Dispute with Tenancy Deposit Amounts

baz00r

Hi everybody,


I was hoping for some quick advice in regards to some disputes I am having with my real estate agent in regards to our tenancy deposit.


The first issue, which is quite unusual, one of the inside glass panes of a double pane window in our lounge room crack spontaneously in the middle of the night (I have honestly no idea how it happened), my partner and I heard a loud "thump" noise early in the morning, and it woke us both up, I took a walk around (a 2AM mind you) to work out what the hell it was (figured a shelf had fallen down) but could not work it out and so went back to bed. It wasn't until the next morning we noticed a large crack on a window in our lounge room, now I contacted the real estate agent about this and advised them what happened and they attempted to fix it by sending around a handy man with a replacement pane of glass, however he was not able to fix it as he couldn't get the window piece out. He eventually left and it never got fixed.



They are now claiming this amount from our deposit (quite a large amount, almost £400 to get it fixed). This was "based on a quote from a glazier". I advised that we did not in fact break the window but she said because the crack was on the inside pane, and the glazier apparently "assessed the damage" and said it was "from an impact" that we would have to pay. This doesn't seem fair since we didn't do it in the first place, and we had another window, in our bathroom, completely shatter spontaneously also!



The second issue, is a small "chip" on the edge of the glass of a stove top hob, probably no bigger then .5-1cm, they are claiming the whole stove hob needs to be replaced because the hob "is broken". In fact that chip had been there for a very long time (it must have happened while we were cooking and dropped something) but in fact the hob works completely fine (it's just a cosmetic issue). And the new tenants are already in the property using the hob without any issues. Would this not be deemed wear and tear? We were in the property for almost 3 years and since the hob still functions fine I see no reason why the whole hob should be replaced. Does this seem fair? I am happy to get it repaired if they are worried about it so much, but to replace the entire hob seems over the top.



Thirdly, a small chip on the tiles in the bathroom, probably around a square cm, must have happened when something dropped of the bathroom sink, they are claiming this will cost £140 to fix, I asked them why it cost so much and they couldn't really give me an answer.


Considering the length of the tenancy (almost 3 years) would the latter two issues not be deemed as wear and tear anyway? If not, what can I do to keep the cost to a minimum?


I'm am totally lost as to what to do with the glass pane, basically it's their word against mine, but they had tried to replace the pane before and failed (they didn't charge me the first time they tried).


Thanks in advance.

Pixie5740

baz00r wrote: »

Hi everybody,


I was hoping for some quick advice in regards to some disputes I am having with my real estate agent in regards to our tenancy deposit.


The first issue, which is quite unusual, one of the inside glass panes of a double pane window in our lounge room crack spontaneously in the middle of the night (I have honestly no idea how it happened), my partner and I heard a loud "thump" noise early in the morning, and it woke us both up, I took a walk around (a 2AM mind you) to work out what the hell it was (figured a shelf had fallen down) but could not work it out and so went back to bed. It wasn't until the next morning we noticed a large crack on a window in our lounge room, now I contacted the real estate agent about this and advised them what happened and they attempted to fix it by sending around a handy man with a replacement pane of glass, however he was not able to fix it as he couldn't get the window piece out. He eventually left and it never got fixed.



They are now claiming this amount from our deposit (quite a large amount, almost £400 to get it fixed). This was "based on a quote from a glazier". I advised that we did not in fact break the window but she said because the crack was on the inside pane, and the glazier apparently "assessed the damage" and said it was "from an impact" that we would have to pay. This doesn't seem fair since we didn't do it in the first place, and we had another window, in our bathroom, completely shatter spontaneously also!



The second issue, is a small "chip" on the edge of the glass of a stove top hob, probably no bigger then .5-1cm, they are claiming the whole stove hob needs to be replaced because the hob "is broken". In fact that chip had been there for a very long time (it must have happened while we were cooking and dropped something) but in fact the hob works completely fine (it's just a cosmetic issue). And the new tenants are already in the property using the hob without any issues. Would this not be deemed wear and tear? We were in the property for almost 3 years and since the hob still functions fine I see no reason why the whole hob should be replaced. Does this seem fair? I am happy to get it repaired if they are worried about it so much, but to replace the entire hob seems over the top.



Thirdly, a small chip on the tiles in the bathroom, probably around a square cm, must have happened when something dropped of the bathroom sink, they are claiming this will cost £140 to fix, I asked them why it cost so much and they couldn't really give me an answer.


Considering the length of the tenancy (almost 3 years) would the latter two issues not be deemed as wear and tear anyway? If not, what can I do to keep the cost to a minimum?


I'm am totally lost as to what to do with the glass pane, basically it's their word against mine, but they had tried to replace the pane before and failed (they didn't charge me the first time they tried).


Thanks in advance.

As always start by reading G_M's Deposits: payment, protection and return.

baz00r

Pixie5740 wrote: »

As always start by reading G_M's Deposits payment, protection and return.

Hi, many thanks for your response. I had a read of the thread provided (very useful thankyou) but most of it I was aware of (the process involved etc.) I guess I was hoping for more of a general idea of whether, if these issues went to disputes for tenancy deposit scheme whether I would have a good chance of prevailing (maybe somebody else has had a similar issue before?).


Thanks

Comms69

baz00r wrote: »

Hi, many thanks for your response. I had a read of the thread provided (very useful thankyou) but most of it I was aware of (the process involved etc.) I guess I was hoping for more of a general idea of whether, if these issues went to disputes for tenancy deposit scheme whether I would have a good chance of prevailing (maybe somebody else has had a similar issue before?).


Thanks

I actually think it’s the first one that you can contest best. Double glazing can survive a brick being thrown at it full pelt...

The chips are unfortunate and the cost is too high but it was your damage. I’d say that you owe a percentage of the cost, depending on age.

Shelldean

Haven't you asked this before ?

anselld

There are reasons why glass may spontaneously break ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_glass_breakage

The others are down to you but you can still dispute the value of the repair and/or allowance to avoid betterment.

... and in any case £400 is ridiculous cost for a DG unit replacement as is £140 for a single tile.

[Deleted User]

Not sure if this will help as a leasehold question

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5855265/spontaneous-glass-breakage-in-leasehold-property&highlight=glass+spontaneously

G_M

I can't comment on the blame for the glass. Allyou can do is present the facts as you know them to the arbitrator, plus evidence of sponaneous breaks as linked by others above, and hope the arbitrator takes your side.


The chipped hob is clearly damage you did. Not wear and tear. The LL could claim either
* a % of the replacement value based on age of the hob to allow for betterment (mine has lasted in as new condition for 10 years but you could argue 10 years is an expected lifespan), or
* a % of the value of the hob based on what the chip represents. As the hob still works and the chip sounds 'cosmetic', the negative value of the chip would be small in proportion to the hob value.


The damaged tile is also damage not wear and tear. £140 seems a lot but the bulk of the cost will be the tiler's time traveling to/from the property and doing the job. Frankly replacing a single tile would cost almost as much as replace 5 or 10 tiles.

saajan_12

baz00r wrote: »

Hi everybody,

I was hoping for some quick advice in regards to some disputes I am having with my real estate agent in regards to our tenancy deposit.

The first issue, which is quite unusual, one of the inside glass panes of a double pane window in our lounge room crack spontaneously in the middle of the night (I have honestly no idea how it happened), my partner and I heard a loud "thump" noise early in the morning, and it woke us both up, I took a walk around (a 2AM mind you) to work out what the hell it was (figured a shelf had fallen down) but could not work it out and so went back to bed. It wasn't until the next morning we noticed a large crack on a window in our lounge room, now I contacted the real estate agent about this and advised them what happened and they attempted to fix it by sending around a handy man with a replacement pane of glass, however he was not able to fix it as he couldn't get the window piece out. He eventually left and it never got fixed. - do you have a record (letter / email) of you reporting the issue at the time? was there any evidence of the discussion about the cause?

They are now claiming this amount from our deposit (quite a large amount, almost £400 to get it fixed). This was "based on a quote from a glazier". I advised that we did not in fact break the window but she said because the crack was on the inside pane, and the glazier apparently "assessed the damage" and said it was "from an impact" that we would have to pay. This doesn't seem fair since we didn't do it in the first place, and we had another window, in our bathroom, completely shatter spontaneously also! - The onus is on LL / LA to prove the damage was down to you, but this is 'on the balance of probabilities' ie they don't need a 100% conclusive video of you taking a brick to it, an assessment from an expert could be sufficient. In your position, I would find any evidence from when you reported the issue and explained the cause (ie not down to you). Also provide evidence of other possible causes of spontaneous cracks and hope for the best.

The second issue, is a small "chip" on the edge of the glass of a stove top hob, probably no bigger then .5-1cm, they are claiming the whole stove hob needs to be replaced because the hob "is broken". In fact that chip had been there for a very long time (it must have happened while we were cooking and dropped something) but in fact the hob works completely fine (it's just a cosmetic issue). And the new tenants are already in the property using the hob without any issues. Would this not be deemed wear and tear? We were in the property for almost 3 years and since the hob still functions fine I see no reason why the whole hob should be replaced. Does this seem fair? I am happy to get it repaired if they are worried about it so much, but to replace the entire hob seems over the top.- dropping something is damage, not wear and tear. The fact it is functional isn't sufficient and the fact the tenants are using it has nothing to do with you. The LL could fix it after their tenancy (but ofcourse couldn't charge them as it was caused by you. Or they could let the property at overall less because it generally looks in worse condition.

The LL is entitled to recover the loss from your cosmetic damage. That would be the cheapest of
* cost of replacing glass part
* cost of repairing chip on glass part (if possible)
* depreciated value of hob (ie if it had 15 yrs useful life and by the time you left LL had 5 good years out of it, you pay 10/15 = 66% of materials + labour

Thirdly, a small chip on the tiles in the bathroom, probably around a square cm, must have happened when something dropped of the bathroom sink, they are claiming this will cost £140 to fix, I asked them why it cost so much and they couldn't really give me an answer. - dropping something is damage, not wear and tear, and the LL doesn't have to live with a chipped tile, even if just cosmetic. Ask for a quote for materials + labour needed. If they can't provide one, say you'll take it to deposit scheme who will demand the breakdown anyway or award in your favour.


Considering the length of the tenancy (almost 3 years) would the latter two issues not be deemed as wear and tear anyway? If not, what can I do to keep the cost to a minimum? - no, dropping something is not wear and tear. Keep cost low by ensuring you only pay for the depreciated value + labour, not betterment. That means either the cost of repairing or partial cost of a replacement to account for the 3+ years of use LL had of the now damaged item.


I'm am totally lost as to what to do with the glass pane, basically it's their word against mine, but they had tried to replace the pane before and failed (they didn't charge me the first time they tried). - Did they say they agreed with your stated cause of the crack? Them not asking for payment earlier doesn't necessarily absolve you as they could have been repairing because you asked, but waiting for an assessment of the cause and finalised cost before demanding payment, particularly since the first person wasn't able to fix it.


Thanks in advance.

Window crack - will depend on whose argument and evidence is more convincing on the balance of probabilities: whether LL can provide an expert stating it was caused by an impact or whether you can show possible other causes of spontaneous cracking.

Hob & Tile - these are damage, not wear and tear. The LL doens't have to take a functional but cosmetically damaged item, and you'd be compensating for the damage whether LL fixes it immediately or not. BUT you are only responsible for the cheaper of
* full cost of repairing (parts + labour)
* partial cost of replacement, ie minus the proportion of useful life LL has already had.