Tenancy Damages

yummynoodles

Tenancy was with a private landlord.

Meatballs

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

That might be your view but the landlord is entitled to expect their fixtures to be returned in the same condition they were at the start of the tenancy. Damaged is not the same state.

In any tenancy there is aways going to be minor damage to fittings and fixtures. This is mostly classed as 'wear and tear'. A chip may be more than 'wear and tear' and so the tenant should cover those costs. However it should be on a scale from 'wear and tear' - 0%, to must be replaced - 100%, of current value to repair or replace (whichever is cheaper).

Having to foot a full repair bill for something that doesn't need replacing is madness...

BitterAndTwisted

I disagree with you: damage is not the same thing as wear and tear.

Meatballs

Of course it is, you saying a 'tear' isn't damage?

I tread on the carpet, some of the carpet comes away slowly over months. It is worn and torn. I am damaging it and devaluing it through normal use. 'Damage' is generally abnormal use, but if the thing is still working and isn't an eyesore why would anyone in their rightmind splash out to replace it? Oh wait if you're a landlord and want to grab everything you can from your tenant's deposit...

The tenant should pay a contribution to how much they have devalued it, but in the case of a fully functioning hob that is only slightly cosmetically damaged then I would suggest that is a small amount and wouldn't cover replacing/repairing.

Hammyman

Meatballs wrote: »

Even if you did reduce the cost by 50% for a 5 year old hob, it's still a working hob and only has small cosmetic damage on a functional object, so there's no need to replace it, or even to replace the part.

I would only offer to contribute a some of the amount to replacing the part if it still worked fine as most people wouldn't bother replacing it if they did it in their own home...

New tenant cuts themselves on the chip, sues landlord. Sorry, I'd replace it if only for backside covering.

BitterAndTwisted

I think you have misunderstood the definition of "fair wear and tear" and I can't be @rsed to disabuse you.

In the OP's case they have caused damage and the landlord is entitled to be recompensed for the damage caused but calculating the age of the part and the cost of replacement. It sounds very like the landlord is claiming the cost of a brand-new replacement and in this instance I believe that it is not justified. In that, we are in agreement and I hope that the OP will contest it

Meatballs

Hammyman wrote: »

New tenant cuts themselves on the chip, sues landlord. Sorry, I'd replace it if only for backside covering.

I agree, if it is potentially dangerous that isn't just cosmetic damage however.

B&T- I am quite aware of what 'wear and tear' entails and also that there are no real definitions of what 'wear and tear' encompasses.

To say that something that is 'worn and torn' is not damaged shows a lack of understanding. 'Fair wear and tear' (in my view) is expected damage caused by normal use. I can't think of any other way of describing it.

In this case I haven't said it is 'wear and tear' but that it isn't far away from it and costs to the tenant should be apportioned as such. No I can't see how bad it is but I am going on the description given.

Either way, you are correct in that paying for the full cost of replacement is betterment as you say and should be challenged.

satchmeister

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood the definition of "fair wear and tear" and I can't be @rsed to disabuse you.

In the OP's case they have caused damage and the landlord is entitled to be recompensed for the damage caused but calculating the age of the part and the cost of replacement. It sounds very like the landlord is claiming the cost of a brand-new replacement and in this instance I believe that it is not justified. In that, we are in agreement and I hope that the OP will contest it

Yes, the LL is trying it on, the LL probably thinks 'why not?' if they can get away with it. Don't let them.

yummynoodles

Thanks for all your advice guys, have decided i'm going to fight this one. Will keep you updated.

bris

This would not come under "fair wear and tear". Wear and and tear is degradation through normal use, i.e walking on a carpet or sitting on a sofa have a few years before they need replaced due to normal use. Dropping a lid on a hob is accidental damage which should be covered one way or another, which leads me to insurance. Does the OP or the LL have contents insurance which might cover this, accidental damage is common on these policies so may be worth looking into this.
Either way the LL can not claim for a new hob to replace a 5 year old one. You should take some of the advice given here in paper form to the guy at the council who clearly doesn't know what he is doing.