Bad tenants? reasonable estate agent? what is landlord's right

ileven1225

AdrianC said:

So we'll take that as tacit acceptance that it was indeed ancient.

The landlord is not in "a weak position". Your actual losses are perfectly legitimate claims. Businesses depreciate assets.

And, of course, you seem to be expecting new-for-old... Never mind £1,500 new, how much would a similarly aged sofa sell for on FB Marketplace or the like? I presume it had the fire safety tags on still?

Incorrect. I did not want to reply this as I feel a bit insulted. Then I understand that with a few words description in the beginning of the post, people did not understand the whole situation and can only assume one way or the other. 

it is not ancient for sure, only a few years old. I understand the sofa would last 10 years or less which is what i expected. If you see the property and the sofa, you would understand my anger. My wife asked the same question as you did but when she saw it, everything makes sense. Of course I don't have to make everyone know every details and answer their questions. I only need some professional advice as you gave me before. Neutral advice no assumption is what i need. Every situation is different and i only need an initial guidance. I can deal with the following. 

The reason i didn't answer every question to every one also because I only want focus on my efforts on what could help the situation. Of course everyone has their own curiosity on this occasion which i am certainly couldn't help. I have limited time and i pretty sure everyone does the same. The sofa has already removed from the property as the new tenants did not want it at all. I am certainly not in intention to squeeze the tenants or whatsoever, but sometimes people can feel that way by reading words or such thing often happens to tenants? I would expect the sofa would last many years longer than what it is now. 

AdrianC

ileven1225 said:

it is not ancient for sure, only a few years old. I understand the sofa would last 10 years or less which is what i expected.

OK...

So let's say it was three years old at the start of the tenancy, 10yr life. You have lost half the life of it, so you are due about half the value. This is the only reason people are asking.

If you see the property and the sofa, you would understand my anger.

Woah up... Get shot of the emotion. This is purely and simply a business transaction. You do NOT put furnishings in a let property if you are even remotely emotionally attached to them.

This is purely about a ~£750 claimable deduction from the deposit. You have a month's deposit, yes? So £1,500 - which will cover the losses.

It's now up to the deposit scheme to decide what is fair and appropriate. You can document the sofa's original value, and age. You can document the condition at check-in and at check-out. The arbitrators are not on the landlord's side, and they are not on the tenant's side. They are on the side of ensuring appropriate deductions for the actual loss.

The sofa has already removed from the property as the new tenants did not want it at all.

What would you have done with it if it had still been usable?
Sold it? That sale price is your loss. How much would you have got...?

I would expect the sofa would last many years longer than what it is now

Yes, five more... And THAT is your claimable loss. Five years of the sofa's life. Half the value of a new one.

ileven1225

AdrianC said:

ileven1225 said:

it is not ancient for sure, only a few years old. I understand the sofa would last 10 years or less which is what i expected.

OK...

So let's say it was three years old at the start of the tenancy, 10yr life. You have lost half the life of it, so you are due about half the value. This is the only reason people are asking.

If you see the property and the sofa, you would understand my anger.

Woah up... Get shot of the emotion. This is purely and simply a business transaction. You do NOT put furnishings in a let property if you are even remotely emotionally attached to them.

This is purely about a ~£750 claimable deduction from the deposit. You have a month's deposit, yes? So £1,500 - which will cover the losses.

It's now up to the deposit scheme to decide what is fair and appropriate. You can document the sofa's original value, and age. You can document the condition at check-in and at check-out. The arbitrators are not on the landlord's side, and they are not on the tenant's side. They are on the side of ensuring appropriate deductions for the actual loss.

The sofa has already removed from the property as the new tenants did not want it at all.

What would you have done with it if it had still been usable?
Sold it? That sale price is your loss. How much would you have got...?

I would expect the sofa would last many years longer than what it is now

Yes, five more... And THAT is your claimable loss. Five years of the sofa's life. Half the value of a new one.

Thanks, appreciated for the further advice. The sofa is disposed and no one would want it. I asked a contractor to move and dispose the sofa. I was told I would spend £800 - £1000 to replace all leather so better to dispose it.

Murphybear

Was the property let to sharers or a family?  If the latter the LL should consider letting the property unfurnished.  Most tenancies are that nowadays and it is a lot  less hassle than putting furniture in.  You might also want to consider letting the next tenants have a pet.  This will increase your tenant base as pets are very popular.  If a dog wrecks a sofa it will be theirs not yours!

AdrianC

ileven1225 said:

AdrianC said:

The sofa has already removed from the property as the new tenants did not want it at all.

What would you have done with it if it had still been usable?
Sold it? That sale price is your loss. How much would you have got...?

Thanks, appreciated for the further advice. The sofa is disposed and no one would want it. I asked a contractor to move and dispose the sofa.

No, I mean if the sofa had been in the condition expected (as at start of tenancy minus two years wear and tear) at the ex-tenants' check-out, would you have disposed of it when your new tenant said "Don't need that"?
Or would you have put it into storage or another property?

ileven1225

AdrianC said:

ileven1225 said:

AdrianC said:

The sofa has already removed from the property as the new tenants did not want it at all.

What would you have done with it if it had still been usable?
Sold it? That sale price is your loss. How much would you have got...?

Thanks, appreciated for the further advice. The sofa is disposed and no one would want it. I asked a contractor to move and dispose the sofa.

No, I mean if the sofa had been in the condition expected (as at start of tenancy minus two years wear and tear) at the ex-tenants' check-out, would you have disposed of it when your new tenant said "Don't need that"?
Or would you have put it into storage or another property?

If the sofa had been in an expected condition with expected wear and tear, the new tenants would accept it for sure. I never think about if they didn't because the sofa was in a decent design which fits the apartment perfectly. If the tenants would replace it with their own as they already had one, I would put my sofa into storage but i probably need to pay £30-£40 pcm for the storage. I know what you mean if I had sold it as the sale price would be my loss. However, i really have no idea how much it would be to sell it. I don't have experience of buying or selling 2nd hand sofa. I probably would have a search to understand the current price which would be my loss. Thanks. 

theoretica

Did you buy a new sofa for the current tenants, or are they renting without one?  If they are renting without one it might make you feel better to look at the original sofa's time before replacement as including this time when you rent the flat without it.

[Deleted User]

You don't really seem to have taken on board that to some degree the LA were at fault, because I can't believe the damages reported happened in the last six months.  Either the inspections weren't happening or they weren't very thorough.  And it seems there is no documentation to prove they did happen.  

I really do think you need to go to the property and see the damage to the toilet for yourself, preferably with a non LA recruited plumber.  What sort of problem have the tenants caused?  I seem to have missed that in your answers.  I just have this feeling the LA isn't one of the good ones.  As already mentioned, most in wall cisterns have an access panel. 

ileven1225

deannatrois said:

You don't really seem to have taken on board that to some degree the LA were at fault, because I can't believe the damages reported happened in the last six months.  Either the inspections weren't happening or they weren't very thorough.  And it seems there is no documentation to prove they did happen.  

I really do think you need to go to the property and see the damage to the toilet for yourself, preferably with a non LA recruited plumber.  What sort of problem have the tenants caused?  I seem to have missed that in your answers.  I just have this feeling the LA isn't one of the good ones.  As already mentioned, most in wall cisterns have an access panel. 

You probably right but which LA is good...... I did not see people give good reviews to LA. I would like to find a good LA to rely on with and the income can be considered as a passive income. So far, it is not really passive income. 

What I could do if the LA did not do a proper job? I guess if they couldn't provide evidence, they might be at fault as well. Then what the landlord's right to ask the LA to fix their fault?

[Deleted User]

Go back to Great Crested's post on page 1, the last link will help with some of the questions.  What you can ask the LA to fix, will depend on the contract you signed with them, whether they broke any of the terms of the contract.  Any LA should belong to a redress scheme https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/housing_options/accommodation_agencies/complaints_against_agencies_redress_schemes

You can regard a property rental as a passive money making scheme.., but run the risk of high costs if you do.  If you want to make money passively, better to invest in shares.  But even this is often not as passive as it might seem.  Being a passive LL is a high risk strategy.