Bath panel

Vodkalass75

Hi,

In dispute with LL about our deposit. He has added £70 damage for a bath panel & instalation by a plumber even though he has upgraded the bathroom in his refurbishment. Not disputing the bathpanel was cracked but the cost seems high. Any advice would be appreciated :beer:

00ec25

£70 is a compensation payment for damage you admit you did. It is not just the price of a replacement panel, it also include the time charge from a person who would need to fit it.

And yes before you scream it takes seconds to fit, any tradesman doing the work would not charge seconds, they would include the fact they have to spend time getting to and from the property. So £70 is a reasonable total cost

Vodkalass75

But I thought we had a right to look at quotes & get our own quotes before he sorted it. The house has already been sold & he had all his tradsmen in because he was doing a refurb like he had done to next door & the house infront.

AnotherJoe

Vodkalass75 wrote: »

Hi,

In dispute with LL about our deposit. He has added £70 damage for a bath panel & instalation by a plumber even though he has upgraded the bathroom in his refurbishment. Not disputing the bathpanel was cracked but the cost seems high. Any advice would be appreciated :beer:

It doesn't seem high to me. If you didn't want to pay it you should have bought a matching bath panel and installed it yourself, and if you couldn't do that, then the cost of a person to do it would likely have been that much or more.

G_M

Vodkalass75 wrote: »

But I thought we had a right to look at quotes & get our own quotes before he sorted it. The house has already been sold & he had all his tradsmen in because he was doing a refurb like he had done to next door & the house infront.

You certainly had a right to get your own quotes, just as you had the right to fix the panel yourself before leaving, but it appears you didn't.

You can ask to see the LL's quotes, and if you dispute the deduction the LL would be wise to submit his quotes to the arbitrators - but he does not have to. The arbitrators might simply decide £70 is fair.

As others have said, you caused the damage so are liable. A panel costs between £20 & £200 depending on type, and a contractor would probably charge a minimum £30 just for coming out, plus his time on the job .

Grenage

£70 seems a good price; save your time.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

£70 doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

If he has completely refurbished the bathroom and would have replaced the panel anyway, broken or not, then he has rather taken advantage of the situation. I wouldn't do that in his place. Legally I think he is in the right though.

EmmyLou30

£70 is reasonable. The fact he was redoing the bathroom is imaterial, you still have to pay him. Doesn't seem fair but those are the rules I'm afraid, deductions made to a deposit don't have to be spent on fixing the issue. So I might charge my tenant for damage to a kitchen worktop but I'd likely not change that worktop knowing the next tenant will probably damage it also. Doesn't mean I can't charge them though.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

£70 is reasonable. The fact he was redoing the bathroom is imaterial, you still have to pay him. Doesn't seem fair but those are the rules I'm afraid, deductions made to a deposit don't have to be spent on fixing the issue. So I might charge my tenant for damage to a kitchen worktop but I'd likely not change that worktop knowing the next tenant will probably damage it also. Doesn't mean I can't charge them though.

So you can charge them as well? And the next two tenants? Meaning you replace the worktop once and get it paid for four times?

Does this seem morally and ethically correct to you?

EmmyLou30

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

So you can charge them as well? And the next two tenants? Meaning you replace the worktop once and get it paid for four times?

Does this seem morally and ethically correct to you?

Ah no, you can only charge a tenant for damage they caused. The existing damage would be noted on the check in inventory for the next tenant so they wouldn't be accused of having done it. Of course it wouldn't be right to charge a chain of tenants for the same damage!
Persoanlly I'd be unlikely to charge a tenant for damage if I was going to replace it anyway if they'd been an otherwise good tenant, but each landlord takes their own view and I suppose it is a business at the end of the day.

G_M

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

So you can charge them as well? And the next two tenants? Meaning you replace the worktop once and get it paid for four times?

Does this seem morally and ethically correct to you?

Emmy clearly means the 2nd tenant would be charged if they caused further damage to the worktop. Not for the original damage.

Her point was that the charge is for the damage, not for the repair (though obviously the amount charged is based on an assumed repair).

If you drive into the rear of my car, causing a dent that would cost £100 to fix, you would owe me £100 (let's assume we sensibly agreed not to involve insurers). It's then up to me whether to get the dent fixed, or go down the pub and buy my friends drinks all night, and then drive around in a dented car (not the same night of course - that would be irresponsible!).