property taken by tenant on leaving

poppysarah

honey06 wrote: »

Brb- interesting point to consider. the mattress was taken by the tenant when they left and was less than 6 months old when taken (only a short tenancy ) so not sure how much wear & tear would be applied???

How often would a landlord providing a bed need to provide a new mattress?

googler

I have the phrase "Much Ado about Nothing" running round and round in my head.

Trebor01

Seems to me some of the replies are worth ignoring. If the tenant has a receipt this only shows he/she bought a mattress. If the tenancy agreement says she will leave this behind at the end of the tenancy and he/she has signed this, and then taken it, it's theft. The contract shows that after the tenancy finishes the property i.e. the mattress now belongs to the landlord, so this is not betterment it is and agreed part of a contract.

So this is theft. The definition of the term "bed" under the oxford english dictionary is quite clear so again comments posted stating otherwise just display ignorance of the english language, and a judge would follow the dictionary definition.

Jenniefour

So it's a tad messy - hopefully in future if a tenant asks for something, within reason, your friend will buy it for them and pay for it all themselves - or just say no, they buy it then its theirs to take with them when the tenancy ends. Saves loads of hassle.

tyler80

When I rented a furnished place, bed and mattress were stated as two separate items on the inventory.

Trebor01

Mine to, so if an inventory specifies both separately, and the tenancy clause states 'bed', this implies the whole thing, e.g. When you buy a "car" you don't just expect the wheels, you expect the whole thing. If the tenancy clause has as I suspect been written up by the same agency, then they should have stated a mattress and bed frame in the tenancy clause but as they opted for the generic description for both i.e. a bed, then my point stands and if the mattress has been taken its theft.

GDB2222

Trebor01 wrote: »

So this is theft. The definition of the term "bed" under the oxford english dictionary is quite clear so again comments posted stating otherwise just display ignorance of the english language, and a judge would follow the dictionary definition.

No it isn't theft. Look up the definition of theft whilst you have the dictionary out.

InkZ

I think the real question is; is the landlord out of pocket or not?

If the landlord is out of pocket then fair enough, if not then just buy another mattress or pack the bed up.

Trebor01

GDB2222 - and your point is what - theft is the act of stealing and that what has happened it seems, so not sure you have a very good dictionary if you think otherwise

Inkz - I think the point here is that the LL appears to be out of pocket, as he/she paid for a 'bed' and now just has a bedframe, which without the mattress is useless and he/she would either need to buy a new mattress (money !!!) or pack away a bedframe he/she paid for but has no use for.

The point here is that the mattress has apparently been stolen as it was not removed with the LL's permission and it belonged to him/her after the tenancy ended.

GDB2222

Theft requires dishonesty. The tenants think they are entitled to the mattress. They may be wrong, but that does not make it theft. That's why it is a civil matter, not criminal. A court would listen to both sides of the argument and then make a decision. You have only heard one side. However, as there is an apparently genuine disagreement about what the contract said, it cannot possibly be theft. I'm sorry that you can't see that.