Replacing burnt carpet - betterment?

paddedjohn

ive just had 2 carpets fitted both 12'6x12'6 and fitting only cost £75 for both, your LL is trying it on for the underlay but even that is over priced, 2x 15 yard rolls of good quality stuff cost me £90 only last week

DogsBody

clutton wrote: »

""Delivery and fitting would be a point for negotiation."" - so are the carpet fairies going to magically and for free transport the carpet from warehouse and fit it ? of course some of the fitting costs can be apportioned to the tenant... the tenant did the damage.

I'd pay 'some' of the fitting costs if I was only paying for 'some' of the carpet
That'll be me on the 'blacklist of possible tenants', hehehe!

tbs624

bristol_pilot wrote: »

A good quality carpet three years old will look as good as new if looked after properly. It is not unreasonable for your landlord to ask for full cost of replacing carpet to the same quality, plus fitting.

Sorry b_p, have to disagree on this. LL absolutely cannot look to T to pay the full replacement cost for a carpet that was three years old: to do so would be classed as betterment. Tenant deposits are not there to be used as a kind of "new for old" insurance scheme.

As another poster has said, if the underlay was damaged, it can be patched or even left as it is if minor - it's ...erm....under the carpet.

OP -ask for the name of the manufacturer/type of carpet and then find out for yourself what the expected life of that original carpet would be. Cost has to be apportioned, taking into account the cost/ quality of the original, the age of the carpet at the time it was damaged and what remaining years of carpet life you could be deemed to have potentially deprived the LL of.

LL cannot unilaterally decide what cost to deduct. Google "ARLA" and "dilapidations", and "mydeposits" and "landlords guide to fair wear and tear".

Ulfar

When considering the depreciation of the carpet and a replacement you have to consider the fact that if the LL or their accountant is any good they have claimed for this depreciation when completing their tax return.

In this case I think the standard is five years, so it is not unreasonable to base your calculation on a five year term. They will also be able to claim the replacement as an expense.

clutton_2

i think people are getting fixated on details here... once it is agreed that the carpet and some underlay is required and a % reduction for betterment - then the job costs what it costs (whether that is invoiced as one figure, or split down into delivery, carpet, fitting, underlay) - different shops do it differently - arguiing about a % split of fitting and % split of carpet is daft.

its all down to calm and rational negotiation at the end of the day. OP decide what you want to offer, and be prepared to negotiate a bit.

tbs624

The_Filipina_cleaner wrote: »

OK, put yourself in the shoes of the landlord for the moment. You need to be put back into the situation you were in before the carpet was burned, through no fault of the owner. It is hardly practicable to replace one 3 year old carpet with another 3 year old carpet, so a new one is the only sensible solution.

I think you perhaps misunderstand what has been said. Yes, of course the LL purchases a new one, but the LL cannot reclaim the *full* cost of that new carpet from the T's deposit because to do so would place the LL in a better position than they would have been had the T not burned the carpet. See my previous post.

anselld

The_Filipina_cleaner wrote: »

You need to be put back into the situation you were in before the carpet was burned

Yes, and the situation you should be in is owning an unburnt three year old carpet. That is why the value is calculated as the value of a three year old carpet, not a new one. The fact that the LL may choose to replace with new, old or even just live with the burn does not affect the value of the loss.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

i think people are getting fixated on details here... once it is agreed that the carpet and some underlay is required and a % reduction for betterment - then the job costs what it costs (whether that is invoiced as one figure, or split down into delivery, carpet, fitting, underlay) - different shops do it differently - arguiing about a % split of fitting and % split of carpet is daft.

and yet .....

clutton wrote: »

""Delivery and fitting would be a point for negotiation."" - so are the carpet fairies going to magically and for free transport the carpet from warehouse and fit it ? of course some of the fitting costs can be apportioned to the tenant... .

and

clutton wrote: »

i absolutely agree about the patching of the underlay

The whole point is that the figures have already been separated by the LL and it's far easier to agree or dispute the total using that breakdown as a basis.

pinkshoes

£7.99/m2 for a carpet is cheap, so that's fair.

If the carpet already in the room was of the same quality (thus like for like replacement), then I'd expect it to last for about 7 years, so you should pay 4/7ths of the cost (about £90).

There is no reason to replace the underlay, and if you burnt a section, then only this tiny section needs to be patched (so £8.99!).

You'll have to pay delivery and fitting costs, although the fitting cost sounds steep. I'd get your own quote.

libster51

hi, thanks for the replies

Re the delivery and fitting costs, she is also having new lino fitted in the bathroom and this is coming from the same company as the carpet, so there will be delivery and fitting costs incurred in any event. I was planning to apportion these 50/50, half for the lino and half for the carpet.

Re insurance, I didn't have any, which is totally my fault. I'm not sure what her position is, but given that a lot of boxes were unticked during the tenancy (the position re lender's permission to let is unclear, no gas safety certificates were ever issued, i'm unsure if the freeholder had given permission to sublet) I would not be surprised if she had no/inadequate insurance, so she will want to recover as much costs as possible from me.

Re the underlay, this does seem unfair to charge for the entire replacement. The actual burn, although it's noticeable, is not blackened or burnt right down, so the underlay can't have been touched - I snatched the iron up within seconds. At most I would offer the price of 1 m2 as pinkshoes suggests, to patch any burn. The flat is back on the rental market for immediate occupancy and the photos show the original carpet is still there, so I'm not sure if the carpet has actually been replaced.

Going by pinkshoes' recommendation of 7 years lifespan for the carpet, I've gone for 4/7ths of the cost of the new carpet, assuming the old one was of a similar quality (£89.48), 1 m2 of underlay (£8.99) and 50% of the fitting and delivery costs (£68.88) which comes to a total of £167.35 - does this seem reasonable?