Landlord deposit issue

NovaBlack155

Hey all, thanks for taking time out to read this.

So I just moved out of a property I was renting for about 5 years and went over the property with the landlord for the final inspection. The property was in good condition.

The only thing of note was a single cracked tile in the small downstairs bathroom. Note - these were small plain white tiles, nothing fancy. Couldn't tell you how it even got damaged - the crack is a Y shape across the tile, but no missing pieces etc. Perfectly happy to pay to replace the tile though.

However the landlord has come back saying they are unable to source the same tiles (as I say.. they are small, cheap and white...) and thus are going to have to retile the entire bathroom (guesstimate at about 2m by 1.5m). This apparently means a plumber making two visits - one to remove the toilet + washbasin - presumably they are getting somebody else to re-tile- then another plumber to refit them.

This comes to the grand total (inc VAT) of £550

Now i'm all for paying what's fair, but that seems excessive! Does that quote seem reasonable? The frustrating thing is that the carpet just outside the bathroom had a large stain on when we moved in, and they didn't think that needed replacing, so I'm finding it frustrating that this visual defect only(no health and safety issue) is apparently so important.

If the verdict is go with it, then I'm happy to as long as it doesnt seem like im being ripped off!

Thanks for any opinions!

GwylimT

A landlord cannot charge for a full replacement, just a proportion, for example if the carpet I burnt with my coal fire was in a landlords property they could only charge x amount, they could not charge for an entire nee carpet.

NovaBlack155

Thanks for the prompt reply! Yeah I suspected as much. Random thought - I'm unsure if they have buildings insurance - but wouldn't that cover this kind of thing? (note - I understand this isn't 'free' and would increase their premiums, hence I'm happy to pay my fair share)

Any idea if there is any evidence to support this kind of thing that I can use when replying to them to say I don't think the charges are justified?

dancingfairy

Was the deposit protected? If so then you can just claim your whole deposit back and your landlord has to say what his issue is.
Do you have any proof of the condition of the place at the beginning or end of the tenancy? Do you think your landlord has?
Your landlord can only charge for actual damage so he would need to prove you caused the damage between the start of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy.
Also be aware he can't charge for betterment. If you broke something that was 3 years old and it was expected to last for 5 then you'd be expected to compensate the landlord for the missing 2 years so you'd pay for 2 years out of 5 (ie you'd pay 2/5 of the price of an equivalent). I'm not sure how it would work with tiling etc but what he's said doesn't sound entirely reasonable. Have a look on the shelter website. They should have guides on how to get your deposit back, contesting deductions, when the landlord is seeking betterment etc. The factsheets are really helpful.
df

Viberduo

Surely after 5 years with wear and tear it should be no charges at all but I am no expert

Guest101

The 5 year rule is a good marker.

Painted walls for example are reasonably expected to wear out and need a new coat every 5 years or so.

OP you owe a proportion of 1 tile. Let's say 70% of the value, since a tile I expect to exceed 10 years of 'use'. That's approx £6 if I understand the style you mean. - though the tiles could've been there for upto 10 years already in which case you would indeed owe nothing.

The landlord is not entitled to 'betterment'.

Replacing a whole tiled wall would be betterment.

Even if you were responsible for the full tiling, if it was done for example 15 years ago ( I know tiles can last longer but seems reasonable) you would still owe £0 as the landlord has not lost out on the effective shelf life.

A good example would be a cheap coffee table. Ikea style. Life expectancy of 4-5 years. Even if you got it brand new when you moved in, and it was destroyed now. You would owe £0. The landlord has not lost out ( except maybe on fire wood if you'd thrown it away).

fairy_lights

What a cheeky blagger, basically he wants to redo the bathroom and get you to foot the costs. I wouldn't agree to pay a penny, just request the full return of the deposit and leave him to try to prove that any deductions are justified.

NovaBlack155

Thanks for all the replies everyone!

I'll reply to the landlord tonight stating that I don't feel the charges are entirely fair in relation to the minor damage caused, the time we have lived there, and given there are other remedies available (e.g. replacing the white tile with another closely matching).

My deposit is protected, so I'll ask them if they'd like to re-propose an agreement on deposit to return, and if not I'd like to suggest we use the deposit dispute service.

Russe11

Is the tiled area logged and photographed in the inventory?

If not then there is no claim against the deposit that will succeed.

when was the original tiling of the bathroom done, if 10 years ago and the property has been let for all that time then its wear and tear.

Why even agree to get the broken tile taken from the deposit? All that would do to any greedy landlord is give the green light to get a full quote job done.

Rosetinted

They want you to pay to retile the entire bathroom because of one cheap, old, broken tile? They're having a laugh! Good try there by the cheeky landlord, but there's absolutely no way that you need to pay for that. As Russe11 said, if the inventory doesn't cover the condition of the tiling on the floor, they can't even prove that the damage was done during your tenancy.

Also, reasonable wear and tear is expected in all properties, which it sounds like this falls under. I wouldn't even ask them to propose how much deposit they want to steal from you. I'd chalk it up to normal wear and tear after many years of the bathroom tiles being in place and say I'm expecting my full deposit back (you said the property was otherwise in good condition).

If it's not on the inventory, there's little they can do anyway and even if it is, you'd only be responsible for a reasonable portion of the costs, taking into account that the tiles were at least five years old and you might reasonably expect them to last 10 or 15 years. We're talking less than a fiver, but more than likely you owe them absolutely nothing.