Rental Inventory missing items claim

DannyboyMidlands

Why would you even move into a place that had the landlords tat hanging around?

DRP

ManchegoMan wrote: »

I think I broke it last year but cant be certain.

:beer::rotfl:

ManchegoMan wrote: »

Hi,

I recently had a checkout report for the property I was renting and vacating. The landlord wants to claim for something that isn't listed in writing on the inventory. However, a photo of the living room (which is in the inventory report) does show then ornament present).

is the photo dated?

if not, surely the landlord is scuppered?

If it is , then have a look on ebay or google for a price for this ornament...

timbo58

I think you're responsible and should pay up frankly with an apology at that.
After all: it might have been the biggest heap of c**p in the world but you knew you broke it, you knew it belonged to the LL and you knew you should have reported it to the LL at the time.
had you done so the LL may well have said 'don't worry about it'.

I suspect the LL has checked the property over, discovered an item missing and whether you have subsequently or not declared 'oh I broke that and didn't bother telling you' or not feels disgruntled that you have either taken something or broken and disposed of their property without so much as a 'by your leave'.

I think you have to place yourself firmly in the LL shoes on this one.

The price now being demanded or whether you feel that price is justified, or whether the item should have been left in a rental property are neither here nor there.

How about the LL on an inspection visit broke something of yours (that you didn't notice) and merely threw it away without letting you know?
How would you feel?

drummer_666

You buy a tv for £400, a year or two later you sell it, no one will pay £400.. maybe £250. you get my gist

but I would argue, it is not in the inventory. Therefore it was removed after the photo was taken, before the inventory was done.

Even if it was left in the house, if he wanted to be able to charge against it in the event it was damaged/stolen/lost then he should have put it in the inventory...

girl_withno_name

timbo58 wrote: »

The price now being demanded or whether you feel that price is justified, or whether the item should have been left in a rental property are neither here nor there.

While I might agree that arguments around whether the item should have been left in a rental property are moot, I disagree (to a certain extent) with your other two arguments.

The price being demanded is relevant and should be justified - if the ornament is only worth £2 then this would strike me a grossly unfair!

paddyrg

As a new landlord, I think I will leave my collection of priceless eggshells in a house I am renting out, surely nothing will go wrong?

At the very most, I would suggest a depreciated replacement - search ebay for something similar?

ManchegoMan

Some interesting opinions about this so many thanks. I forgot to point out that I rented a 'fully furnished' property. Most of the property contents were listed minus aload of garden tools, pictures, furniture and garden ornaments (as well as some building works rubbish piled high in the garden). Bizarrely, the loft contained a load of unlisted heirloom items as well which obviously I didn't use.

I've agreed to pay up because I'm responsible for any of the contents under my timewatch theoretically and I cant be arsed to fight for yet again - another deposit being returned incomplete. I was seeking to find out if any price tag can be claimed for something which wasn't listed properly. A painting on the wall thats got damaged or torn could be claimed as a rare gem worth thousands but isn't listed. Who's to say LLs cant claim unlimited bogus values for their items???? That vase I broke might only be worth ten quid and the LL is trying it on - just a thought. If items are of value surely its more responsible to place a value on them at the inventory stage and have the tenant sign and agree on replacement values.

tbs624

G_M wrote: »

Probably an accidental LL who is renting out his home and has (stupidly) left personal items. Either because his current place is smaller, or because the ornament has always been there so he just left it there....

AFAIAA the deposit schemes do not make allowances for stupidity on the part of either LL or T. If the LL wanted to safeguard return of all the items he left lying around then they should quite simply have been listed properly on the inventory.


Presuming this bit below is in response to someone else' post, not mine

Whether he actually replaces it is neither here nor there. We all know LLs do not have to do so. If a tenant breaks something, it is the loss that is charged for (allowing for depreciation etc) , not the replacement.

paddyrg

ManchegoMan wrote: »

I was seeking to find out if any price tag can be claimed for something which wasn't listed properly. A painting on the wall thats got damaged or torn could be claimed as a rare gem worth thousands but isn't listed. Who's to say LLs cant claim unlimited bogus values for their items???? That vase I broke might only be worth ten quid and the LL is trying it on - just a thought.

Exactly - when you rent I don't think 'reasonable wear and tear' exempts ornaments - if 1 glass vase was broken, a glass vase should replace it - but it can be a secondhand one otherwise the landlord is getting new for old - and tenants cannot be used that way. I think the term is 'betterment' - for instance the carpets - if they were a bit worn when you moved in, you lived there for 5 years, then at the end of it the LL says 'oooh now I need a new carpet - you must pay for it all - and it has to be made out of unicorn eyelashes' the tenant can't be held to that - it is betterment - leaving the landlord in a better position than before the rental. Instead the carpets would be effectively amortised over time, so after the 5 years, even if you had trashed them, you'd only be held accountable for the difference between 5 years and the 'lifespan' of a carpet (say 8-10 yrs).