Landlord Suing me for £6,500!!!!

rmacnair

RAS wrote: »

OP - was there a dual signed inventory when you moved in?

If so what did it say about each of those items?

Do you have any written proof that you asked the LL to repair various things? Do you have the environmental health officers report?

I have the original inventory - it claims there to be scuffs, chips and blemishes on the cabinets

All the requests I have stated were via text messages, which I still have

Yes I have a copy of the environmental health officers report (requesting him to fix 4 things, he properly fixed 1, partially fixed 2 and ignored the 4th)

rmacnair

Reue wrote: »

End of topic. No signed dated checkout report means no deposit deductions and unable to prove damage in court.

Ignore the letter.

It's signed and dated by the company who carried out the report and he already got my deposit as I told him to take my last months rent from it.

ILW

Reue wrote: »

End of topic. No signed dated checkout report means no deposit deductions and unable to prove damage in court.

Ignore the letter.

So if a tenant leaves a place in terrible condition, but refuses to sign a checkout, are you saying the landlord has no right to sue for the damage to be repaired?

spacey2012

A bog standard solicitors letter usually means the solicitor told the client they dont have much of a case, so send a threat letter instead and hope they pay some.
Otherwise you would have a Letter before action conforming to standards.
Why would they waste time on stupid letters.

Reue

ILW wrote: »

So if a tenant leaves a place in terrible condition, but refuses to sign a checkout, are you saying the landlord has no right to sue for the damage to be repaired?

Im saying a landlord is not going to be able to prove damage without a signed checkout report 7 months after the end of a tenancy.

rmacnair

spacey2012 wrote: »

A bog standard solicitors letter usually means the solicitor told the client they dont have much of a case, so send a threat letter instead and hope they pay some.
Otherwise you would have a Letter before action conforming to standards.
Why would they waste time on stupid letters.

Hows this for a cover letter? btw loving the word vexatious!! The £285 offered is for the outstanding bills which I agree I owe.


In all honesty, I am offended at the ludicrous and frankly extortionate amount you are attempting to claim on behalf of your client. I would expect a company of such legal standing to rationalise such claims and actually interrogate the evidence; there are several instances where the claims are obviously not my responsibility and others where work has been carried out by companies which I believe do not exist as a legal entity, let alone specialise in the work they have carried out, yet have provided invoices. I shall however make it very clear at this point that I will defend any court claim vigorously and counter claim for harassment caused by bringing a vexatious and speculative demand. As far as I am concerned, the contract is closed and finalised.

In summary, I am offering to pay £228.45 to the landlord, of which £100 has already been taken from the initial deposit. This conclusion has been reached on the following basis:

· The majority of costs quoted are to replace items where a simple repair at a small fraction of the cost would suffice (e.g. quoted new kitchen at £4,560; estimated DIY repair cost of £16 etc.).

· Where replacements were actually required (i.e. not possible to repair), they should have been like-for-like and age-for-age replacements. The landlord is not entitled to recoup costs against improvements to the property; only to recoup costs to bring the property back to the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy.

· Landlord has invoiced for services which are not the tenants responsibility (e.g. electrician used during tenancy for general maintenance, emptying of septic tank 5 months after end of tenancy etc.)

· During the tenancy the landlord ignored the vast majority of requests to maintain the property and only did minor maintenance when threatened with legal action by Housing Standards.

· Six months of faulty electrics, ignored by landlord on several occasions

· Landlord was repeatedly in breach of the agreement, trespassing on the property and letting himself in to the house without permission or notice.

I look forward to your reply, which I expect within 14 days (10-October-2013) inline with your previous letter’s request.

00ec25

OP what you don't understand is that the LL is entitled to claim compensation for the damage done to his property. Note this is compensation NOT the costs of repair for any actual work undertaken. A court (or the DPS for that matter) is awarding a sum of money, there is no need to provide proof that the money was spent (invoices) on actually doing the work nor that it was done by a tradesman as opposed to a DIYer. Therefore your offer of £16 has no more basis in fact than his claim of £0,000

the court (or DPS) will of course base the amount of compensation around the value it thinks is reasonable for the damage done, this is why you and the LL will produce quotes for the works but as i say any money awarded is not on the basis of actual amount spent in rectifying the damage. The LL would be perfectly entitled to pocket the money and never do any repairs at all

There are elements of the LL's claim which you clearly accept are your responsibility. To date you have given the LL £100 compensation, the LL obviously is saying that is not enough

the LL's claim for a replacement kitchen will fail as that is betterment, it was 20 years old and the check in inventory indicates it was not perfect. It is down to you and the LL to agreed a sum to compensate for the puppy damage

the fact the LL did not undertake some maintenance tasks (grouting etc) is irrelevant to either your or his claim unless the LL can prove this was damage (so at your cost) rather than fair wear and tear (at his cost)

personally I think spacey's quasi legalese language is rubbish and will not serve you in replying to the solicitor

ValHaller

spacey2012 wrote: »

A bog standard solicitors letter usually means the solicitor told the client they dont have much of a case, so send a threat letter instead and hope they pay some.
Otherwise you would have a Letter before action conforming to standards.
Why would they waste time on stupid letters.

Really? I think it is safer to assume that they send out the standard letter on everything and the lack of an LBA would indicate that the solicitor has told the client that they don't have much of a case.

This does involve the solicitor sending 2 letters for which they can charge of course - but it gives them more on their file to claim they have attempted to resolve before going to court

RAS

As per your original post, you do not seem to be able to separate the wood from the trees.

Thank you for your letter. Having taken advice, I have been told that the LL is not entitled to betterment.

Any attempt to extract money on this basis wil be robustly defended and costs requested.

End of.

rmacnair wrote: »

Hows this for a cover letter? btw loving the word vexatious!! The £285 offered is for the outstanding bills which I agree I owe.


In all honesty, I am offended at the ludicrous and frankly extortionate amount you are attempting to claim on behalf of your client. I would expect a company of such legal standing to rationalise such claims and actually interrogate the evidence; there are several instances where the claims are obviously not my responsibility and others where work has been carried out by companies which I believe do not exist as a legal entity, let alone specialise in the work they have carried out, yet have provided invoices. I shall however make it very clear at this point that I will defend any court claim vigorously and counter claim for harassment caused by bringing a vexatious and speculative demand. As far as I am concerned, the contract is closed and finalised.

In summary, I am offering to pay £228.45 to the landlord, of which £100 has already been taken from the initial deposit. This conclusion has been reached on the following basis:

· The majority of costs quoted are to replace items where a simple repair at a small fraction of the cost would suffice (e.g. quoted new kitchen at £4,560; estimated DIY repair cost of £16 etc.).

· Where replacements were actually required (i.e. not possible to repair), they should have been like-for-like and age-for-age replacements. The landlord is not entitled to recoup costs against improvements to the property; only to recoup costs to bring the property back to the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy.

· Landlord has invoiced for services which are not the tenants responsibility (e.g. electrician used during tenancy for general maintenance, emptying of septic tank 5 months after end of tenancy etc.)

· During the tenancy the landlord ignored the vast majority of requests to maintain the property and only did minor maintenance when threatened with legal action by Housing Standards.

· Six months of faulty electrics, ignored by landlord on several occasions

· Landlord was repeatedly in breach of the agreement, trespassing on the property and letting himself in to the house without permission or notice.

I look forward to your reply, which I expect within 14 days (10-October-2013) inline with your previous letter’s request.

rmacnair

00ec25 wrote: »

OP what you don't understand is that the LL is entitled to claim compensation for the damage done to his property. Note this is compensation NOT the costs of repair for any actual work undertaken. A court (or the DPS for that matter) is awarding a sum of money, there is no need to provide proof that the money was spent (invoices) on actually doing the work nor that it was done by a tradesman as opposed to a DIYer. Therefore your offer of £16 has no more basis in fact than his claim of £0,000

the court (or DPS) will of course base the amount of compensation around the value it thinks is reasonable for the damage done, this is why you and the LL will produce quotes for the works but as i say any money awarded is not on the basis of actual amount spent in rectifying the damage. The LL would be perfectly entitled to pocket the money and never do any repairs at all

There are elements of the LL's claim which you clearly accept are your responsibility. To date you have given the LL £100 compensation, the LL obviously is saying that is not enough

the LL's claim for a replacement kitchen will fail as that is betterment, it was 20 years old and the check in inventory indicates it was not perfect. It is down to you and the LL to agreed a sum to compensate for the puppy damage

the fact the LL did not undertake some maintenance tasks (grouting etc) is irrelevant to either your or his claim unless the LL can prove this was damage (so at your cost) rather than fair wear and tear (at his cost)

personally I think spacey's quasi legalese language is rubbish and will not serve you in replying to the solicitor

I do understand that, but the compensation he is claiming is out by at least a factor of 10. I'm not offering £16 by the way; I've actually stated in my letter that the repair costs/compensation would be in the order of £200.

As for quotes, there is none. He did the work and has supplied post-work invoices and receipts as evidence (no pictures or evidence, just amounts of money). I was not given a chance to provide quotes because I wans't informed he was undertaking any work until 2 weeks ago