Letting agency wont return deposit

PayDay

thesaint wrote: »

The landlord does not have to produce a receipt for the original carpet, so your understanding is somewhat limited.

Just out of interest, so humour me on this one, what do you think a judge basis his ruling on?

Landlord asks judge for % costs of carpet. % of what? Or did you think the judge would just guess the cost and age of the carpet?:rotfl:

thesaint

PayDay wrote: »

Just out of interest, so humour me on this one, what do you think a judge basis his ruling on?

Landlord asks judge for % costs of carpet. % of what? Or did you think the judge would just guess the cost and age of the carpet?:rotfl:

Since you asked nicely, here goes.

A judge does not live in his chambers, he goes to the petrol station to fill up his 4.2 litre jag, he heats up his food with a microwave purchased at the local electrical store, he may even go to the corner shop to buy a pint/litre of milk.

This 'Real world' experience lets him know that a tenant claiming a carpet only costs £15 is ludicrous, just as a landlord claiming that he spent £674 per sq/m is also ludicrous, receipt or no receipt. He will use what is called 'Reasonableness' i.e 'Is that reasonable'?

Not rocket science. :beer:

PayDay

thesaint wrote: »

This 'Real world' experience lets him know that a tenant claiming a carpet only costs £15 is ludicrous, just as a landlord claiming that he spent £674 per sq/m is also ludicrous, receipt or no receipt. He will use what is called 'Reasonableness' i.e 'Is that reasonable'?

Not rocket science. :beer:

Certainly wasn't rocket science, because you were wrong.
1. The tenant wasn't claiming the carpet was only worth £15.
2. The tenant doesn't have to prove anything, because it is the landlord who is the one who has to prove what the carpet is worth and provide evidence showing what the original price was and age.

It may also be that a judge would take a very dim view of the fact that the landlord hadn't produced a copy of this bill to the tenant before the court appearance and by not doing so, were wasting the courts valuable time.

thesaint

PayDay wrote: »

Certainly wasn't rocket science, because you were wrong.
1. The tenant wasn't claiming the carpet was only worth £15.
2. The tenant doesn't have to prove anything, because it is the landlord who is the one who has to prove what the carpet is worth and provide evidence showing what the original price was and age.

It may also be that a judge would take a very dim view of the fact that the landlord hadn't produced a copy of this bill to the tenant before the court appearance and by not doing so, were wasting the courts valuable time.

Dear PayDay,

I made up the prices in my example, didn't you get that? I was trying to show that just because a receipt says something does not make it a clear cut fact. A landlord usually has lots of 'Friends' in the trade, and could easily inflate the cost of his carpet. If I said it cost £674 per sq/m would the judge automatically rule in my favour?

By your reasoning no receipt equals a tenant would not have to pay for any damage in a flat. Guess a landlord purchased a house containing five flats from another landlord, he would not have any receipts, would the tenants in those flats be free to remove all his belongings and cause damage and have the judge agree with them?

Think about it for a while, even phone a friend and get back to me.:beer:

lush_walrus

I think it's all a question of how reasonable you are as to what you do about this situation.

I own my house that has an open fire and I have to say I have never burnt the carpet around the fire. It's not because I have a magic ability to be able to light the fire without anything spitting back out. The reason is simple, I brought the carpet, I am aware of it's cost, paid for it myself and do not want it ruined. Therefore, when I light the fire, I am very aware of my actions. I put an off cut of carpet infront of the fire when I am filling it with coal, which stays there as I light it. The fire has been lit over and over and never have I damaged or burnt it.

So, can you honestly say you took adequate care as if it were your own not to burn it? Perhaps you did and was unlucky, or perhaps it's a bit like how I feel about the carpet where I work where I care very little as it didn't cost me a penny.

If you feel that you have behaved fairly, then fight for your deposit back I guess. If not and you fight it, watch your back for good old karma!

lush_walrus

snails's_pace wrote: »

Regarding the carpet, if the property came furnished, a guard should have been provided.
Also ask to see copies of the 3 monthly inspections that are carried out

Hhhm not too sure I agree with your OH about the fire guard, that's pretty over and above the requirements for a furnished property and how the hell would a fire guard stop carpets being burnt they exist to stop people being burnt not carpets!!

In the past 2 years, we have chosen to close the letting part of the EA, due to too much hassle from bad tennants (not that all of them are by any means, but the bad apples make a hell of a lot of hassle) and never in all of that time have we suggested any landlord should provide a fire guard. Adults are more than capable of knowing or working out how not to damage things. If children are involved then the parents are capable of buying items such as that to suit their own needs.

Also with 3 monthly inspections, it will depend on how the property is managed as to whether it has been inspected or not (and 3 months is not the rule on these things, most LL's choose the spacing of inspections). Even if the property is unmanged, and the EA is employed to find the tennant it does not excuse damaging of fixtures and fittings by any means.!

Coopster

I`ll try and answer all at once like before. Seems like there is no right and no wrong.

Like i stated before... my hands are up...its IS our fault that it got burnt. There is a fire guard and a hearth and we put an old rug in front of the fire too. Unluckily for us the place where it got burnt is at the side of the hearth( dont ask me how !!). The carpet is a hardwearing one, and dark brown.The size of the burns is hardly noticable . Also unluckily for us, it is a walkthrough lounge/ diners and the carpet runs continuous through both.
We were there 3 years, so we know the carpet is at least that.

anyway, its been 3 weeks since we moved out. According to the letting agency they are waiting for quotes to come back.
Thesaint....... you say that the landlord doesn`t have to provide proof as to how old the carpet is???? Surely this cannot be true? otherwise he can just say it was brand new 2 weeks before we moved in? doesnt seem fair to me

to recap, we admit it is our fault....but like i mentioned before, WHERE are they getting the pricing structure from to replace the carpet? and surely, they HAVE to provide proof as to the age of the carpet??? The 2 combined rooms are a lot of carpet( lets not forget fitting as we have been told that we have to pay for that too) and for every year of the carpets age, it reduces in cost ( to us) of 10% , this can be quite a bit. Why should we pay for the percentage of cost for a 4 year old carpet, when for all any one knows the thing could be over 20 years old!! ( theoretically speaking )

As for going to court, that to us is a very last resort. Thought i`d try and get some response from you guys 1st.
thank again for all the replys..

and the beat goes on sigh