Landlord Claiming for damages and betterment

CraftyTwinkle

Hi

Hoping you lovely people could offer some advice...

We have recently moved out of our rented property, having got on with our landlord well during the tenancy.
On our last day the landlord came round to look at the property with us and noted that he did not feel that the carpets were clean enough. We have therefore offered to have a professional carpet cleaner round to clean them.

Further to this we have now received a note from the landlord saying that due to damage on the stair carpet he wants £200 towards a new one. I don't know the exact age of the carpet, but I believe it's at least 15 years old and therefore at the end of its useful life (no underlay, high traffic area). The landlord also admitted this before the tenancy started and said that he would be replacing the carpet, but never did. I do concede that there is a small amount of damage on the carpet but it is very small and barely noticeable.

The landlord didn't take a deposit and no inventory was done at the start of the tenancy. We have bought a house so will not need a reference in the future.

So, my question is, what do you think I should do? I think the money for the carpet constitutes betterment and also feel that the landlord has had the benefit of an additional 4 years use above and beyond what he was initially planning. Do I write back to him pointing out my argument regarding lifespan etc. or do I just ignore his request altogether since there is no deposit to withhold?

Thanks in advance.

charlotte1994

Personally, I would refuse! Since the carpet is so old anyway, and he admitted that! I would say to him that it's his responsibility.

stator

If you didn't pay a deposit then just refuse any requests for money.
A 15 year old carpet is certainly worthless and even if he had your deposit he wouldn't be able to deduct from it for that.
With no inventories, he wouldn't be able to deduct anything.


He's had your rent and now he's trying it on. Just refuse him. If he keeps badgering you block his number.

Rambosmum

As others have said, I would simply say "no". I very much doubt he'd chase for it, he'd stand no chance in court!

theartfullodger

Ignore his request, no reply, no response.



See if he goes to court: Bet he doesn't: If he does, contest!

AnotherJoe

I wouldnt completely ignore, I'd write a short note back along the lines of (using your words above) "the money for the carpet constitutes betterment for what is a 15 year old carpet, plus you have had the benefit of an additional 4 years use above and beyond what you were initially planning when you told us you would replace the carpet due to its state when we moved in. Please do not respond, as I will not be entering into future discussion"
Then I'd ignore in the unlikely event you got anything back.

G_M

Another vote here for not bothering to respond at all. Just maintains an argumentative dialogue for no good purpose.


If he goes to court, then react to that with the defence papers to the court. You'll win.


But he won't go to court.

AnotherJoe

I can see the wisdom of not responding but OTOH a short note pointing out why he is in the wrong, may forestall the hassle of defending a small claims court action, unlikely as that might be.

G_M

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I can see the wisdom of not responding but OTOH a short note pointing out why he is in the wrong, may forestall the hassle of defending a small claims court action, unlikely as that might be.

The short note will not tell him anything he does not already know, or will not find out of/when he seriously looks into going to court.


And will just result in a reply. Which will leave the OP thinking he has to respond again........

DaftyDuck

[STRIKE]Always better to say nothing, if you have little to add to the obvious[/STRIKE]....

ThePants999

It may not be obvious - if this landlord doesn't understand the law / the concept of betterment, a little education could even be well received. Personally, if I thought I was entitled to something, and the person I thought owed me was able to explain clearly why I was legally wrong, I'd thank them - and I'd certainly be a lot happier than if my communication were ignored.