Landlord refusing to return bond, advice please

property.advert

If not protected, screw him for 3 x deposit. Or just send the boys round with a couple of large sticks and a short temper.

James_N

paul112 wrote: »

Hi, my daughter is at uni and shares a 4 bed house with 3 other students (one of which is the landlords daughter). A £500 bond was paid.

When my daughter went to view the house last year, the landlord told her not to worry about the fact that it had white carpets in, he acknowledged that they were impractical but said as they were in when he bought the house there was nothing he could do about it.

Anyway, you can imagine what the carpets are like now, make-up, drinks etc. He has refused to give them back their bond and altho all the tenants have offered to chip in and have them professionally cleaned he has refused, saying they are beyond cleaning.

Any advice

Why is your daughter so lazy and destructive as to have caused this damage to the carpets? Have you tolerated make up and drinks on your carpets at home while raising her? Granted white carpets are impractical and anyone expecting there not to be significantly more normal soiling than a less easily marked colour is being unreasonable. Granted too, the deposit should be (if in England and Wales) in one of the three schemes. But this still does not excuse careless behaviour on the part of your daughter.

lynzpower

James_N wrote: »

Why is your daughter so lazy and destructive as to have caused this damage to the carpets? Have you tolerated make up and drinks on your carpets at home while raising her? Granted white carpets are impractical and anyone expecting there not to be significantly more normal soiling than a less easily marked colour is being unreasonable. Granted too, the deposit should be (if in England and Wales) in one of the three schemes. But this still does not excuse careless behaviour on the part of your daughter.

Oh for heavens sake.

OP clearly doesnt live with the daughter - WHO IS AN ADULT AND CAN MAKE HER OWN CHOICES! what do you want him to do

Ground her?
Make her write lines?
Take away her sweeties?

best piece of advice dad can give her is dont rent anywhere with pale carpets again.

James_N

lynzpower wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake.

OP clearly doesnt live with the daughter - WHO IS AN ADULT AND CAN MAKE HER OWN CHOICES! what do you want him to do

Ground her?
Make her write lines?
Take away her sweeties?

best piece of advice dad can give her is dont rent anywhere with pale carpets again.

He asked! It's someone else who needs to foot the bill then, is it? His little girl obviously cannot do anything wrong.

What she should do as an adult is to CHOOSE to contribute to the damage she's caused, with an eye to the lack of sense on the part of the LL. But, clearly what she has done is ask dear daddy to get her out of the mess she's caused, like a spoilt child. It's clearly not fair that anyone should hold her responsible for anything, is it now?

The annoying thing is that the landlord has a clearly reasonable case, but for the fact that allegedly the deposit is not protected. But I love the way that the tenant mob move in with their "scre* the B*stard" script. Any chance to wriggle out of responsiblity, it seems, is taken.

scottishblondie

I would agree that drinks and make-up stains are not to be expected no matter what colour the carpet is, but regardless of what the OP's daughter may have done to the carpet, the LL can't just help himself to £500. If it is only the carpet in her bedroom that needs replaced, then for starters that isn't going to cost £500. On top of that, he can't charge her for an entirely new carpet when the one that was there wasn't brand new.

Both the initial age of the carpet and the expected lifetime have to be taken into account when deciding how much of the replacement cost the tenant is liable for. Eg, if a carpet with a life expectancy of 10 years was in it's 8th year when ruined, the tenant can really only be held responsible for the loss of 20% of it's value. This is the type of formula that the deposit schemes use when arbitrating disputes over costs.

paul112

Oh for goodness sake James, get real, a group of 20 year old students in a house and the most damage theyv done is a bit of make up on the carpets and a few drinks stains, its hardly major.

Of course they dont live like they do at home, have you never been a student?

I defy anyone to live with a white carpet and not stain or mark it in any way. And, if you read my original message properly, it in no way implies that she has run to daddy to bail her out. Both her and her housemates have offered to have the carpets professionally cleaned. Admittedly they should have just done this before the landlord checked them but they are 20years old and havent lived away from home before, they have no clue as to what you should do, they are living like students, as students should do.

You have to accept that this landlord could be trying his luck to get a new carpet out of it. Who in their right mind rents a house to anyone with a white carpet.

Maybe you are a landlord and can see his point of view, which I understand, if I were him, I too would be thinking it was an easy way to get a new carpet

paul112

Oh, and James (am guessing you didnt go to uni, seeing as you didnt really read or interpret my post properly), if you did, you will see that nowhere does it say that she has asked dear daddy to get her out of this mess. She mentioned it in on the phone and was asking for advice, not money. You talk as someone with no children, no education, no idea really!

And, the poor poor landlord did actually tell my daughter not to worry about the white carpets when she went to view the property, READ MY POST !!!

mynameisdave

scottishblondie wrote: »

Both the initial age of the carpet and the expected lifetime have to be taken into account when deciding how much of the replacement cost the tenant is liable for. Eg, if a carpet with a life expectancy of 10 years was in it's 8th year when ruined, the tenant can really only be held responsible for the loss of 20% of it's value. This is the type of formula that the deposit schemes use when arbitrating disputes over costs.

LL is on a lose-lose irrespective of how poorly kept the property was. He is highly unlikely to receipts to prove when the carpet was bought, or at what cost.

If he cant prove how much he has lost out it will be difficult for him to claim against however many he is claiming against

paul112

mynameisdave, the landlord wont have receipts for the carpet because it was already in when he bought the property a couple of years ago. It had already been renovated and carpeted.

He bought it when his daughter started uni in the city so that she would have somewhere safe to live. She asked my daughter if she would like to rent one of the rooms once they had come out of their halls of res.

James_N

paul112 wrote: »

Oh, and James (am guessing you didnt go to uni, seeing as you didnt really read or interpret my post properly), if you did, you will see that nowhere does it say that she has asked dear daddy to get her out of this mess. She mentioned it in on the phone and was asking for advice, not money. You talk as someone with no children, no education, no idea really!

And, the poor poor landlord did actually tell my daughter not to worry about the white carpets when she went to view the property, READ MY POST !!!

Speaks for itself really. No wonder the daughter thinks she can do as she pleases.

Whatever the rights and wrongs on the LL's side, spilled drinks and make up on the carpet is seriously messy. You write " Anyway, you can imagine what the carpets are like now, make-up, drinks etc." Well, no, I can't imagine that serial damage of that kind is fair wear and tear under any circumstances. Being a student or "only 20" is neither here or there.

I can understand the point that (allegedly) the LL is trying to get (?) up to £2000 out of this (although it's not clear if this is £500 in total). And that too sounds unreasonable. As is not having the deposit bonded, if true.

But coming on here and asking for advice means that you may well be told to face the situation that she's caused. And your defensive reaction to that speaks for itself. And why should she take any responsibility when the LL is at fault? Of course she should "get away with it".