Bath panel

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

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.

I don't mean for the same damage, I mean that if you expect them both to damage it and you charge them both for replacing the worktop (as implied by the fact you talk about changing it, not repairing it), you've made money out of it that you have no right to. Or would you not charge the second tenant regardless of how much damage they did, assuming you'd already taken the cost of the worktop from the first?

AnotherJoe

G_M wrote: »

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!).

Only if you let your friends drive, since i see no evidence of you drinking in that statement

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

G_M wrote: »

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!).

I know that. See above. But if you charge me for a new rear door and don't fix it and then someone else hits it, you can't (or shouldn't) try and charge them for a new door as well.

G_M

Sorry- but I'm now driving around in a car with two dents in the rear (or the door/whatever).

As long as people insist on crashing into my car, and adding to the dents, I shall continue to keep charging them for the damage they each do!

If, eventually, I decide to get the rear panel/door/etc repaired/replaced, rather than getting my friends drunk one more time, that, again, is my choice. No business of either the first, subsequent, or last bad driver, all of whom should keep their eyes on the road rather than their mobile phones (just as all those tenants should be watching their cooking utensils rather than the TV in the corner).

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Are you serious? If it cost you £500 to replace a work surface, you would happily charge a succession of tenants £500 each for damaging it, then replace it after the fourth or fifth, profiting by £1500? You think this is OK?

00ec25

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Are you serious? If it cost you £500 to replace a work surface, you would happily charge a succession of tenants £500 each for damaging it, then replace it after the fourth or fifth, profiting by £1500? You think this is OK?

you are seriously missing the point

• each tenant does damage,
• the damage done by each tenant is independent of that done by the previous tenant.
• the cost of each individual bit of damage can be estimated based upon repair cost. Note "replacement" would bring into play the question of "betterment" as this is NOT an insurance policy with a new for old clause. The "cost" is a sum of money representing compensation payable to the LL for the damage.
• it is entirely at the LL's discretion if they use the money to pay for a physical repair or not

let me give you a similar real world example...
in 2009 an idiot drove into the back of my car. The bodywork damage was deemed by their insurance company to be beyond economic repair as the car was "worth" £360 and the repair would have been upwards of £1,000 if done in a "proper" bodyshop. As I "retained the salvage" they gave me £180 cash in full and final settlement.
I applied gaffer tape to the 3 inch crack in the plastic bumper and lived with the dent in the hatchback lip. The car flew through its MOT 2 weeks later as there was nothing "wrong" with the bumper from an MOT perspective.

14 months later an even bigger idiot decided to go at a roundabout by driving through the stationary traffic in front of him.
My bumper received a new crack and the boot was pushed in by 2 inches.
His insurer decided the car was now worth £200 if I retained the salvage but gave me £380 in "compensation" as it was again beyond economic repair.
I purchased a new plastic bumper on eBay (£79). I bought paint in
halfrauds (£16.80). I replaced the bumper and applied a hammer to the metal work dent.

It is now 2017. I am still driving the same car. It still passes its MOT. I have not had any further "incidents". I purchased the car in 2006 for £500. I have received £560 in compensation. I now own and still use a "free" car :cool:

are you seriously saying that the second insurer should have paid me nothing because the damage was identical to the previous lot just because I did not have it repaired the first time?

Are you serious saying I should only have accepted £60 less the second time because the car only cost £500 to buy in the first place.

not how the world works. Each incident is judged in isolation and compensation paid based on the damage caused at each incident. Each tenants causes damage, so each tenant pays compensation based on the nature of what they did.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I'm not talking about each tenant paying the cost of their damage alone. I'm talking about each tenant being asked to pay the cost for full replacement, each time. I have made this point several times and people continue to say they think this is fair. Do you think this is fair? Not legal, fair?

Deductions from deposits are to enable you to make replacements, not for compensation for damage. If they were for compensation for the damaged worktop, it should be paid the the next tenant as they are the one who have to live with it. If the previous tenant has been charged for a full replacement, that full replacement should be made or the next tenant should be offered the choice of having a new worktop and being liable for damage, or keeping the old one and having carte blanche to damage it further as its replacement has already been paid for.


The original post said

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

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.

Change it. Not repair it.

G_M

Ah! I see your problem. You mention "full replacement value".

Landlords cannot charge full replacement value (unless the item damaged was brand new).

That would be 'betterment'. ie ending up in a better position as a result of the charge to the tenant than would have been the case if no damage had been done.

Another example:

A new carpet, costing £500, with an expected lifespan of 10 years, is laid in a property to be let. After 5 years, a tenant spills, say, paint, on the carpet. If the landlord charged £500 (lets assume no inflation!) and bought a brand new identical carpet, he'd end up with another 10 years worth of carpet - 5 more years than if no paint had been spilled. He'd be better off as a result of the paint spillage.

So under the 'betterment' rules, he could only charge half the replacement cost (as the carpet had only half its life left - 5 years - at the time of the spillage).

The same would apply to the work surface. The work suface would be in increasingly poor condition at the start of each tenancy (assuming each consecutive tenant caused damage). Each tenant's check-in inventory would record this. So the amount the landlord could charge each time would reduce due to the 'betterment' rule.

So whether the landlord replaced the work surface each time, or chose to re-let with a damaged work surface is up to him. But that does not mean he cannot charge the next clumsy tenant an appropriate amount for further damage.

Returning to my car analogy, if Bad Driver A dents my (immaculate) car and pays me £100, and I choose to continue to drive my car with the dent in it, when Bad Driver B dents my car and I demand £100, he's likely to say "but there was already a dent there - I'll only pay you £50". Now we may have a discussion/argument over the precise amount, but certainly it would be unfair of me to demand £100 (setting aside the fact that I might blame Bad Driver B for both dents..........!)

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I have never for a second disputed that the landlord can continue to charge tenants for damages up to the value of a full repacement. That's not even up for question and not worth discussion, it is so obviously correct. The post I originally disputed strongly implies, from the word "change", that they would attempt to charge multiple tenants for the full value.

In the original case we have the situation where the landlord is coming to the house thinking, "Good I can finally rip out that bathroom...wait a sec, I wonder if there's any damage I can charge them for before I do." That's plainly morally wrong, if legally allowable. The post I disputed suggested that this was a similar situation. The landlord is never supposed to profit from retaining the deposit. Ever. Would you agree with that?

harshitguptaiitr

He has added £70 damage for a bath panel & instalation by a plumber even though he has upgraded the bathroom in his refurbishment

I personally think £50 would have been reasonable in this situation and not £70

Although landlord should have provided you with a copy of quotes at the time of communicating that £70 will be deducted.