" who don't pay rent, trash houses, & run off with the LLs furniture leaving unpaid bills behind.

There are plenty of decent LLs and plenty of decent tenants, none of whom would dream of trying to "stitch up" the other party.

mlz1413

Northants_Simon wrote: »

I have never seen a carpet look good after 20 years. For a start they look dated

When I bought my first home in 1991 it had a very good quality carpet downstairs that was about 8yo, I didn't replace it for over 10 years as a good clean brought it up very well and being plain beige it didn't look dated. Whilst I do understand that carpets can looked dated, it shouldn't be a sweeping statement just because of the age.

I do also agree that cheap carpets are not a good investment and that LL's should not charge for betterment. I do understand why they are put in, but again the LL should know that its a short term measure.

To OP Lynne if cats have ruined a carpet then that issue needs putting in writing, but if the tenants are staying then it doesn't need replacing now.

real1314

guppy wrote: »

From reading this, it is apparent that you've never made an insurance claim on an old car!

The insurance company say, well, your car (or carpet) is 10 years old...its got very little value, it will cost loads to fix, and simply give you the market value of the car.

The fact the value is far greater to you, is sadly irrelevant.

The same goes for the OP's carpet. As neverdespairgirl made clear, you can't claim for more than the value of what you have lost.

You think they'll give £250 rather than pay a £150 repair ona 3rd party claim? Erm, I think you've never made a claim in the circumstances described. Although NVDSG says it has no value, that's wrong. it's still would have existed as a crapet and the OP might have deferred installing laminate had the tenant not damaged it:-
"we would have been looking to replace it at some point anyway."

Much like the car that would have been replaced at some point, and if the insurance scrap it, it would have to be replaced, so it's just sooner rather than later just like the carpet. Seems you're backing up my view, or do you think the insurance/other driver should pay nowt because I'd be replacing soon anyway?

neverdespairgirl

real1314 wrote: »

Although NVDSG says it has no value, that's wrong. it's still would have existed as a crapet and the OP might have deferred installing laminate had the tenant not damaged it:-

I didn't quite say no value, I said "A 10 year old carpet in a BTL is pretty much worthless, I'd have thought.".

I stand by that. How much would you pay for a 10 year old carpet? What is its second-hand value?

If you are doing the tax thing of depreciating at 10% a year, that's a good guide.

guppy

real1314 wrote: »

You think they'll give £250 rather than pay a £150 repair ona 3rd party claim? Erm, I think you've never made a claim in the circumstances described. Although NVDSG says it has no value, that's wrong. it's still would have existed as a crapet and the OP might have deferred installing laminate had the tenant not damaged it:-
"we would have been looking to replace it at some point anyway."

Much like the car that would have been replaced at some point, and if the insurance scrap it, it would have to be replaced, so it's just sooner rather than later just like the carpet. Seems you're backing up my view, or do you think the insurance/other driver should pay nowt because I'd be replacing soon anyway?

I just think you'd have trouble getting any sort of accident damage repaired for £150 Some people's excess is higher than that.

I think the insurance should pay repair or market value of the car, as you say I don't think the negligent driver should buy the other person a brand new car.

In the case of the carpet, it also sounds like it has passed its useful life. It may still have value to a LL who doesn't want to spend anything replacing it, but it doesn't have any value, and probably didn't before the tenant moved in.