Problem with potential rental in Bristol - carpets changed between viewing and paying

annoyedwithHSBC

Hi,

Me and 3 friends have been looking for a place to rent in Bristol and thought we had found a decent house. I don't live in the area so don't have any first hand knowledge of either viewing but at the first viewing there were nice new carpets down. When my friend went back to view it before paying out the first months rent and deposit he noticed that the carpets in two of the rooms were different (+ now disgusting). We have given them the option to either replace the carpets, have them cleaned or even just buy some rugs to put over the top. They flatly refused and simply said they will put the house on the market again.

Are they actually allowed to act like this? We have already paid them £520 (deposit/holding fee and Guarantor fee for me) which I am determined to get back (and I am sure they will be determined to keep) if this falls through.

I think there is a chance we have photos from both viewings showing what they have done. I don't have any experience renting (other than Uni + for 6 months in Chamonix) and I think they playing on an assumption that we will probably just roll over.

Any advice/experiences welcome. Also any official bodies that people have had success with for this kind of query is more than welcome.

Thanks

Evan

silvercar

White carpets? Very brave.

annoyedwithHSBC

silvercar wrote: »

White carpets? Very brave.

Yeah sounded quite strange to me for a rental. Its hard for me as I am operating on second hand info.

BitterAndTwisted

Quite honestly, they may have done you a favour. I cannot conceive of why anyone would think that WHITE CARPETS in a rental could be anything other than a completely and utterly bad and stupid idea. Even disgusting carpets would be better. Can you imagine the deductions from your deposit? How impossible it would be to try and keep white carpets clean and then have to return them in the same state at the end of the tenancy as they were when you viewed? Tenants have a hard enough time with cream or beige ones.

Were the white carpets the only reason why you wanted this property?

FireWyrm

I know it's annoying, but trust me, if you had stuck with those nice newly fitted white carpets, you would have lost your deposit when you surrendered the tenancy. White carpets are the work of the devil even if you own the property, if you rent, you'd be lucky to get away with only having to pay for cleaning etc. Count your lucky stars and look at the bigger picture.

In the meantime, if you do continue with this, you and your friends take three seperate cameras and you take photos of EVERYTHING everywhere. Get the inventory they will undoubtedly have drawn up and check the sneaky sods havnt left those nice new white carpets listed on it and you check every single point before you sign it. Sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing, but best have your umbrella up and ready rather than getting taken by suprise at the end of the tenancy.

annoyedwithHSBC

I have removed the word white now as it seemed to be causing quite a distraction

annoyedwithHSBC

FireWyrm wrote: »

I know it's annoying, but trust me, if you had stuck with those nice newly fitted white carpets, you would have lost your deposit when you surrendered the tenancy. White carpets are the work of the devil even if you own the property, if you rent, you'd be lucky to get away with only having to pay for cleaning etc. Count your lucky stars and look at the bigger picture.

In the meantime, if you do continue with this, you and your friends take three seperate cameras and you take photos of EVERYTHING everywhere. Get the inventory they will undoubtedly have drawn up and check the sneaky sods havnt left those nice new white carpets listed on it and you check every single point before you sign it. Sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing, but best have your umbrella up and ready rather than getting taken by suprise at the end of the tenancy.

Okay thanks, ignore that they were white, they might not have been, I didn't think that would be such a huge deal.

If they have shown us a property with nice carpets, then we paid a deposit, then on second viewing they had replaced them with !!!! stained stinking carpets, are we entitled to ask them to replace them (and if they refuse are we entitled to the deposit back).

FireWyrm

annoyedwithHSBC wrote: »

Okay thanks, ignore that they were white, they might not have been, I didn't think that would be such a huge deal.

If they have shown us a property with nice carpets, then we paid a deposit, then on second viewing they had replaced them with !!!! stained stinking carpets, are we entitled to ask them to replace them (and if they refuse are we entitled to the deposit back).

Depends how much proof you have that they weren't the nasty stinking carpets when you viewed...I suppose you *could* argue trades descriptions, but I suspect you're stuff now and they know it. They'll just claim you were mistaken.

G_M

In principle, yes - you paid a deposit on the proerty as you saw it. However in practice

1) there is the issue of evidence - if they deny this switch, can you prove it?
2) there is as yet no tenancy - so they have no obligation to give you the keys. all you can do is sue for breach of contract. You'd need to claim your losses which are......? I doubt a judge would agree this switch frustrated the contract so claiming your alternative living arrangements is out. What financial loss, then, can you claim?

split_second

can you walk away, if so, would you?

if you cant then buy rugs, look on argos or somewhere for something cheap, clean, with good reviews.

take them with you, they are your rugs, if they are manky, throw them out. they are the ones that either have manky carpets or are fitting and removing carpets randomly, they are either odd, deceptive, bored or you are being lied to