Wilsons in court again

JanCee

For Goodness sake - just put a wooden one on you stupid people (tenants and Wilsons). People who let this kind of petty argument go to court are the ones who should be strung up it is a complete waste of time and money.

Graham_Devon

JanCee wrote: »

For Goodness sake - just put a wooden one on you stupid people (tenants and Wilsons). People who let this kind of petty argument go to court are the ones who should be strung up it is a complete waste of time and money.

Surely it's blindingly obvious it's part of renting stuff out.

This is like a van rental place wanting a whole new body for the van everytime it gets a scratch. It's very simply part of renting out things to make a profit.

The Wilsons are just the absolute epitome of greed, wanting all the money, but none of the everyday problems that arise from their type of business.

Zandoni

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Actually, after reading the article, it seems that the tenants and their parents have tried to find a matching lid and the Wilsons have also tried their best to find one too. The article states that the range has been 'discontinued', which suggests that it's a relatively new installation (if it was 50 years old, they wouldn't have needed to mention that it had been discontinued), so it does make me think that the Wilsons have a decent case.

Why should they put up with having a mismatched bathroom set, it certainly wasn't the Wilson's fault that the tenants broke the lid. £3k is probably quite reasonable to have a bathroom removed and a new one refitted - and we're not talking top of the range suite here either.

If I rented out a property, I wouldn't want it to deteriorate over time with mismatched fixtures and fittings. Wear and tear is one thing, but damage is another. Had the couple found a replacement lid then the Wilsons would have happily let them simply replace that.

Always one.

This bathroom suite is a old coloured type that has been discontinued and is completely out of fashion. If they win the case they will just pocket the money. The couple should not have to pay to improve the Landlords property. If the Wilsons feel the need to replace the suite then the couple should perhaps contribute 25% of a fair price which would be far less than the asked £3000.00. If you want to rent property you have to accept that things like this happen.

Interesting to note that they claimed 2 months later wonder if the couple got their deposit back.

dfh

If the Wilsons want to replace the entire suite,the tenant should pay for the lid.They can pay for the rest.

avantra

This country, I tell you sometime I wonder where have we gone wrong. Isn't it time that tenants will be able to vet a landlord ? after all if he/she is a crook/greedy Bas**r/unreasonable etc' this info will be in the public domain.

A counteract for the vetting EA do to tenants. The inevitable question is: how do they do it on the continent?

Lotus-eater

JanCee wrote: »

For Goodness sake - just put a wooden one on you stupid people (tenants and Wilsons). People who let this kind of petty argument go to court are the ones who should be strung up it is a complete waste of time and money.

I absolutely agree, but if you are the tenant and you think the LL is in the wrong, what else can happen? It's the LL that's taking the tenant to court, they just have to go along with it.

delain

Correct me if i'm wrong, but are they going to use the £3k they want to get one made in a shade of peach?!

!!!!!!. who wants a peach bathroom anyway?

Harry_Powell

Zandoni wrote: »

Always one.

This bathroom suite is a old coloured type that has been discontinued and is completely out of fashion. If they win the case they will just pocket the money. The couple should not have to pay to improve the Landlords property. If the Wilsons feel the need to replace the suite then the couple should perhaps contribute 25% of a fair price which would be far less than the asked £3000.00. If you want to rent property you have to accept that things like this happen.

Interesting to note that they claimed 2 months later wonder if the couple got their deposit back.

Where on earth does it say this anywhere?

"Oh, he's making it up as he goes along" :eek:

Rick62

Surely accidental damage should be covered by the landlords insurance anyway? Both Towergate and Legal & General (two leading BTL insurers) automatically cover accidental damage to sanitoryware.

So either the wilsons are trying to claim twice or they haven't got appropriate insurance.

andygb

Where on earth do they get a figure of £3000 from? We are not talking "penthouse suites" with this pair of rogues, they just supply very basic property to maximise their rents, and then wring the necks of the tenants for everything.