"Reasonable Damage"

oligopoly

Hi there. I'm due to move out of a flat at the end of this month after renting for a year. When i moved in, the flat had just been refurbished; in particular, new laminate flooring had been laid.

It turns out that the landlord was not allowed to have this type of flooring in the block of flats as the floors in all flats must be carpeted (i believe for sound reasons).

This means the landlord is looking for any possible excuse to charge me for ripping up the flooring to put down new carpet (which is compulsory for the next tenant).

My question is, there are lots of small scratches on the flooring in certain areas of the flat from normal movement of chairs, furniture etc. Aside from attempting to cover these marks (wax crayons etc), is a there a degree of wear and tear that is deemed 'fair' or 'acceptable'? do i have any standing to refuse paying any charges? any links, legislation, advice, suggestions?

Thanks for your time

clutton_2

i dont know the answer to what is reasonable - clean it as best you possibly can. Was an inventory done when you moved in ?

but do read this thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=227606

it is exactly about your situation.

Debt_Free_Chick

Wear and tear is not damage. Wear and tear is normal and to be expected and not an excuse for you to pay for a new floor!!

Damage is just that - extra "harm" beyond normal W&T.

What, exactly, has the landlord said?

Contains_Mild_Peril

If you suspect he may be planning to try charging you for alleged damage, I would advise photographing the floor in as much detail as possible so that you have evidence there was nothing wrong with it (beyond normal wear and tear) when you left.
Wouldn't it make sense for the landlord to put a carpet (a cheap nasty one would do) on top of the laminate rather than removing it first? I would imagine that 2 layers of floor covering would be better than one for insulation and soundproofing.
Did you pay a deposit when you moved in? If so, you'll probably have an uphill struggle trying to claim it back. It's generally accepted that tenants' deposits are forfeit unless the property is left absolutely pristine (and even then, some landlords would find an excuse to pocket them).

pitdog

tell him/her in no uncertain terms to f**k right off is my advice, bad landlords are right up there with traffic wardens, estate agents etc, but the advice about takin a few pics etc is good advice

Debt_Free_Chick

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote:

It's generally accepted that tenants' deposits are forfeit unless the property is left absolutely pristine (and even then, some landlords would find an excuse to pocket them).

That may sometimes happen in practice, but the LL would almost certainly lose in Court (small claims court would normally be sufficient for the tenant - and cheap!).

LL's can only retain for actual damage - NOT for wear & tear.

clairehi

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote:

It's generally accepted that tenants' deposits are forfeit unless the property is left absolutely pristine (and even then, some landlords would find an excuse to pocket them).

Depends on the landlord/agent.

We were given a detailed list of things to do by the agent on leaving the property - including steam cleaning carpets, cleaning windows and washing curtains. We werent very pleased but we did it all and got the deposit back no questions asked.

There are some LLS out there who are unscrupulous, but not all.

Local authority should have a Private Lettings Officer or similar name who can advise the OP if he has any problems on leaving.

plane_boy2000

pitdog wrote:

tell him/her in no uncertain terms to f**k right off is my advice, bad landlords are right up there with traffic wardens, estate agents etc, but the advice about takin a few pics etc is good advice

The OP is only making assumptions about what will happen and appears to be preparing themselves for it. The guy may be just like me and not make any fuss at all unless the OP has really damaged the floor. I would suggest that if it is scratched then it may be damaged as laminate floor is pretty tuff stuff plus there would have been an onus on the tennat to protect the floor by fitting those felt pad things to the bottoms of furniture to prevent marking.

jamie304

plane_boy2000 wrote:

I would suggest that if it is scratched then it may be damaged as laminate floor is pretty tuff stuff plus there would have been an onus on the tennat to protect the floor by fitting those felt pad things to the bottoms of furniture to prevent marking.

Surely not if the furniture belonged to the landlord?

oligopoly

thanks for everyone's contributions. i am really preempting the final inspection - so just doing a bit of research. Part of the furniture was supplied by the LL; part by me. I guess they couldnt prove what caused the marks. t wasnt done deliberately and it wasnt done through lack of care. its the cheap stuff that can be bought from B&Q for £5 per square mile. perhaps they had a duty to supply rugs, perhaps they had a duty to stick cushioning to the bottom of furniture, maybe they should have asked me to take care when moving furniture. not sure whether to try and hide the 'damage' (wax crayons etc) as by doing so it may suggest liability on my part. hmmm. just dont want to get stung, really. i mean i could even replace the said floor boards as it could work out much less than the charges the LL may apply for a reflooring (bearing in mind he has to lay carpet when i leave anyway)

oligopoly

sorry for the double post - the other point to stress is the floor was NEW when i moved in, so the question of an inventory is irrelevant