Wilsons in court again

shakerbaby

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MISTY-PEACH-LOW-LEVEL-PLASTIC-TOILET-CISTERN-CCD42MP_W0QQitemZ220391262974QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_DIY_Materials_Plumbing_MJ?hash=item335057cafe&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Sorted. :T

Harry_Powell

leveller2911 wrote: »

Like to think im an easy going chap, balanced views ,but If someone has a buy to let then any sensible person would factor in the need for maintenance etc within the rent they charge.

So ,yes I think Harrys having a giraffe.....:D or he's hit the sauce bottle.

Neither, I just agree that if tenants cause damage then they should pay for it. If the couple could have replaced it with a new lid that matched then I'm sure everything would have been OK, they couldn't and so the landlord is left with an ill matching bathroom.

This isn't normal 'wear and tear', the tenants admit they smashed it (and if I recall correctly, they didn't report it to the LL either, they left hoping it wouldn't be discovered) and so they should make good the breakage. Putting a white lid on a peach suite just doesnt cut it.

Why should the LL have to claim on his insurance when the tenant has clearly caused the damage, has admitted to said damage?

I think a lot of people on here are influenced by a hatred of the Wilsons in particular and a hatred of BTL landlords in general. I have no animosity towards either, so can step back and think how I would feel if my bathroom was damaged by a tenant, who then left hoping I didn't see it and then tried to fob me off with an ill-fitting and ill-matched replacement that was detrimental to the look of my bathroom. I doubt very much that you'd all be so forgiving if it were your bathroom either.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Neither, I just agree that if tenants cause damage then they should pay for it. If the couple could have replaced it with a new lid that matched then I'm sure everything would have been OK, they couldn't and so the landlord is left with an ill matching bathroom.

This isn't normal 'wear and tear', the tenants admit they smashed it (and if I recall correctly, they didn't report it to the LL either, they left hoping it wouldn't be discovered) and so they should make good the breakage. Putting a white lid on a peach suite just doesnt cut it.

Why should the LL have to claim on his insurance when the tenant has clearly caused the damage, has admitted to said damage?

I think a lot of people on here are influenced by a hatred of the Wilsons in particular and a hatred of BTL landlords in general. I have no animosity towards either, so can step back and think how I would feel if my bathroom was damaged by a tenant, who then left hoping I didn't see it and then tried to fob me off with an ill-fitting and ill-matched replacement that was detrimental to the look of my bathroom. I doubt very much that you'd all be so forgiving if it were your bathroom either.

Harry.

You replace like with like, just like an insurance company would. If it's not like with like, it's the closest match.

When you accidentally break your TV and ring up the insurance company, do you get a whole new lounge? No.

So I fail to see why you seem to think the wilsons should get a whole new bathroom out of the tennants simply because of a stupid cistern lid.

If a part goes on my car when it's under warranty, can I demand a whole new car?

If you can make a comparison to any other walk of life where you would get an entire refit because of one broken part that effects us all day to day, then please do put it forward.

leveller2911

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Neither, I just agree that if tenants cause damage then they should pay for it. If the couple could have replaced it with a new lid that matched then I'm sure everything would have been OK, they couldn't and so the landlord is left with an ill matching bathroom.

This isn't normal 'wear and tear', the tenants admit they smashed it (and if I recall correctly, they didn't report it to the LL either, they left hoping it wouldn't be discovered) and so they should make good the breakage. Putting a white lid on a peach suite just doesnt cut it.

Why should the LL have to claim on his insurance when the tenant has clearly caused the damage, has admitted to said damage?

I think a lot of people on here are influenced by a hatred of the Wilsons in particular and a hatred of BTL landlords in general. I have no animosity towards either, so can step back and think how I would feel if my bathroom was damaged by a tenant, who then left hoping I didn't see it and then tried to fob me off with an ill-fitting and ill-matched replacement that was detrimental to the look of my bathroom. I doubt very much that you'd all be so forgiving if it were your bathroom either.

Harry the Wilsons are in business, its a comercial venture, If I owned a decorators merchants and a customer walked in and accidently knocked over a display of Fluorescent paint on the carpet, Yes I would expect them to pay for the spilled paint but NOT new carpets.Im afraid the Wilsons know very well that accidents happen ,they are letting the property,there will be wear and tear etc, you can't treat a property that you rent out like your primary home,it just isn't like that.

As for how the Wilsons are treated on here ,well I can only say what my views are, I live within 20 miles and also know people who have tried to buy their 1st homes in the area and been priced out by the wilsons buying 40 homes at a time for less money than my friends were offering , yes it does p1ss FTB 'ers off. The Wilsons use tactics like TELLING the building companies how much they will pay for 40 houses and if they dont get their discount per unit and sell them to them then the deal is off.............They ARE class A sh1tbags .....
Finally the rental return for a property won't drop just because the bogs got a different lid......

Zandoni

If you accidentally broke the lid of the cistern in your own house and you claimed of your insurance there is no way that the insurance would pay for the whole suite. they would just replace the broken toilet. Believe it's called betterment if they replace the rest and you will have to pay a large lump towards it.


If I had been in that position I would have seen if neighbours had the same suite, if they had then surely one of them would have done a deal.


Interested to know from anyone if they have had a basic white suite fitted and how much it cost.

Alan_M_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

The Wilsons use tactics like TELLING the building companies how much they will pay for 40 houses and if they dont get their discount per unit and sell them to them then the deal is off

Replace the word "Wilsons" with "Tescos" and "Building Companies" with "Suppliers"......you get the idea....

It's big business and that's how big business works....they didn't set out to make friends, they set out to make huge sums of money and hang whatever happens to anyone else.....They've done rather a good job of it too, it doesn't make them good people.

No one cries for the corner shop owner and their family that can't compete with Tesco...because the people that cause it to close go to Tesco and buy goods cheaper.....cause and effect.

honved

Hey look:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=6108554&postcount=22

andygb

Zandoni wrote: »

If you accidentally broke the lid of the cistern in your own house and you claimed of your insurance there is no way that the insurance would pay for the whole suite. they would just replace the broken toilet. Believe it's called betterment if they replace the rest and you will have to pay a large lump towards it.


If I had been in that position I would have seen if neighbours had the same suite, if they had then surely one of them would have done a deal.


Interested to know from anyone if they have had a basic white suite fitted and how much it cost.

There are a couple of trade places near me, which sell complete suites in white (Bath, basin, WC with close coupled cistern), for £400 to £600.
Of course, if the owner required "peach", then they could always go down to Halfords and get some spray paint.

chucknorris

My tenants burned the kitchen worktop, which despite being only 2 years old MFI stated the worktop was no longer available. Which meant all 3 sections (rather than the just the damaged one) had to be replaced. We did get a specialist repair company in but they said the worktop was too badly burned to be repaired

The way I handled it was to claim it on my insurance, the insurance company paid 100% of the damaged section and 50% of the other two sections. So I charged the tenants the shortfall which I think amounted to about £250 (including the £100 excess). However I must stress that this was a newish fitted kitchen, if it was an old kitchen then the solution would have been different as it would not have been fair to charge them that much and I would probably have paid for the other 2 sections myself.

The tenants were happy enough apart from one of them who kept on insisting that because I had not informed them that the worktop was not real granite it was my fault that it got burned.

stonethrower

£3000 seems a lot to me you can purchase a decent suite for less than £1000 so that is £2000 to install they are taking the mick