Dispute regarding carpets

Red-Squirrel_2

jimbo747 wrote: »

If they're your own carpets you tend to look after them, home owners tend to be more house proud. Bit like a hire car, I drive it like it's stolen, whereas mines driven gently.

I'm the other way around, I'm terrified of damaging my company car and having to pay for repair, whereas I was happy to drive my own banger dented, scratched and rusty!

Davesnave

jimbo747 wrote: »

If they're your own carpets you tend to look after them, home owners tend to be more house proud. Bit like a hire car, I drive it like it's stolen, whereas mines driven gently.

I don't think you can generalise like that.

When we rented for a while, we just lived there as if we were in our old owned home.

We had a brand new hire car at the same time. I was initially scared of scratching it, but after a week or two, I forgot to be extra careful.

Friends rented a house near us for around 7 years. They got on so well with their landlord, they redecorated before leaving. On the other hand, two other acquaintances left their landlord with a very 'worn' house and thousands in unpaid rent.

People are who they are.

FBaby

Whatever the LL can get back will depend on the evidence they will submit. This will include invoice of the cost of the carpet, invoice of the cost of labour, evidence of lifespan of carpet etc...

It is incorrect that adjudicators consider such cases systematically on the basis of W&T. This will be factored in, but in this case, the claim is not just about W&T, but also damage, and the cost of damage can be considered fully. I had a tenant who broke the mechanism of a window through negligence. I claimed the full amount of replacement and I got the full amount. The adjudicator didn't consider that the windows were X years old and therefore, I should only get Y% of the repairs.

The adjudication is arbitrary even though it follows guidelines, one adjudicator can agree something another wouldn't. Still, in this instance, I would think there is nothing to lose but to use it.

Marvel1

jimbo747 wrote: »

If they're your own carpets you tend to look after them, home owners tend to be more house proud. Bit like a hire car, I drive it like it's stolen, whereas mines driven gently.

Homeowner, roughly a year or 3 after having kitchen completety done:
- Freezer shelve door, broke
- Scratches on gas hob
- Chipped a corner of the worktop

Do I care? Not really, these things happen.

mapk

Interesting thread. Wonder what your thoughts are on the following situation.

Tenants were in the property for 6 months. After moving back in, the owners discovered that a piece of the living room carpet about a foot square had been cut out and replaced with a piece the same shape (this new piece matched as it had been taken from an offcut left over when the carpet had been laid about three years previously).

The damage wasn't immediately apparent as it was in a corner of the room and furniture was covering that space. The new section was lying loose (no tacks or adhesive) and, on lifting it up, the underlay was stained black.

On querying this with the tenants, they said that an inkjet printer had leaked and they had tried to remedy the issue with an attempted repair. They tried to conceal the damage and didn't 'fess up in the first instance. There were a few other fairly minor breakages which, while negligible in terms of cost, they had similarly tried to disguise or hide.

The carpet was good quality, in good condition when let, and fairly new. The cost to buy and fit, if replaced, would have been about the same as the deposit.

Was it reasonable to refuse to return the deposit? And, if so, would there have been an obligation, legal or ethical, for the owners to purchase a new carpet?

need_an_answer

MAPK

The fact that it wasn't noticed at check out by whomever carried out the inventory would suggest that it was a pretty good match!

It is unlikely that furniture would have been covering the area at the point of check out and if the property was furnished I would have expected more diligence from the person completing the check out inventory

TBH if its not picked up at that point there's little redress down the line IMO.


the owner/LL of the property is able to charge for the replacement minus wear and tear if picked up on the inventory,so the full cost of the carpet would not be charged,the tenant would have been able to query and dispute the amount taken from the deposit if they felt it unreasonable,via the deposit service.

The LL is not obliged to replace the carpet from any deposit money retained as settlement,that is their choice.

mapk

need_an_answer wrote: »

MAPK

The fact that it wasn't noticed at check out by whomever carried out the inventory would suggest that it was a pretty good match!

It is unlikely that furniture would have been covering the area at the point of check out and if the property was furnished I would have expected more diligence from the person completing the check out inventory

TBH if its not picked up at that point there's little redress down the line IMO.


the owner/LL of the property is able to charge for the replacement minus wear and tear if picked up on the inventory,so the full cost of the carpet would not be charged,the tenant would have been able to query and dispute the amount taken from the deposit if they felt it unreasonable,via the deposit service.

The LL is not obliged to replace the carpet from any deposit money retained as settlement,that is their choice.

Many thanks for your reply.

The damage was noticed when taking inventory. Owners were shampooing the carpet and moved furniture to do so. This was when the damage became apparent so they were in a position to query this with the tenants soon after taking possession of the property. I understand this was before the tenancy deposit service became policy, and no real attempt was made to dispute this other than a minor and indirect challenge from a parent acting as guarantor.

Do you think this type of damage would be construed as 'reasonable' wear and tear? Would the location (in the corner as opposed to the centre of the room) make any difference? It's now just a matter of interest to the owners rather than an ongoing dispute.

need_an_answer

mapk wrote: »

Many thanks for your reply.

The damage was noticed when taking inventory. Owners were shampooing the carpet and moved furniture to do so. This was when the damage became apparent so they were in a position to query this with the tenants soon after taking possession of the property. I understand this was before the tenancy deposit service became policy, and no real attempt was made to dispute this other than a minor and indirect challenge from a parent acting as guarantor.

Do you think this type of damage would be construed as 'reasonable' wear and tear? Would the location (in the corner as opposed to the centre of the room) make any difference? It's now just a matter of interest to the owners rather than an ongoing dispute.

I've been a LL for 6 years give or take a few months so what you are describing is historical if the deposit services were not involved and it predates the registering of deposits.

This sort of thing wouldnt presumably happen now as both LL and tenant can enter the arbitration process nowadays

I don't know how long ago you are talking about but its clearly not recent.

I also cant work out whether you are the tenant or owner or guarantor as I suspect each will have differing views on a solution and the outcome.

It's never reasonable wear and tear to damage a carpet but if an offcut was left lying around then my view is that the tenant could have been acting in a very resourceful manner in repairing the carpet.

Slithery

Indeed. Deposit protection was introduced in 2004.

mapk

need_an_answer wrote: »

I've been a LL for 6 years give or take a few months so what you are describing is historical if the deposit services were not involved and it predates the registering of deposits.

This sort of thing wouldnt presumably happen now as both LL and tenant can enter the arbitration process nowadays

I don't know how long ago you are talking about but its clearly not recent.

I also cant work out whether you are the tenant or owner or guarantor as I suspect each will have differing views on a solution and the outcome.

It's never reasonable wear and tear to damage a carpet but if an offcut was left lying around then my view is that the tenant could have been acting in a very resourceful manner in repairing the carpet.

Some interesting comment, thanks.

- to clarify, I believe compliance with a TDS in Scotland became mandatory in 2011. This situation does indeed predate registration with the scheme. I'm neither landlord, tenant, nor guarantor with respect to this property, but have discussed liability issues with those parties. I suspect the landlord would regard the tenants as being more deceitful than resourceful in their attempt to hide the damage! And I expect the tenants and guarantor may have resented the decision to withhold the deposit. I suppose this type of situation is best served by the third party arbitration now offered by TD schemes.