Damage deposit question

Alan_M_2

prudryden wrote:

Basically, I would replace all the wallpaper on that wall and charge the tenants. It will be difficult to match up the colour and shading with the other strips. You are being generous to the tenant and you should tell him so.

What you've described here is betterment, the tennant would be responsible for paying for the single sheet to be replaced you would be responsible for the rest of the room. There are legal precidents that cover this and insurance precidents that also cover this eventuality.

The most common occurance of this, and a good analagy in this case is the locks on a car.

Say someone tries to break into your vehicle and damages the boot lock beyong repair, the insurers will pay to replace that lock, which will give you a different key for that lock, you would be claiming here that the insurers should replace all the locks so the keys match, that just doesn't wash, it's been through court, there are test cases as a result.

Wallpapering the entire room is the same principal.

Fill it, paper it and crack on getting it let again, it's wear and tear and you're unrealistic to expect it is anything different.

paulsm

so if you had odd keys when you sell the car and people knock you 50 quid because they are suspicious that is all right in your books?

paulsm

how can it be wear and tear when he admitted to the LA that it was done when he moved the sofa out?

Alan_M_2

paulsm wrote:

so if you had odd keys when you sell the car and people knock you 50 quid because they are suspicious that is all right in your books?

It's a legal precident not an opinion.

Alan_M_2

paulsm wrote:

how can it be wear and tear when he admitted to the LA that it was done when he moved the sofa out?

So what do you consider wear & tear to mean?

Catching the wallpaper with a sofa whilst moving out is exactly the eventuality the term covers as far as I'm concerned.

Gorgeous_George

No excuse for catching the wallpaper. It is not fair wear and tear, it's carelessness.

Same goes for the worktops. If the tenant had paid £100's to have worktops fitted, he/she would have used a chopping board. The clue is in the name.

OP. Get what you can from the tenant and try your luck in court. Other than that, get it off the next tenant.

Mine left owing rent and with all rooms requiring complete redecoration (and more). The next lucky tenants are paying £5pw extra, 4 weeks' rent in advance, 6 weeks rent for the bond and need to provide a guarantor for the tenancy.

Wheen will people realise that LLs dio not make huge profits. Many would make more money by selling up and investing elsewhere.



GG

Alan_M_2

Then define wear and tear if scuffing wallpaper when moving in or out isn't covered under the umbrella?

The worktops situation dpends on the extent of the damage, if they are deep scores or light scratches, the OP didn't post an image of that "damage".

Whether or not you make a profit , whilst its very relevant to you, bears no relevance to the definition of wear and tear.

prudryden

paulsm wrote:

no goldfish dont count as they dont have any fingers to count on , I have just noticed a post earlier saying no pets is and illegal clause? why?

We have had this discussion several times on other threads. People still are not reading the OFT correctly. It is NOT illegal!! Here is the guide. Please note that the title says guidance. If you go down to page 68 under the heading of "EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY UNREASONABLE PROHIBITIONS". Please note the word potentially. One is allowed to google the definition.

www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DAAEFE58-1AAB-422A-AFED-BDE6C654A4EE/0/oft356.pdf

prudryden

clutton wrote:

:rolleyes: do goldfish count ?

I would accept goldfish as long as it didn't need a 1000 litre tank on the first floor to live in. And as long as it went to guppy training school to learn to behave.:D

Alan_M_2

Out of curiosity I searched through that document as I rent and I recently got a puppy (I did check with the Landlord first and it was approved).

Table 4.2: Examples of potentially unreasonable prohibitions:-

Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it would prevent a tenant keeping a goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.