Landlord being an idiot

leslieknope

i'm not a landlord and first in line to decry shoddy landlords, and as a tenant i resent so much of my money going to rent and LA fees. and even i'm with the landlord on this one. £150 seems about reasonable tbh.

chucknorris

00ec25 wrote: »

you miss the point

you can charge your wife out at the £ HUGE rate per hour an actuary gets, but that simply adds to your taxable profit - and is very likely to result in your tenant screaming that a professional cleaner would be cheaper so the tenants won't pay for your wife doing the work as the tenant would prefer a (cheaper) professional.

I'm not missing the point, that is the very point, what is the point in either a chartered QS or actuary working for cleaner's rates?

simondm

It would be reasonable for the tenant to pay the cost of the locks plus a reasonable amount for the landlord's time/skill/equipment but it would be fair for the tenant to keep the old locks to do with as they please (sell or keep for future homes).
The landlord could also offer an amount equivalent to second-hand prices for the locks off the total he charges if they would be of use to him now outer in the future.
If 'salvage' value has already been factored into the price (either via trade-in , exchange or expected resale value) then the landlord should keep the locks and the tenant should pay the started amount.
P.S. Am landlord.

dpearson86

JohnnyZee wrote: »

Wow! Is this forum full of landlords who have no empathy for tenants? I am not saying the tenants should not pay for their mistake, all I am asking is what is the fair and just amount?

I am a tennant and agree with the amount the LL is charging, it's the amount I'd expect to pay and is detailed in the contact and T&C's

rtho782

My home (we own it) has Avocet ABS 3* Euro locks, on the front door, the back door (patio doors so 2x locks) all keyed alike, and keyed alike padlocks on the shed and two outdoor storage boxes.

Obviously these are controlled keys, you need the code to copy them and the code is registered to us, they have a copy of my signature on file, etc.

Were we to rent the house out and the tenant lost a key, I would expect all the locks replaced, and this would cost about £280 in locks. I wouldn't charge for my labour.

JuicyJesus

simondm wrote: »

It would be reasonable for the tenant to pay the cost of the locks plus a reasonable amount for the landlord's time/skill/equipment but it would be fair for the tenant to keep the old locks to do with as they please (sell or keep for future homes).

Why? They're not the tenant's locks. They were never the tenant's locks. The replacement locks won't be the tenant's locks either. They belong to the landlord. The locks would never have had to be changed if the tenant hadn't lost a key, so I'm not sure why it would be fair for them to have something they can sell as a result of their own idiocy.

simondm

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I'm not sure why it would be fair for them to have something they can sell as a result of their own idiocy.

Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".

JuicyJesus

simondm wrote: »

Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".

Because it's the landlord's property, it was never the tenant's, and it was only rendered useless through the tenant's idiocy (yes, idiocy - if OP considers the landlord an idiot for expecting tenants to fix damage they caused then I'll call them an idiot for causing the damage).

The tenant isn't "covering the cost" to be nice, they're "covering the cost" because it's a cost they incurred, effectively rendering useless the landlord's property. Not least because if these are security locks they may well not be reusable or resaleable, especially since one of the keys is lost.

If I were to break something of yours, then paid for a replacement, I would assume you would tell me to FO if I also said I would like the saleable bits of that item if there were any. I would certainly not consider it reasonable for me to receive any usable or saleable bits of the item I damaged. It's not mine, it was never mine, it's yours, and the only reason I paid to replace it is because I broke it.

Comms69

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm not missing the point, that is the very point, what is the point in either a chartered QS or actuary working for cleaner's rates?

What do you mean working for cleaners rates?


I could start a consultancy charging £80 per hour for my profession, and people would pay.


But that doesn't make ALL my time worth that.

Comms69

simondm wrote: »

Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".

I agree to a point. If the LL wants paying for the new locks the tenant should get the old ones. The fact that they're worth a fraction of the price is just hard luck on the tenant.