Wilsons in court again

Zandoni

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

As a landlord, if you was in the Wilsons position and obviously not knowing the full story, what would you have thought was fair with this cistern lid problem?

chucknorris

stonethrower wrote: »

£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

Not to mention the wear and tear on the old bathroom suite, afterall the bathroom would be significantly improved with a new suite installed

chucknorris

Zandoni wrote: »

As a landlord, if you was in the Wilsons position and obviously not knowing the full story, what would you have thought was fair with this cistern lid problem?

Well if the suite was old and the bathroom would be greatly improved with a new suite I would try and claim something on insurance eg for a new wc and ask the tenants to pay the excess on the insurance. I think I would be happy enough to pay the extra myself for the matching bath and basin.

However if the suite was quite new I think I would take the same approach as I did with my kitchen (see above).

Surely there is no way on earth that a judge is going to agree the Wilsons are being reasonable. At the end of the day the solution has to be fair to both the landlord and the tenant.

Zandoni

chucknorris wrote: »

Well if the suite was old and the bathroom would be greatly improved with a new suite I would try and claim something on insurance eg for a new wc and ask the tenants to pay the excess on the insurance. I think I would be happy enough to pay the extra myself for the matching bath and basin.

However if the suite was quite new I think I would take the same approach as I did with my kitchen (see above).

Surely there is no way on earth that a judge is going to agree the Wilsons are being reasonable. At the end of the day the soltion has to be fair to both the landlord and the tenant.

Wish all landlords were fair like you.

What I find strange is that they don't care about bad publicity, surely that has got to affect their business.

delain

I do find this all rather bizzarre. If the bathroom had had decent modern fittings (remember all the council houses have to meet the decent homes standards now) then this would not have come up.

Before i moved in to my house my LL replaced the toilet, and sink and put a new shower and screen, in because the old ones looked a bit dated and shabby, then fitted a new big heated towel radiator and tiled all the walls to make it look bright and clean, and it had a new kitchen in 2007.

He takes pride in the places he lets, on the basis that if the fittings are nice then the tenants are more likely to take care of it.

I dont think he would dream of renting out a house with a peach bathroom suite!

chucknorris

Zandoni wrote: »

Wish all landlords were fair like you.

What I find strange is that they don't care about bad publicity, surely that has got to affect their business.

I think the market is too fragmented for a particular landlord to be effected by bad publicity, although the Wilsons do seem to go out of their way to be unreasonable and they may well be the excpetion. If I was a tenant I would certainly think twice about renting from them.

I try and build up a good relationship with my tenants, afterall they are living in my property and I want them to be motivated to look after it. I try and find tenants that I believe will be motivated to look after the property.

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Graham, your examples are pretty rubbish . The TV is hardly an integral part of the lounge, now is it?

To use your car example, imagine if you had leather seats in your Expensive BMW and your mate borrowed your car and decided to use it to transport some wood from B&Q. He brakes suddenly and the wood tears the passenger seat to ribbons. At first he tries to hide the damage under a cushion, but you discover it and he tries to find alternatives at various dealerships. Unfortunately that type of leather is not available anymore.

Would you:

a) Just stitch it up, it looks crap and devalues your expensive car but you're so easy going you dont care.

b) Get a replacement for just that seat, but where the stitching is completely different and the colour doesn't match the other seats. It looks crap and devalues your car but you're so easy going that you dont care.

c) Have all the seats re-trimmed in the same leather, with the same stictches and colour match and pay for it out of your own insurance knowing that your premiums will now be higher for a long time. But you're easy going and so you dont care.

d) Have all the seats re-trimmed as above buy make your friend pay the work because you loaned him your car in good faith and it's not fair that you should be out of pocket in anyway for the damage he caused.

Graham_Devon

E) I'd take on MY responsibility of lending him that car.

You see, your examples are not including the fact you have not lent the place. But loaned it as a business arrangement.

Now, I would not lend my car with leather seats to someone who's gonna fill it up with wood. I would not loan if for payment for that purpose either.

I may loan a van for the purpose of carrying wood around however.

I'd be loaning the van knowing it's being used for a purpose and something could go wrong.

Please don't rubbish my examples and then use a leather BMW loaned to a mate to carry wood around in!

System

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Graham, your examples are pretty rubbish . The TV is hardly an integral part of the lounge, now is it?

To use your car example, imagine if you had leather seats in your Expensive BMW and your mate borrowed your car and decided to use it to transport some wood from B&Q. He brakes suddenly and the wood tears the passenger seat to ribbons. At first he tries to hide the damage under a cushion, but you discover it and he tries to find alternatives at various dealerships. Unfortunately that type of leather is not available anymore.

Would you:

a) Just stitch it up, it looks crap and devalues your expensive car but you're so easy going you dont care.

b) Get a replacement for just that seat, but where the stitching is completely different and the colour doesn't match the other seats. It looks crap and devalues your car but you're so easy going that you dont care.

c) Have all the seats re-trimmed in the same leather, with the same stictches and colour match and pay for it out of your own insurance knowing that your premiums will now be higher for a long time. But you're easy going and so you dont care.

d) Have all the seats re-trimmed as above buy make your friend pay the work because you loaned him your car in good faith and it's not fair that you should be out of pocket in anyway for the damage he caused.

I'd probably go for c) but I'd still want some cash from the person that trashed my possession.

EDIT: But that's based on the fact it's a mate. If it was business related then I wouldn't really want to be paying anything.

I don't agree for one second that the bathroom should have a mismatched replacement.

I liked the example on the last page where just the shortfall was paid, seems fairest.

JayScottGreenspan

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.

Clearly replacing the entire bathroom suite would be betterment - putting the Wilsons in a much better position than they were in before. How old was the bathroom? Over what period is depreciation taken into account? 10 years?

The insurance analogy is a useful one. One of the fundamental principles if insurance is indemnity - to restore the position before the loss occurred.

Suppose you've got accidental damage cover under your household insurance policy. You break your peach sistern lid. You dispatch your insurance claim for a new £3000 bathroom suite. What sort of reply would you expect?

IMO the best resolution here would be to estimate the damages suffered by the Wilson's, as they claim their house is worth less as a result of the damage. £200 sounds about right. If I were the judge I'd offer the Wilson's the original tenant offer of £212.75 damages and make them pay all the court costs.