Tenants trashed house & insurance not paying out

Guest101

xylophone wrote: »

I'm sure you understand the use of irony.....

Absolutely, and we're going off topic

xylophone

It occurs to me that we have diverged from the point of the thread....I doubt the OP is interested in the discussion!:D

AdrianC

xylophone wrote: »

It occurs to me that we have diverged from the point of the thread....I doubt the OP is interested in the discussion!:D

I think the OP wandered off at the point they didn't get a hug and told they were absolutely right.

xylophone

I think the OP wandered off at the point they didn't get a hug and told they were absolutely right.

Rather harsh - I do sympathise with the OP's disappointment at the parlous state to which his property was reduced.

Pennysmakepounds

Some landlords are a bit naive to expect things to remain in pristine condition after a tenant moves out. Thinking that tenants will leave the property as they found it, is frankly stupid.

Take carpets for example, if a tenant has been in the property for say 2/3 years you would expect the carpets to be in a shaddy state and may need a good clean or replacement. It’s wear and tear and you build that into the rent you charge.

Same goes for general cleaning, touching up paintwork, odd repair/replacement etc.

After a tenant moves out you should expect to have a certain amount of clean-up to do before you can market it again.

This should be built into your income plan.

Land lords that expect one tenant to move out another to move in without having to spend any money to bring the property back to its original rentable condition...should have a re-think about being landlords.

Being a landlord is NOT an easy game, you have to expect things to go wrong now and again. When this happens you have to put your hand in your pocket, it’s all part of being a landlord.

FBaby

I simply do not believe that it could not be cleaned. You didn't want to clean it, you wanted a shiny new oven.

Getting it professionally cleaned would have been an acceptable deduction from the deposit. As has already been said - new-for-old replacement is not.

If an oven is expected to last ten years for £200, then the amount you can reclaim if replacement is needed drops by 10%/£20 per year. If it was 8 years old, then you've lost two years - 20% of the expected life - of use from it. So £40 is fair recompense.

Then you're wrong. The grease was so thick, it actually ate into the coating of the hob, same inside the oven and left it in a complete state. The door was so thick with it too, there was no removing the 8/9/10th layer. And yes, I did get it professionally clean, but it was no good, cleaning couldn't replace the damage. DPS ADR fully agreed with me looking at the pictures, but only gave £40 because the oven was 5 years old.

What some of you clearly fail to comprehend is that there is a position between the cost of replacing new for old, and replacing full stop.

If the tenant had cared for the oven as you expect any decent people to do, it wouldn't have needed to be replaced. It was in perfect working order. That means that new tenants could have moved in and enjoy a decent oven. However, because of their lack of cleaning/care standards, it became unusable and so had to be replaced. That replacement cost them very little and cost me a lot because of THEIR own actions (or lack of!).

FBaby

It's not an exact science
* are the last 2 years of use worth the same as the first 2 years of use when its new and shiny?
* Can you really put a single life expectancy on all ovens? My parent's is 22 years old and going strong. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect tenants to take as much care as owner-occupiers.
But its the most equitable way of dealing when something breaks.

I think you've summed it up except that no, it's not equitable at all, it's expecting tenants to be neglectful and careless.

I don't know any owner who have to replace their oven after 10 years because it's reached it's end life. In some case, they might break down, in others, they might decide they want to upgrade. Our oven is over 15 years and looks 10 years younger than that one did.

Same with carpets. Ours in the living room is 16 years old and still looks in very good shape? Why? Because we've looked after it. We don't walk on it with shoes, we don't eat in the living room, and the moment there is a bit of an accident, we clean it properly immediately.

Let's not even talk about decorating! How many home owners fully paint their entire house every 5 years because the paint is looking shabby!

As said, the rules expect old tenants to treat the place like a hotel (or worse because hotel will charge!) but new tenants are expected quality standards above what most landlords would set for themselves!

Conrad

I'm a LL and as a rule I do not do inspections for the following reasons;


1) I try very hard to find the right tenants in the first place - I'll go through 30 enquiries to interview 1. Above all else I'm looking for clean looking sensible nerdy types.


2) I make it clear over and again that I want the property handed back as found and that I take no prisoners if not (basically they know they WILL get a wall of stress of me - this plays on peoples minds and gives them pause for thought)


3) I minimise stress in my life - and thus one of my rules is to let and forget, what will be will be (sometimes I visit for a specific reason such as making a repair and if I notice issues I will point them out and remind them how I expect it handed back)


4) I feel uncomfortable playing the big I-am once I hand over a place. They are adults and don't nee me managing their lives. Nothing worse than a smug arrogant LL that thinks they are special because they own a few places (set up an exporting business - that's admirable - being a LL is easy by comparison)


5) As I buy studio or 1 bed flats the amount of damage one can do is relatively limited. It's why I never invest in houses. LL's seem to forget that with houses although there is no service charge, one instead is liable for any more things such as insurance, gardening, fence issues, roof and guttering etc

Pennysmakepounds

FBaby wrote: »

I think you've summed it up except that no, it's not equitable at all, it's expecting tenants to be neglectful and careless.

I don't know any owner who have to replace their oven after 10 years because it's reached it's end life. In some case, they might break down, in others, they might decide they want to upgrade. Our oven is over 15 years and looks 10 years younger than that one did.

Same with carpets. Ours in the living room is 16 years old and still looks in very good shape? Why? Because we've looked after it. We don't walk on it with shoes, we don't eat in the living room, and the moment there is a bit of an accident, we clean it properly immediately.

Let's not even talk about decorating! How many home owners fully paint their entire house every 5 years because the paint is looking shabby!

As said, the rules expect old tenants to treat the place like a hotel (or worse because hotel will charge!) but new tenants are expected quality standards above what most landlords would set for themselves!

I take your point about carpets and decorating. When something is yours you look after it and make it last.

Rental properties however, need to be treated differently.

On the same note - You do NOT get a monthly income from the property you live in but you do from the rental.

As a landlord you CANNOT expect not to have to do some remedial work, atleast after each tenancy.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Then you're wrong. The grease was so thick, it actually ate into the coating of the hob, same inside the oven and left it in a complete state. The door was so thick with it too, there was no removing the 8/9/10th layer. And yes, I did get it professionally clean, but it was no good, cleaning couldn't replace the damage. DPS ADR fully agreed with me looking at the pictures, but only gave £40 because the oven was 5 years old.

What some of you clearly fail to comprehend is that there is a position between the cost of replacing new for old, and replacing full stop.

If the tenant had cared for the oven as you expect any decent people to do, it wouldn't have needed to be replaced. It was in perfect working order. That means that new tenants could have moved in and enjoy a decent oven. However, because of their lack of cleaning/care standards, it became unusable and so had to be replaced. That replacement cost them very little and cost me a lot because of THEIR own actions (or lack of!).

The point you are missing is that you are compensated for the loss of use. Or the adjudicator decided that there was only a year or two left on the oven and that is what you got paid.

So your issue is with the adjudicators valuation.

If you went out you would've found a 5 year old oven for £40, u chose to buy new. Your choice