moved out- landlord chasing for damage?

mrginge

I would be interested to know whether the deposit had been protected or was just returned in full in order to get a valid s.21 and get the tenant out of the house.

OP can you answer this please.

oochiepoochie

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

RAS was asking whether the tenant reported the fault to the landlord or their agent in writing.

oh, d'oh!! please excuse me, i am a wally

no, according to her mum, she rang the letting agent about the leak. personally, i'm a stickler for written records so when i was renting, EVERYTHING was emailed to the agent (especially as one of my complaints was about being electrocuted by the dodgy shower- hmm, perhaps there's lasting damage which accounts for my inability to correctly work out RAS's question lol) as you've said though, the agents will have a record of the repair being requested so hopefully that will suffice.

apologies again for my misunderstanding- it's my day off work so my brain isn't in gear...

oochiepoochie

antrobus wrote: »

So....

Tenant moves in to property. Tenant notices a problem. Tenant notifies letting agent. Landlord sends someone round to fix it. Tenant subsequently quits property. Letting agent examines the property, finds it in good condition, and repays tenant's deposit. Landlord later discovers that the problem wasn't fixed, and that further damage resulted, and is asking the tenant to pay.



That would be the explanation.


I would suggest that the neighbour's daughter reply to the letter from the landlord's solicitor requesting payment in the following fashion,

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of (whenever).

I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram.

Yours faithfully,

had to google that, lol

it's a great suggestion :rotfl:

oochiepoochie

mrginge wrote: »

I would be interested to know whether the deposit had been protected or was just returned in full in order to get a valid s.21 and get the tenant out of the house.

OP can you answer this please.

sorry, i'm a bit of a novice- had to look that up. my understanding is that she hadn't reached the end of the agreed tenancy but that she agreed to move out after discussions with the agent. she hasn't mentioned anything about being served a section 21 but tbh, she's very confused about things at the moment and doesn't seem to understand the processes very well. i will ask my neighbour to get her to get everything together so that they can have a proper look.

crumbs, it's all very confusing...

mrginge

oochiepoochie wrote: »

sorry, i'm a bit of a novice- had to look that up. my understanding is that she hadn't reached the end of the agreed tenancy but that she agreed to move out after discussions with the agent. she hasn't mentioned anything about being served a section 21 but tbh, she's very confused about things at the moment and doesn't seem to understand the processes very well. i will ask my neighbour to get her to get everything together so that they can have a proper look.

crumbs, it's all very confusing...

...and was her deposit protected? This is key information, as if not the tables can be turned quite nicely.

oochiepoochie

mrginge wrote: »

...and was her deposit protected? This is key information, as if not the tables can be turned quite nicely.

sorry, yes, the deposit was held by a deposit scheme, is that's what you mean?

Kynthia

The fact that a solicitor wrote the letter might make it seem more serious, but it doesn't make a difference as anyone can pay a solicitor to write a letter. I'd get some evidence together just incase the LL decides to go to small claims court. How soon after moving in did the fault get reported? Obviously the shorter the time the more likely the majority of damage was done by the previous tenant. Can you write to the agent for confirmation of when the fault was reported and the repair done? Make notes of any facts that can be remembered. Dig out the original inventory, does it mention the sealant? Definitely keep hold of the excellent check out report.

oochiepoochie

oh dear, the plot thickens. i've had a look at all the paperwork now and what my neighbour has told me isn't a full account of what's happened :wall:

basically, she noticed a leak around the bath and put some new sealant on herself (uh oh). when this didn't work, she contacted the lettings agent and they arranged for someone to have a look. the landlord came out too and appointed their own plumber who found some sort of leak to the pipework under the bath and fixed it but the leak had damaged the wall and ceiling in the room underneath the bathroom. the landlord said that they would get the damage repaired but when they moved out 3 months later, no repairs had been made.

the landlord is now saying- in the solicitor's letter- that the damage occured due to the tenant's botched attempt at repair and is billing her for the repairs to the wall and ceiling. they have failed to mention in the letter that their own plumber made the repairs. they also say that the tenant had promised to repair the damage themselves which is why they didn't carry out any repairs- an allegation that the tenant says is untrue.

the tenant has a copy of the lettings agent report to say that the leak was reported and that the tenant had been out to look at the property. there is nothing else in there about who carried out the repairs and the solicitor's letter states that the tenant is not allowed to contact the lettings agent about the matter.

also, it seems that a section 21 order was made, so i guess this explains why the bond was refunded? and despite what i was originally told, there is reference to the damage to the wall in the check out i guess that unless she can prove that she did not carry out the repairs then she is liable for the cost of the damge done.

i am so sorry to have given an inaccurate version of events: what i posted originally was genuinely what i had been led to believe. apologies for wasting anybody's time. i guess this will teach me to look before i leap.

sorry again :embarasse

BitterAndTwisted

Nothing in your post contradicts the advice you have already been given. There was a leak. The tenant made a repair to the sealant. There was another leak in the pipework which the tenant was not aware of. It was reported. The landlord instructed a repair. So any consequential damage isn't the solely fault of the tenant no matter how strongly the landlord thinks it is.

The landlord cannot forbid the tenant to contact the agent, although they might be reluctant to help if they are still contracted to the landlord.

oochiepoochie

Okay, thank you. She has decided to respond to the solicitor with a letter refuting the allegations and outlining the sequence of events from her perspective.

So, the landlord is saying that her attempts to repair the leak are what caused the damage. Funny then, that the plumber had to break off the nailed on bath panel in order that he could get to the leak- destroying it in the process (in the presence of the landlord). We're hoping that this is enough to show that she can't have attempted a repair- she couldn't even get to it!!

Waiting now for a response to her letter, fingers crossed she can get it sorted soon.

Many thanks to you all for your kind advice