lodger problem - landlord using deposit.

katejo

danshah316 wrote: »

Well I assume so, but I have been categorically told that I will have to pay for a new one and the cost will be £380.

At the time, I told them the mark is quite small so that figure is very steep, but he said he can see the mark so end of.

I would have hoped if he is willing to go through insurance, that he would have said it and asked me to pay the excess and a little more. (unless the excess is more than £380 obv).

I can see why the owner wouldn't want to go through insurance:

1. The excess my may be too high. My home insurance has a £200 excess and my hob cost £200

2. Their renewal premium would be increased so they would lose out.

I still have little sympathy with the owner though. She has overreacted.

Davesnave

Catti wrote: »

Is the Landlord perhaps insured??

Insurers would class this as 'cosmetic' and act accordingly, which is quite telling.

They wouldn't say, "Oh yes, that hob's clearly damaged; you may claim a new one."

Manchee

katejo wrote: »

I still have little sympathy with the owner though. She has overreacted.

Althought I personally prob wouldn't insist on the lodger paying, I don't think shes overreacted. At the end of the day a LL shouldn't have to bear the cost of making good damage done by a tenant/lodger, thats what a deposit is for.

katejo

Manchee wrote: »

Althought I personally prob wouldn't insist on the lodger paying, I don't think shes overreacted. At the end of the day a LL shouldn't have to bear the cost of making good damage done by a tenant/lodger, thats what a deposit is for.

I am perhaps too generous a LL then but I could not charge for this minor mark .

Mylo_The_Moggy

I think LL should actually invest in one of these in the future, easy to use & extemely easy to clean. Great idea for those who don't want their cookers spoilt by lodgers. Save a ton of hassle!

Best £50 I've ever spent as I do all my cooking in my halogen oven! :T

silvercar

I would love this to go to court as I would like to see the landlord being able to prove that the damage was caused by the tenant. If you have lodgers you accept that they use the facilities and as such the odd scuff mark is par for the course.

silvercar

Davesnave wrote: »

Insurers would class this as 'cosmetic' and act accordingly, which is quite telling.

They wouldn't say, "Oh yes, that hob's clearly damaged; you may claim a new one."

I agree, which is why I said, pages back, that the LL mat be entitled to the difference in price between a new hob and a new hob with a cosmetic mark on it. I accept that the LL didn't choose to buy a hob with a mark on it, but LL has made the decision to take lodgers.

19lottie82

silvercar wrote: »

I agree, which is why I said, pages back, that the LL mat be entitled to the difference in price between a new hob and a new hob with a cosmetic mark on it. I accept that the LL didn't choose to buy a hob with a mark on it, but LL has made the decision to take lodgers.

So the LL isn't entitled to get their hob back in the state it was in before the OP damaged it.?

gazter

danshah316 wrote: »

I really appreciate all the responses, and I am leaning towards just chalking it up to experience.

I feel more annoyed I suppose as the home owners shouldn't really expect the place to be kept in absolute mint condition, and if they do, they shouldn't rent rooms out.

As they want £380 to replace the hob which is now 'damaged', does that mean I am entitled to take the damaged hob with me and at least try to get some money back by flogging on ebay?

But you have done the equivalent of putting a very large scratch along the side of their car. I dont think they're being unreasonable.

jamie11

gazter wrote: »

But you have done the equivalent of putting a very large scratch along the side of their car. I dont think they're being unreasonable.

Not a very good simile, you wouldn't expect the owner of a car to replace it completely for a scratch because the car would still work perfectly. It's the same with this hob, I've no doubt that it works fine. The landlord is entitled to charge for repair but not renewal.