lodger problem - landlord using deposit.

19lottie82

SternMusik wrote: »

Regarding the deposit, I don't think this would stand up in court. The hob continues to function well, and they didn't make it clear that they want it to remain absolutely pristine (which cannot be expected in a kitchen that is actually used for cooking).

so if someone scratched your car, it wouldn't matter, because it still functioned?

the OP damaged the hob, it's pretty obvious that this isn't acceptable, and it shouldn't need to be "made clear" that this isn't acceptable. it's not wear and tear.

Also just to point out to the OP, please don't think I am against you here, I'm not. I also think it's a pretty poor show that the LL is trying to get you to shell out for a new hob because of one little mark, but I'm afraid legally, they are most likely in the right, unless you can prove that it can be fixed at a lower price.

BitterAndTwisted

Sounds like whatever the OP does, this LL will find another excuse to hang onto their deposit.

The only recourse then would be court. Lodgers are in a very weak position, and if the landlord felt like it, could give you 24 hours notice to make other arrangements, so I'd be disinclined to argue the toss over the deposit now unless you had somewhere else to go at very short notice.

SternMusik

19lottie82 wrote: »

so if someone scratched your car, it wouldn't matter, because it still functioned?

Fair enough. In case of the hob, if this was my house it would come under wear and tear. The hob will get dirty during cooking, and if the surface is _so_ delicate and difficult to keep clean then the landlord should have advised of this beforehand.

martinsurrey

SternMusik wrote: »

Fair enough. In case of the hob, if this was my house it would come under wear and tear. The hob will get dirty during cooking, and if the surface is _so_ delicate and difficult to keep clean then the landlord should have advised of this beforehand.

the OP should have read the instructions of what ever they used to clean the hob with

(Cillit bang as an example)

http://www.cillitbang.co.uk/faq.php


"Cillit Bang Power Cleaner Limescale & Shine should not be used on: acid-sensitive materials such as enamel or marble, aluminium, copper, stone, galvanised surfaces, kitchen work surfaces, linoleum, varnished, waxed or oiled floors, rubber, textiles or carpets. Please also always read the application instructions on the packaging"


also

"Make sure you always test on an inconspicuous area first to ensure compatibility with the surface. Please also always read usage instructions on the packaging."

the LL is not the OPS mother! but the LL provided a cleaning product that was taking too long so the OP seems to have upped the anti and gone for a farrrr to strong product)

19lottie82

SternMusik wrote: »

Fair enough. In case of the hob, if this was my house it would come under wear and tear. The hob will get dirty during cooking, and if the surface is _so_ delicate and difficult to keep clean then the landlord should have advised of this beforehand.

But it's not your house! I appreciate what you are saying, and many may agree that the LL is being harsh by retaining the OP's deposit to pay for a new hob BUT I'm afraid in the eyes of the law, they are in the right. That is the argument here, not what is "fair" or "moral"

Also, as described, the OP used a product unsuitable for the surface in question, which led to the damage. It wasn't wear and tear, caused by "normal" cleaning.

bretts

I think the idea of buying the bosch care kit is good, I think this is a bosch hob but please try good old wet cotton cloth, it will do no harm if you rub it with that for a couple of minutes or may be rub a normal white bread as it is soft and again would not harm the metal.

tight_is_right

The cleaning product was probably supplied by the LL though...

Sensibility must prevail if this went to court - would a judge really enforce OP to buy a new hob for superficial damage? Surely he would tell LL to grow up and stop wasting his time. Yes, OP stained the hob - but nobody is hurt, everything still works, so move on. If one of the burners was damaged then OP would clearly need to rectify it and a judge would rule accordingly, but for a little stain? It's no wonder this country is going to the dogs.

danshah316

martinsurrey wrote: »

the OP should have read the instructions of what ever they used to clean the hob with

Yes, the LL also said this to me when she inspected the damage.

Wish I did. I would have just used wipes and left it OK, had the LL not told me about how long they spent wiping the surfaces and wanting it perfect. (one of the parents of the LL happened to be visiting that evening, hence why I believe a big clean was done.)

19lottie82

tight_is_right wrote: »

The cleaning product was probably supplied by the LL though...

Yes, and it most likely clearly stated on the back of the bottle, what surfaces it could and could not be used on. Also, as already stated, the LL is not the OP's Mother - Not a valid argument I'm afraid.

tight_is_right wrote: »

Sensibility must prevail if this went to court - would a judge really enforce OP to buy a new hob for superficial damage?

If it couldn't be fixed, of course he / she would.

tight_is_right wrote: »

Yes, OP stained the hob - but nobody is hurt, everything still works, so move on.

Again, would you apply this theory if someone scratched your brand new car?

tight_is_right wrote: »

If one of the burners was damaged then OP would clearly need to rectify it and a judge would rule accordingly, but for a little stain?

So where is the middle ground in your opinion? How do you decide when the OP would need to repair / replace, and when they wouldn't?

danshah316

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

It might not be necessary to replace the whole hob but to source the appropriate part. That's what I'd be looking into tout suite.

The hob is a caple C769G and the LL has told me that the whole hob needs replacing. I was hoping it would be just the part.