Tenant Deposit and Letting Agency

FBaby

Master bedroom had been fully repainted without permission and to try and fix it they painted over it, with the incorrect colour and you can still see the dark paint under it.

I think that might be a sticky point. Tenants are entitled to do what they want as long as they return the property in the same state. In this instance, they attempted to do that as you said they repainted. Whether that job will be considered so bad that it needs redoing will be very much up to the personal judgement of the adjudicator and how good the pictures are.

Tyler119

FBaby wrote: »

I think that might be a sticky point. Tenants are entitled to do what they want as long as they return the property in the same state. In this instance, they attempted to do that as you said they repainted. Whether that job will be considered so bad that it needs redoing will be very much up to the personal judgement of the adjudicator and how good the pictures are.

The tenancy agreement specifically states that no decor changes are to take place without permission. They have breached the contract (which they signed)and it is not their choice just to do a crap paint job with not even use the original colour. They signed a document that is then acknowledging that everything in the property was new.

I am afraid tenants are not entitled to do what they want to a property...they can buy a house if they want to do that. They are only leasing the property, not paying to have the same rights as an owner.

They also did not attempt to do as I asked because I never knew about the master bedroom until I had the property back.

G_M

* Make a list of all the items which are damaged, or dirty, or painted without autorisation etc.

* get contractors round to provide written quotations for repairs, cleaning, re-painting etc

* Send to the agent, with a clear written instruction to deduct the total from the deposit. Tell the agent to send the quotes and totals to the tenants.

* if the total exceeds the deposit, instruct the agents to demand the balance from the tenants

* If/when the tenants objects, use the deposit arbitration process and/or the courts.

Pixie5740

Tyler119 wrote: »

The tenancy agreement specifically states that no decor changes are to take place without permission. They have breached the contract (which they signed)and it is not their choice just to do a crap paint job with not even use the original colour. They signed a document that is then acknowledging that everything in the property was new.

I am afraid tenants are not entitled to do what they want to a property...they can buy a house if they want to do that. They are only leasing the property, not paying to have the same rights as an owner.

They also did not attempt to do as I asked because I never knew about the master bedroom until I had the property back.

You can put whatever you like in a tenancy agreement it doesn't mean that it's legally enforceable.

When you let a property you give ownership of the property by creating a tenancy and in exchange the tenants give you money. If the tenants want to paint all the rooms sky blue pink they can.

Tyler119

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You can put whatever you like in a tenancy agreement it doesn't mean that it's legally enforceable.

When you let a property you give ownership of the property by creating a tenancy and in exchange the tenants give you money. If the tenants want to paint all the rooms sky blue pink they can.

I have to disagree with you. When parties enter into a tenancy agreement, ownership is certainly not handed over. That interpretation is just incorrect.

I agree that everything that is put in a tenancy agreement is not legal. However they were fine to submit a decoration permission form (signed copy) for the feature walls. Being reasonable we agreed. By doing so they were voluntarily abiding by that part of the tenancy agreement. They cannot then decided to do what they want and ignore at their whim to not continue to follow the permission procedure. I have checked and it is perfectly normal for a tenant to have to submit written permission. The landlord cannot unreasonably deny the request. As they did not submit said request to paint two rooms fully, they are liable under the tenancy agreement. If they had returned both rooms to the original painted colour and standard of decor, then it would not have been an issue.

Pixie5740

You were their landlord not their mother, the tenants did not have to seek your permission in order to decorate the property no matter what clause you stuck in the tenancy agreement. However, they should have returned the property to the original condition minus fair wear & tear before leaving. Maybe they couldn't be arsed though if they thought this was going to be their home long term only to be served notice less hat a year later.

So by your reckoning all those people with leasehold flats don't own their homes either? That's just piffle.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

G_M

The discussion about 'ownership' is a red herring.

The contract term is also irrelevant.

The tenant should return the property in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning, less fair wear and tear, tenancy clause or not.

Of course, if the landlord specifically grants permission at some point for the tenants to change the property eg by painting, installing a swimming pool, or whatever, then that consent would be taken into account at the end of the tenancy.

Tyler119

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You were their landlord not their mother, the tenants did not have to seek your permission in order to decorate the property no matter what clause you stuck in the tenancy agreement. However, they should have returned the property to the original condition minus fair wear & tear before leaving. Maybe they couldn't be arsed though if they thought this was going to be their home long term only to be served notice less hat a year later.

So by your reckoning all those people with leasehold flats don't own their homes either? That's just piffle.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

Leasehold flats are a different legal matter entirely...relevance to my original post? Though if someone wants to mess with the configuration of the flat, they do need the leaseholders permission. While they have more ownership than a tenant renting a property, they still do not have the full rights that a leasehold property owner has.

If they did not need to seek permission, then why did they to begin with? When we had to rent when we moved, our agreement had a similar clause in it. We choose not to decorate as we knew we could not be bothered putting it back to how we found it. I mean we could not be bothered filling in holes so anything hung on walls was done so with command strips. My point is, that was to be our home too, we just took steps in the beginning to minimise any issues at the end of the tenancy.

Well in the beginning I did offer a two year tenancy agreement, they refused this and insisted on just a 12 month duration. While they said (as do alot of tenants) that the intention was long term, I certainly would not have got in a mood with them, had there circumstances changed, and it was them giving notice to leave the property. To do so would be to react to the situation in a most child like manner.

Tyler119

G_M wrote: »

The discussion about 'ownership' is a red herring.

The contract term is also irrelevant.

The tenant should return the property in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning, less fair wear and tear, tenancy clause or not.

Of course, if the landlord specifically grants permission at some point for the tenants to change the property eg by painting, installing a swimming pool, or whatever, then that consent would be taken into account at the end of the tenancy.

THANK YOU...my point entirely. I told them months in advance to leave the feature walls that they had put down on the permission form, I wanted to give them less work before leaving. The other fully painted rooms, I agree, they should have returned them to the original colour etc, and yes minus wear and tear, which I took into account when submitting to the tenant the amount I wished to claim.

Pixie5740

It doesn't matter whether a lease is for 999 years or 6 months and the relevance to the thread was you banging on about breaches to (unenforceable) terms in the TA and being "afraid" that tenants can't do what they like, I was just pointing out that they pretty much can. Even as a freeholder there's only so much you can legally do to the structure of a building without planning permission. If you can't get your head around those concepts then it's probably best that you are no longer going to be a landlord.

If you have evidence the property isn't in the same condition minus fair wear & tear, and can't agree with the tenant on the deductions use the deposit scheme's ADR that's what it's for.

If you want to make a complaint about the letting agency then use their complaints process and of that doesn't get you anywhere then use the redress scheme.