Damage to floor - what percentage reasonable for tenants to cover?

[Deleted User]

Bossypants wrote: »

I have a flat which I rent out through an agent. The most recent tenant (of 18 months) has just moved out and has left behind two tears in the kitchen lino. They are not repairable and the whole lino needs to be replaced in order to get the place looking decent again. The tenant's explanation for the tears is that they had to move appliances out of the way to allow damp experts to look behind, and it was during this that the tearing happened. These were people the tenants themselves had instructed, without notifying the agent. My take on it is that 1) they should have gone to the agent and not brought their own experts in; 2) if they did bring their own people in, there was still no need to move the appliances (damp is way above the appliances on a different wall, there is no reason to suspect a connection); and 3) if their experts did move those appliances and damaged the floor in the process, they should have covered it. As it is, I would like the tenants to cover most of the cost of replacing the lino, as it would have been perfectly viable for a good few years if not for this damage.

Just to be clear, I have been actively trying to rectify the damp problem. 12 months ago when I was made aware of it, I had a damp-proofing company come in and do extensive work, and when the problem reappeared in the beginning of the year, I wanted to rectify it asap. The work that needed doing was fairly invasive, so we tried to work with the tenant to find a convenient time for them, but they ignored voicemails, texts and emails on the subject for about six weeks. At that point they announced their intention not to renew, so I decided to just leave it until they moved out, since they didn't seem concerned and it would be easier to do a thorough job in an empty property. It's only now that they've moved out that I've discovered they were getting their own experts in, and they have now complained about having to put up with it. Have learned my lesson on this one, next time I will insist at the time the issue arises.

Now my question is, what percentage of the cost of replacing the lino is it reasonable to expect the tenants to cover?

Just to help avoid questions and other people with similar problems

Bossypants

Is the original post not still showing?

theartfullodger

3.74% of cost, leaving out VaT, is ARLA guideline.

Cheers!

sal_III

lookstraightahead wrote: »

This is what I thought to be honest. Op, looks to me like the damp proofing had never been sorted out properly and the tenants got fed up with it, which is why they are leaving. Based on what you've said, I wouldn't be happy as a tenant to pay for something that got accidentally ruined while trying to sort out a landlord problem. They've already mentioned why it was ripped and will probably take anything you charge them to arbitration.

I will play devil's advocate here.

It seems to me that the OP tried to fix the problem in good faith, but was let down by poor workmanship on the first damp proofing. sure it could be due to picking the cheapest quote, but you and I don't know that. It's not like the issue was ignored and unacknowledged.

This doesn't give the tenant a permission to take the matter in their own hands, hiring workmen on their own without the LL knowledge and consent and are fully liable for damage caused by said workmen. Same as if the damage was caused by the removal crew for example.

If the damage was caused by a workmen authorised or hired by the LL - then I agree, they are not liable for the damage, but it doesn't appear to be the case here.

If they didn't like the way the damp problem was being handled, they should have served their notice and moved out.

silvercar

Bossypants wrote: »

Is the original post not still showing?

It is showing.

Occasionally some posters remove or amend their original post at a point in the future.

saajan_12

Not sure why people are giving the OP such a hard time..
The damage was as a result of negligence by the tenant (or their invited guest/workmen who are their responsibility as far as the LL is concerned). They should have been more careful in moving appliances without tearing the flooring.

Re damp:
sounds like the OP was dealing with this and the first job not working to eradicate the problem just means the OP has to repair again. It doesn't give the tenants the right to take matters into their own hands. Even if they had followed the process (reporting in writing etc) and had reasonable grounds to repair themselves, tearing the flooring is negligence which could have been avoided.

Re cost:
8 years is a reasonable lifespan for lino, though I'd look at exactly what you paid and how that compares with the range available, as well as anything the manufacturer claims on lifespan. On that basis, If at the end of the recent tenancy, the lino is 3 years old, you have lost 5/8 = 62.5% of the useful life. You can reasonably claim for 62.5% of the materials + labour.

lookstraightahead

sal_III wrote: »

I will play devil's advocate here.

It seems to me that the OP tried to fix the problem in good faith, but was let down by poor workmanship on the first damp proofing. sure it could be due to picking the cheapest quote, but you and I don't know that. It's not like the issue was ignored and unacknowledged.

This doesn't give the tenant a permission to take the matter in their own hands, hiring workmen on their own without the LL knowledge and consent and are fully liable for damage caused by said workmen. Same as if the damage was caused by the removal crew for example.

If the damage was caused by a workmen authorised or hired by the LL - then I agree, they are not liable for the damage, but it doesn't appear to be the case here.

If they didn't like the way the damp problem was being handled, they should have served their notice and moved out.

I don't disagree technically. However, as a tenant I would have been disgruntled at the inconvenience and if I were to think cynically maybe the expert they had out was to see how bad it was etc before feeling obliged to hand in notice - it's not nice living with damp (I did it in a rental property and it smells horrible and why should a tenant put up with it). They are probably fed up with it and won't take kindly to being charged and may come back with a whole load of stuff that they feel wasn't done properly by the landlord.

But I do agree with the point you are making.

Carrot007

lookstraightahead wrote: »

They are probably fed up with it and won't take kindly to being charged and may come back with a whole load of stuff that they feel wasn't done properly by the landlord.

Or they will moan about a lot of other things the landlord offered to deal with and they ignored? (Which seems the case here).

Cakeguts

What I think might be reasonable here is a small sum maybe £10 towards the lino just to make it clear that it is not acceptable to try to remedy things without involving the landlord or in our case to do extra wiring that was dangerous. It alway helps to remind people that they can't start to do repairs or wiring without asking permission.

Hoploz

How much is it actually going to cost to replace the Lino? £100? Unless this is a really big area, I think you'd be better off just getting it done & forgetting about it. Is it really worth the aggravation?

Really the contractor who caused the tear should be challenged - if it was my house that's who I'd be chasing. However this isn't possible when you have no contract with the tradesman ... Just chalk it down to experience is my advice.

The damp is a separate issue that you need to deal with.