Landlord want to charge for smoke alarms - advice?

krlyr

But where is the proof that they were working? Would the LL saying "well they appear to have been" be a valid argument in court?

Fire_Fox

krlyr wrote: »

But where is the proof that they were working? Would the LL saying "well they appear to have been" be a valid argument in court?

The dysfunction with dust in the sensor is that the alarm sounded continuously not that it failed to go off at all.

If the alarm had been ringing continuously for two and a half years I suspect the tenant or a neighbour would have complained very loudly indeed, the tenant might have moved or someone contacted Environmental Health. You could equally well say there is no proof the front door ever closed and locked or no proof that the toilet ever flushed, you'd need a video to prove all this. Even with a top quality inventory there has to be an element of common sense used.

dimbo61

£182 for a call out !!!
Is the contractor even qualified/trained how to clean or service the smoke alarms
Part P registered electrician !!! who can install smoke alarms.
Ask for invoice from company who have done the work.
Ask for your full deposit back and refuse to admit any damage was caused by you or your family.

zappahey

dimbo61 wrote: »

Is the contractor even qualified/trained how to clean or service the smoke alarms
Part P registered electrician !!! who can install smoke alarms.

This is not relevant and merely confuses the issue.

paul1964_2

tinsilver wrote: »

Our tenancy agreement included a clause stating that we were responsible for changing the 9V batteries and testing that the alarms worked, but that's it.

So you aren't responsible for the maintenance of the smoke detectors.

I don't think a tenant should be messing with the landlord's fire detection equipment unless they have agreed this as part of the tenancy agreement and have full safety instructions on how to perform the required maintenance.

Without clear instructions, how would you know how to maintain the equipment without risk of damage to the appliance or harm to yourself?

Oliviana_London

When you rent out a property specially for near 3 years, you expect some wear marks on the property. As long as those are considered to only be wear marks they can't be damages. No LL could expect his house to remain new after 3 years. That money would go out on expenses anyway, so at the end of the financial year, the LL would not pay taxes against the money used for the property maintenance.

You should hold that the level of dust was a normal wear of the property, and it can not be hold as a damage of the property.

It's like your LL would tell you that you need to buy a new sofa lets say, cause the sofa used to be new 3 years ago, but now has wear marks. Of course the sofa will have wear marks, you used it and you paid to use it (rent). As long is not ripped apart of course.

Fire_Fox

Oliviana_London wrote: »

When you rent out a property specially for near 3 years, you expect some wear marks on the property. As long as those are considered to only be wear marks they can't be damages. No LL could expect his house to remain new after 3 years. That money would go out on expenses anyway, so at the end of the financial year, the LL would not pay taxes against the money used for the property maintenance.

You should hold that the level of dust was a normal wear of the property, and it can not be hold as a damage of the property.

It's like your LL would tell you that you need to buy a new sofa lets say, cause the sofa used to be new 3 years ago, but now has wear marks. Of course the sofa will have wear marks, you used it and you paid to use it (rent). As long is not ripped apart of course.

For a law student you don't seem to understand the accepted definition of wear and tear. Dirt, scuffs, stains and smudges are not included. In the context of a sofa wear and tear is caused by normal sitting in clean clothes - the pile of the fabric flattening or bobbling, the cushions getting a bum imprint, eventually the fabric thinning and maybe going a little threadbare, sunlight from the window causing fading.

Oliviana_London

Fire_Fox wrote: »

For a law student you don't seem to understand the accepted definition of wear and tear. Dirt, scuffs, stains and smudges are not included. In the context of a sofa wear and tear is caused by normal sitting in clean clothes - the pile of the fabric flattening or bobbling, the cushions getting a bum imprint, eventually the fabric thinning and maybe going a little threadbare, sunlight from the window causing fading.

I think people understood what I said. As long as something will be classified as regular wear, can not be damage. Is very simple what I said.

And the level of dust in a house where a pregnant person is living... that can't be above normal dust level found in every house.

Anyway, the letting agency should prove that the OP did something, or used something out of ordinary, or what a reasonable person would not do/use, that made the dust level go above a reasonable one, found in every house.

Fire_Fox

Oliviana_London wrote: »

I think people understood what I said. As long as something will be classified as regular wear, can not be damage. Is very simple what I said.

And the level of dust in a house where a pregnant person is living... that can't be above normal dust level found in every house.

You crack on and leave a property with a 'normal' level of dust and see how much is taken out of your damage deposit for cleaning, and see how the deposit protection scheme sides with the landlord. DIRT IS NOT CLASSED AS WEAR AND TEAR.

Oliviana_London

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You crack on and leave a property with a 'normal' level of dust and see how much is taken out of your damage deposit for cleaning, and see how the deposit protection scheme sides with the landlord. DIRT IS NOT CLASSED AS WEAR AND TEAR.

The OP already said that he had with his pregnant wife a normal life. They cleaned as normal people. Nothing suggested that the house was not dusted for 3 years. That will be out of ordinary, and that would be what a reasonable person would not do.

I have no reasons to believe that the OP and his pregnant wife never cleaned and never dusted, do I?

I mean the LL should prove that the dust level was above what would be considered reasonable.... shouldn't he?