Good Old Fergus!

Pobby

Ruined my weekend. Poor old Fergus having to take someone to court because of a bust cistern lid. If this lot had what Fergus had to put up with, they would feel humble.

http://www.kbobm.org/

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hold on tight. Someone beneath you is going to point out an inconvinient truth.

The tenants obliged and accepted that they would have to pay for the cistern lid. Judith Wilson would not accept the replacement of the cistern lid and was not happy with simply removing the cost from the deposit.

Judith wanted a whole new bathroom costing £2,000+

THAT is why it went to court. NOT because the tenants did not, or would not replace the damaged cistern lid.

I await your next tyrade.

[Text removed by MSE Forum Team]

The cistern that was replaced was a different colour, without looking it up it was cream instead of light blue or pink or something. Now tell me when you sign your inventory why should you have the right to replace the cistern with one of a different colour.

Conrad

I'm about to let anther two places and based on experience will try to avoid beneifts recipients unless they can prove thier bennies will be sustainable.

mayonnaise

pbouk wrote: »

I have practiced martial arts since I was 5 years old, and I can cause serious damage without leaving a mark, so your comment is rubbish!

You should have practiced reading and understanding.


Anyway, the case is closed, the little twerp EA got £150 compensation and his 5 minutes of fame and Mr. Wilson can just recover the £1650 fine by jacking up the rents. Everybody happy.

Generali

chucky wrote: »

The last line sums you up especially posting this complete nonsense.

The tenants should be responsible for their friends actions instead of hiding behind the law instead of taking responsibility themselves. Why should the Wilson's be responsible for damage caused by the tenants friends?!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hold on tight. Someone beneath you is going to point out an inconvinient truth.

The tenants obliged and accepted that they would have to pay for the cistern lid. Judith Wilson would not accept the replacement of the cistern lid and was not happy with simply removing the cost from the deposit.

Judith wanted a whole new bathroom costing £2,000+

THAT is why it went to court. NOT because the tenants did not, or would not replace the damaged cistern lid.

I await your next tirade.

Isn't the point of the law that when there's a dispute between two people, they can come together peacefully under a pre-agreed set of rules and have a disinterested person or group of people decide who is right and who should reimburse the other for any loss?

The law appears to be that if you break a cistern lid and then have to replace the entire bathroom as a result. If you think that law is wrong then talk to your MP. It's neither the renter's nor the LL's fault that the law is what it is.

chucknorris

leveller2911 wrote: »

Instead of posting your typical wind up posts Chucky elighten us all on how much the average "cistern lid replacement" should cost?...........

As its Friday Chucky I will save you the effort. To replace a cistern lid it would cost £125-00 +vat max and I'm guessing this would be deducted from the tenants deposit. This is based in the fact that Fungus buys mass produced site houses which are built to a low spec using basic quality products. Price breakdown is below:

Cost of replacement cistern lid £50-00

Labour to fit (including £50-00 call out fee) £75-00

Sub Total £125-00

+vat @20% £25-00

Total Due £150-00

Not quite £2k is it.In fact a whole new bathroom would be sub £2k easily..................;)

I do remember this case when it first came to light and I think the problem was that the bathroom suite was discontinued and they couldn't match up the cistern lid to the rest of suite (or so it was claimed).


However less than one min on google and I found this website that provides cistern lids for discontinued bathroom suites.


http://www.replacementbathroom.co.uk/cistern-lids-15-c.asp


The cost is a little higher (but no doubt reflected by the fact that they are discontinued) as I saw some lids were over £150 (incl. VAT/delivery). I don't know about fitting costs, surely it is quite easy (just like putting a cushion on a sofa). So I imagine the total cost being close to what you stated (but no allowance for fitting, unless it was a push flush cistern involving fitting? (never had one of them so I don't know).

leveller2911

chucknorris wrote: »

I do remember this case when it first came to light and I think the problem was that the bathroom suite was discontinued and they couldn't match up the cistern lid to the rest of suite (or so it was claimed).


However less than one min on google and I found this website that provides cistern lids for discontinued bathroom suites.


http://www.replacementbathroom.co.uk/cistern-lids-15-c.asp


The cost is a little higher (but no doubt reflected by the fact that they are discontinued) as I saw some lids were over £150 (incl. VAT/delivery). I don't know about fitting costs, surely it is quite easy (just like putting a cushion on a sofa). So I imagine the total cost being close to what you stated (but no allowance for fitting, unless it was a push flush cistern involving fitting? (never had one of them so I don't know).

The older styled toilet cisterns lids generally just sat on the cistern but many modern ones have the flush system in the top of the lid as you say.

Very simple to fit as the flush just unscrews ,then sit the new lid on the cistern and screw the flush back in so its about 10 miuntes work.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

Isn't the point of the law that when there's a dispute between two people, they can come together peacefully under a pre-agreed set of rules and have a disinterested person or group of people decide who is right and who should reimburse the other for any loss?

The law appears to be that if you break a cistern lid and then have to replace the entire bathroom as a result. If you think that law is wrong then talk to your MP. It's neither the renter's nor the LL's fault that the law is what it is.

The law is the law and is what governs the country.

The Wilson's demand of replacing the whole bathroom were over the top and they should have managed this all a lot better but they have more money than sense, they probably don't care.

The Wilson bashing is all a bit sad, similar to hatred of bankers, estate agents etc... I don't really get the enjoyment from it all.

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

The law is the law and is what governs the country.

The Wilson's demand of replacing the whole bathroom were over the top and they should have managed this all a lot better but they have more money than sense, they probably don't care.

The Wilson bashing is all a bit sad, similar to hatred of bankers, estate agents etc... I don't really get the enjoyment from it all.

I wonder why an insurance claim wasn't considered, when one of my tenants burnt a kitchen worktop, which despite being only 18 months old, was a discontinued range. It meant taking up all of the worktop and replacing it, so the kitchen sink and hob also had to be disconnected and refitted. The cost was about £700 (incl. VAT) and the insurance company only paid about (I forget the exact sums) £450 towards it (only 50% where the worktop was undamaged and not the £100 excess), the tenant paid the remaining £250.


EDIT: Although in this instance replacing the whole bathroom suite does appear to be disproportionate to the problem.

chucky

chucknorris wrote: »

I wonder why an insurance claim wasn't considered, when one of my tenants burnt a kitchen worktop, which despite being only 18 months old, was a discontinued range. It meant taking up all of the worktop and replacing it, so the kitchen sink and hob also had to be disconnected and refitted. The cost was about £700 (incl. VAT) and the insurance company only paid about (I forget the exact sums) £450 towards it (only 50% where the worktop was undamaged and not the £100 excess), the tenant paid the remaining £250.


EDIT: Although in this instance replacing the whole bathroom suite does appear to be disproportionate to the problem.

That's exactly the type of scenario I envisage but I imagine having the control of the tenants is what they wanted.

Tenants have a responsibility, this is something the usual suspects on here are refusing to understand.