Rented property - bond in dispute advice please!

dazmillar

Hi,

I'm new the this so please be patient. Myself, my wife and 4 kids have just recently moved out of a rented property after 18 months.

We have worked hard and spent a reasonable amount of money getting the house as close to how it was when we moved in as possible. Hindsight being a wonderful thing we shouldn't have done this but we decided to patch up any scratches, scuff marks, pin holes etc to the paintwork through out the house. While there was some paint still left that was originally used in some rooms, we spent a good £10 on tester pots to get the closest match on other rooms as we could lots of tial and error.

Upon the checkout inspection, all the patches using the testers were identified (3 small ones in the lounge and one small one in the kitchen) the landlady wants to take the costs of redecoration out of the bond. My first question is if it was to patch up scratches, scuff marks, pin holes which is normally accepted as 'fair wear and tear' wouldn't the attempt to patch it up also come under that, it was all done with good intentions.

We also shampooed all the carpets in all the rooms, but there is one small black mark on one of the floor tiles in the kitchen, the landlady wants to take the cost of having the whole carpet professionaly cleaned out of the bond, again isn't this 'fair wear and tear'?

Another question, once the inspection is over and the report is signed by both parties and keys handed over etc? they can't just go back in a few days later and claim other things can they? The letting agent is saying that they went in a few days later and saw that some paintwork was needed on the one of the interior doors (not that we've seen) isn't that irrelevant if it is not on the check out report (which we have a copy of)

Well it is in dispute now and as such with the independant adjudicators I just wanted to gage some opinion and hopefuly get some hope of getting some of our £700 back! We have had many problems during our tenancy, we reported things but nothing has ever been done about them (loose shower fittings, leaking shower, leaking bathroom taps, front door frame coming away(only slightly) from the structure, towel rails and toilet roll holders not secured to the wall properly (and invariably falling off) never given a key to the garage door so never secure. One particular day, while we were out, someone pulled down one of the young trees in the front garden(not fenced off) which we reported, a few weeks later, my wife came out to find the next door neighbour cutting it down! he left a sharp stump in the ground and covered it with a traffic cone! when asked what he was doing, he just said that the landlady had asked hime to do it, we were never informed. Can these things be taked into account?

Also as we were moving stuff out of the house and into our new one, one particular day, we found the landlady there looking through the windows! we carried on what we were doing while she was lording it and telling us this was 'HER' property etc then she proceeeded to try and follow us when we left the property! we know that she was following us as we went to some random street and there she was at the top of the street! again could this be taken into account?

Sorry for whittering on, but I would like some advice and maybe some hope if possible!

Cheers
Darren.

clutton_2

way too much wittering darren !!

did you sign an inventory when you moved in?

princeofpounds

I'm new the this so please be patient. Myself, my wife and 4 kids have just recently moved out of a rented property after 18 months.

Is your deposit protected?

Hindsight being a wonderful thing we shouldn't have done this but we decided to patch up any scratches, scuff marks, pin holes etc to the paintwork through out the house. While there was some paint still left that was originally used in some rooms, we spent a good £10 on tester pots to get the closest match on other rooms as we could lots of tial and error.

Good intentions, if done acceptably should be fine but often better to liaise with LL to get sign-off in writing before going ahead.

Upon the checkout inspection, all the patches using the testers were identified (3 small ones in the lounge and one small one in the kitchen) the landlady wants to take the costs of redecoration out of the bond. My first question is if it was to patch up scratches, scuff marks, pin holes which is normally accepted as 'fair wear and tear' wouldn't the attempt to patch it up also come under that, it was all done with good intentions.

LL is entitled only to repair, NOT betterment, which wholesale redecoration is. Fair wear and tear is ok, so minor scratches, scuffs are not normally chargeable as the property has to be lived in. Pinholes can be, but if you sensibly restored them this should also not be chargeable as this is all a LL would be expected to do in repair anyway. It is hard to be certain without seeing your repair attempt to guess which side of the line it falls under.

We also shampooed all the carpets in all the rooms, but there is one small black mark on one of the floor tiles in the kitchen, the landlady wants to take the cost of having the whole carpet professionaly cleaned out of the bond, again isn't this 'fair wear and tear'?

Probably yes, she certainly does not have the right to charge for cleaning a whole carpet for one small mark (if it really is small).

Another question, once the inspection is over and the report is signed by both parties and keys handed over etc? they can't just go back in a few days later and claim other things can they? The letting agent is saying that they went in a few days later and saw that some paintwork was needed on the one of the interior doors (not that we've seen) isn't that irrelevant if it is not on the check out report (which we have a copy of)

It is for them to prove the condition, and who did it. They can claim more later but it's hard to demonstrate in arbitration if they already signed off. Probably best to say 'that wasn't what you signed off, don't recognise that damage, shouldn't be charged for it'.

Well it is in dispute now and as such with the independant adjudicators I just wanted to gage some opinion and hopefuly get some hope of getting some of our £700 back! ..................................

Quite high in my opinion. Stick to evidence, the bizarre behaviour could have been tackled at the time but is not relevant here. Understand the concepts of betterment, fair wear and tear, explain thoroughly what the 'before' and 'after' was to the adjudicator and why you think it's fair usage, then point out how her claim would be betterment. Photos would be useful but if you don't have them rely on the checking reports.

Ah, I see now it is protected... good.

dazmillar

Hi thanks for your replies, yes we did sign an inventory, possibly clutching at straws but althrough the decor was mentioned, there was no mention of the condition. The bond is protected yes. As for the carpet it is a small mark I think it was either blu-tack or chewing gum (kids!!!!) in hindsight i should have just got a knife and tried remove it.

Right so wholesale redecoration is betterment which is not allowed right? so in theory they can only repair the 'patches' from the paintwork we did? or paint that one wall? The quality of my repair work....in the living room in order to notice the different shade, you virtually have be so close your nose is touching the wall! slightly less so in the kitchen. In other words if you walked into the room you probably won't even notice they're there. The trouble was we felt so intimidated by the landlady we got ourselves under the impression that the slightest thing and our bond would be taken so we tried to fix everything, perhaps if we'd have left the walls with the minor scratches and scuffs it would have just gone under wear and tear and that would have been the end of it but no we felt the need to try and make the walls perfect and it seems to have backfired on us!

We did report the bizarre behaviour at the time to the letting agent who just said they can't control people's behaviour! I'm sure it would have been different if it was the other way round hey ho.

Sorry I am a witterer lol!

Jowo_2

If you have poorly patched up damage across the walls, then the landlord's only option is to redecorate the entire room, isn't it? By the sounds of it, you've tried to find the closest match but it isn't identical. It's ridiculous that you think a painter and decorator only has to touch up the areas that you poorly touched up when the only way to make the wall the same shade is to repaint all of it.

Many tenancy agreements do not permit the tenant to use pins/nails/bluetac, etc on the walls because though the damage appears to be 'small' the remedy is expensive. They also tend to actively forbid redecoration by the tenants unless permission is given by the landlord (in case they do a bad job) and they are responsible for any damage they inadvertently do. Your intentions were honourable but you were negligent. What did your tenancy agreement say on these 2 matters?

Again, how do you expect the carpet with the stain on it to be remedied - are you expecting the landlady to spend hours scrubbing the spot off when she's entitled to get it professionally cleaned and charge the whole cost to the tenant? It's probably not going to be, if not much cheaper, to get in a professional to sort out a single stain than the entire carpet, especially as if by vigorously cleaning the mark, this affects the shade compared to the rest of it.

Betterment is not permitted so the landlord should take into account the age and original condition of the decoration when apportioning the deduction.

Fair wear and tear excludes marks, scratches, holes, stains, burns, dirt etc - fair wear and tear is about natural deterioration from ordinary usage and any damage caused, even by accident is not fair wear and tear.

"If the carpet becomes a little thin, it's fair wear and tear; if you burn a hole in it, you'll probably have pay for it."


http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/rights_and_responsibilities/tenants_responsibilities#3

The problems you had relating to repairs are irrelevant to your case, in my opinion. There are remedies, ways to report and escalate non-compliance during the tenancy. You could have also discussed what was expected on check-out with the landlord.

Having said all of those things, the landlord has seriously undermined their ability to make valid deductions from you by the poor quality of the inventory which should have detailed the condition of the decoration and carpets so this will stand in your favour through the dispute process, I expect.

clutton_2

""she certainly does not have the right to charge for cleaning a whole carpet for one small mark (if it really is small).""


so the tenant inherits a carpet of uniform quality, cleanliness and colour - tenant allows kids to grind chewing gum or whatever into it (damage not wear and tear in my view) and you expect the LL to just want to clean one spot ???


sorry ..... not right in my view - if redecorating a whole wall to hide some irremovable marks is allowable, why is replacing a whole carpet (less % of wear and tear / age of carpet deduction) not allowed if there is one bad stain/area on it ???

princeofpounds

why is replacing a whole carpet (less % of wear and tear / age of carpet deduction) not allowed if there is one bad stain/area on it ???

I think we are just imagining different things. I use the words 'really small spot', you use the words 'one bad stain area'. And I didn't know it was chewing gum if you look at the order of the posts, if it's just a normal piece of dirt that got a bit ingrained that is allowable wear and tear because these things happen in a real house.

I guess we will just have to disagree on the wall decoration front, again I think we are moving from different starting points. I personally don't think that an arbitrator would look kindly on it if there are literally a few pinholes that are correctly filled and retouched, but if there were blotches of mismatched paint all over the place I can understand.

Maybe I'll take a look at some DPS case studies to see if this is addressed anywhere, after all they are the final answer, nothing we say.

bristol_pilot

The small black mark in the kitchen would be classed as 'fair wear and tear' IMO, however daubing bits of tester paint on the walls - whatever your good intentions - amounts to damage that the LL is entitled to repair and the only practical way to do that could well be full redecoration. In my view you will get some of your deposit back but not all of it.

Jowo_2

princeofpounds wrote: »

a normal piece of dirt that got a bit ingrained [...] is allowable wear and tear because these things happen in a real house.

The OP may be relatively protected by the landlord's ommission of detailing the original condition of the surfaces and the duration of the contract should be considered when calculating any deductions.

ARLA provide guidance to their agents on this things to consider when making a deducdtion and how to avoid betterment.

http://www.arla.co.uk/infosheets/list.aspx?id=7

But ingrained dirt, such as a chewing gum stain, is unreasonable wear and tear, hopefully if it can be treated as a spot stain and repaired, that's all well and good.

A definition of fair wear and tear mooted outlines fair wear and tear as "reasonable use of the premises and the ordinary operation of natural forces [passage of time]" which is likely to exclude things like holes in walls and stains on carpet caused by the behaviour of the tenants.

carolt

OP - do bear in mind many of those commenting are landlords with a vested interest in defending landlords' interests - I wouldn't take their advice as gospel.

If it's going to independent adjudication, you should get the appropriate response there.

From my experience as a tenant, I'd say it depends to some degree on what it looked like to start with; if it looked like a show home, then a spot on the carpet and a couple of splodges of pain might reduce its relettability (new word?) - if it was, as most rental places are, frankly a bit manky, then your extra damage may be viewed as nothing more than wear and tear.

dazmillar

Bit of an update here, we have received the documentation from the TDS about the dispute.

Firstly on top of the rooms and the carpet the LL is now wanting ALL of the interior doors replaced. I cannot for the life of me think why this is! we certainly haven't damaged any of the interior doors. This is not on the Check Out Report plus on the Check-In inventory about the interior doors it states "Interior Doors, 9 need attention" which I believe is all of them not that I've counted. On the letter where it asks about negotiation the LA stated "No written evidence needed as all negotiations took place over the phone" Er no they did not! if you call this negotiation:

LA: "So you want to dispute it then"
T: "Yes"
LA:"OK"
[hangs up]

Then yes it took place. On no account did they attempt to negotiate with us. Apparently there were no quotations included in the letter as "the landlady has insuffient funds"

Oh and the property has been re-letted we saw the sign the other day. Which makes me think that she's making any excuse to keep our bond and use it for betterment or even other things, nothing that was reported has made the property unlettable.

Aren't the LA supposed to be in the middle? as they have shown an overwelming bias towards the landlady all the way through our tenancy.

I think there has been a deliberate attempt by the LA and the LL to keep us in the dark about the whole dispute, we have been given no information no specifics about cost or areas of 'damage' honestly you can't trust some landlords and most esate agents as far as you could throw them!