Ex Landlord trying to make me pay for replacement carpets

lookstraightahead

Paparika wrote: »

Doesn't matter. They were not yours to throw away, so you never got an answer.. too bad, you have to give back what you took up, unfortunately you can't, you chucked your evidence of worn carpet away.

I think arbitration would work on what they are worth now principle. Which is nothing. Old threadbare carpets can be hazardous especially on the stairs. I think op was doing the landlord a favour

lookstraightahead

Seriously, carpets already worn and the. 7.5 years living in the property and landlord thinks you owe money for skanky bits of threadbare material ...

Paparika

lookstraightahead wrote: »

I think arbitration would work on what they are worth now principle. Which is nothing. Old threadbare carpets can be hazardous especially on the stairs. I think op was doing the landlord a favour

This is true, but he has got rid of the evidence.. lets hope they till have the photo's

lookstraightahead

Paparika wrote: »

This is true, but he has got rid of the evidence.. lets hope they till have the photo's

Evidence for wear and tear? Why is that needed? There is evidence that the carpets were not new / worn 7.5 years ago and they will just use a formula to work out the wear left in the carpets. Which will be nothing.

stator

Dispute the whole deduction.

[Deleted User]

Dispute. Say "the carpets were threadbare and marked when we moved in (see inventory), you lived there for 7 half years.., so carpets were of no value anyway. I submit that nothing is owing for replacement carpets which should have been replaced before we moved in (see inventory) because they were actually dangerous in places".

FBaby

That it is an interesting situation, so if you do go to the ADR, it would be helpful to posters if you came back to give the outcome.

On one hand, you have old carpets and it could be easily argued have run its life. However, it could also be argued that by getting rid of them without the LL's permission, you have destroyed property not belonging to you.

lookstraightahead

Fair point Fbaby it will be interesting to see what happens. I can't see how a sum can be placed on it though.

need_an_answer

FBaby wrote: »

That it is an interesting situation, so if you do go to the ADR, it would be helpful to posters if you came back to give the outcome.

On one hand, you have old carpets and it could be easily argued have run its life. However, it could also be argued that by getting rid of them without the LL's permission, you have destroyed property not belonging to you.

I very much agree with this.

I have a property where by my own admission the carpets really should be changed.

However the last 2 sets of tenants have both said they are happy with them listed as condition fair simply because they didn't want the hassle of looking after new carpet.

Certainly when the last tenant moved in I really was ready to change them but again they wanted the earlier move in than waiting an extra week for the carpet fitter.

My carpets are now probably at least 2 years overdue replacement and whilst the condition is fair they have been clearly acceptable.


Both sets of tenants the previous and the ones in now have been told that I wont pursue a deposit deduction on them and that seems to be our way forward.


The point I am making is "what makes a carpet not acceptable to one and acceptable to another,condition is fair and clearly that's acceptable"


when the tenant choses to remove the carpet they are making a decision that is for the LL to make and without permission they should not be removing the fabric of the property.

martindow

need_an_answer wrote: »

I very much agree with this.

I have a property where by my own admission the carpets really should be changed.

However the last 2 sets of tenants have both said they are happy with them listed as condition fair simply because they didn't want the hassle of looking after new carpet.

Certainly when the last tenant moved in I really was ready to change them but again they wanted the earlier move in than waiting an extra week for the carpet fitter.

My carpets are now probably at least 2 years overdue replacement and whilst the condition is fair they have been clearly acceptable.


Both sets of tenants the previous and the ones in now have been told that I wont pursue a deposit deduction on them and that seems to be our way forward.


The point I am making is "what makes a carpet not acceptable to one and acceptable to another,condition is fair and clearly that's acceptable"


when the tenant choses to remove the carpet they are making a decision that is for the LL to make and without permission they should not be removing the fabric of the property.

I think that some tenants might prefer to put up with old carpets rather than move in with brand new ones so they will avoid possible issues and disputes later with the LL claiming money for stains or damage. Particularly so if they've previously experienced someone like the OP's LL.