Deposit deductions

Tom161992

Hi all,
Would really appreciate some advice on some deposit deductions im currently facing.
We moved out of a flat and left it in a very good condition, however our landlord came back with a list of 5/6 deductions and a figure of £500 to be taken off our deposit. 

We contested a few and she said that she will allow them but it doesn't change the £500 figure as her total costs exceed that amount so she settled on the £500 being "less than 1 third of our rent".

We didnt like this statement as that's not how costs should be determined.

Long story short, the 3 deductions
remaining relate to 2 hairline cracks in 2 bathroom tiles, replacement of bath side panel (which has water damage), and a replacement of a wooden door on an ikea wardrobe because of a chip (about the size of a 5p coin). 

She is adamant that her costs total more than £500, and said it will take a few weeks for her to prove the costs. 

Obviously we want our money back and are tempted to settle on the £500, however part of us wonders if the costs would exceed that when you take into account fair usage etc. And secondly if she will bother replacing them at all, as the flat is very much liveable. 

Any advice here on if we are being ripped off would be appreciated.

Thanks

Tom

AdrianC

DPS arbitration. End of. Let her justify them.

grumiofoundation

She can't base costs on a % of your rent.

Whether she replaces them or not is irrelevant.

Cracked tiles, chips to wardrobe are not fair wear and tear. However she is not entitled to 'betterment' - i.e. she cannot just buy a new wardrobe and pass on all the costs to you if the wardrobe was say 5 years old when you moved. 

I assume your deposit was protected? Request back the whole of your deposit minus any deductions you agree to from the scheme it is protected with and she will have to produce evidence to justify each deduction.

steampowered

Things like hairline cracks on bath tiles or replacement of bath panels sound like structural issues or "wear and tear" to me. Those are the landlord's responsibility, not the tenant's responsibility.

You could have a look at your tenancy agreement and point the landlord towards the section of your tenancy agreement which says what the landlord is responsible for, if that helps?

As others have said, I would simply issue a deposit dispute. 

moneysavinghero

Too many landlords view the deposit as theirs and feel like they are missing out if they don't get at least a good chunk out of it. Don't just go along with it (this is their hope), challenge it with the deposit scheme.

greatcrested

The deductions need to be broken down, with a realistic cost for each one.

The arbitrators will laugh at a general guess like this.

Raise a dispute.

Post 3: Deposits: Payment, Protection and Return.

macman

A bath panel with some water damage. Who'd have thought that could happen?!

saajan_12

steampowered said:

Things like hairline cracks on bath tiles or replacement of bath panels sound like structural issues or "wear and tear" to me. Those are the landlord's responsibility, not the tenant's responsibility.

You could have a look at your tenancy agreement and point the landlord towards the section of your tenancy agreement which says what the landlord is responsible for, if that helps?

As others have said, I would simply issue a deposit dispute. 

No, depending on where exactly the tiles are, that could be through negligence. Wear and tear would be the print fading or the edges wearing down.. not cracks. If it was structural then floor tiles would have cracked soon after fitting and likely more than a hairline.. so when did they crack and was the bathroom newly tiled?
Bath panels don't have to get wet if you use the bathroom properly and ensure they don't get huge amounts of water outside the bath, so again negligence. Not sure how that could be structural. 
Re the door, if it is cheaper to fix, that should be the cost you cover (though not sure if its possible to fix and make it look smooth). Would need a picture to advise further. 

All these sound reasonable items, but the next step is how MUCH the reasonable cost is to fix / replace, without betterment. 

steampowered said:

You could have a look at your tenancy agreement and point the landlord towards the section of your tenancy agreement which says what the landlord is responsible for, if that helps? 

Nonsense. A tenancy agreement is not going to change what a LL and tenant is responsible for in terms of the property condition. 

steampowered

saajan_12 said:

No, depending on where exactly the tiles are, that could be through negligence. Wear and tear would be the print fading or the edges wearing down.. not cracks. If it was structural then floor tiles would have cracked soon after fitting and likely more than a hairline.. so when did they crack and was the bathroom newly tiled?
Bath panels don't have to get wet if you use the bathroom properly and ensure they don't get huge amounts of water outside the bath, so again negligence. Not sure how that could be structural. 
....
A tenancy agreement is not going to change what a LL and tenant is responsible for in terms of the property condition. 

The key word in your post being "COULD". The landlord has to prove this. As you say, more information and pictures needed to advise.

If the installed the cheapest possible bath panels and didn't bother to get them fitted properly, and many landlords will choose the cheapest option for things like that, the landlord can't be surprised when water gets outside the bath.

The tenancy agreement dictates what the landlord and tenancy are responsible for, that's what the point of a tenancy agreement is, so reading that should be the tenant's first port of all.

saajan_12

steampowered said:

saajan_12 said:

No, depending on where exactly the tiles are, that could be through negligence. Wear and tear would be the print fading or the edges wearing down.. not cracks. If it was structural then floor tiles would have cracked soon after fitting and likely more than a hairline.. so when did they crack and was the bathroom newly tiled?
Bath panels don't have to get wet if you use the bathroom properly and ensure they don't get huge amounts of water outside the bath, so again negligence. Not sure how that could be structural. 
....
A tenancy agreement is not going to change what a LL and tenant is responsible for in terms of the property condition. 

The key word in your post being "COULD". The landlord has to prove this. As you say, more information and pictures needed to advise.

If the installed the cheapest possible bath panels and didn't bother to get them fitted properly, and many landlords will choose the cheapest option for things like that, the landlord can't be surprised when water gets outside the bath.

The tenancy agreement dictates what the landlord and tenancy are responsible for, that's what the point of a tenancy agreement is, so reading that should be the tenant's first port of all.

Yes 'could', but more likely than not. 
You're incorrect, regarding the matters OP has raised, the tenancy agreement will have no power. eg even if it says the LL is responsible for tiles, any negligent damage by tenant is tenant's cost. even it it says the tenant is responsible for brand new tiles, any wear and tear is LL's responsibility. 

Leah04x

The deposit belongs to the tenant, unless the landlord can prove that he’s entitled to some/all of the deposit. 

Raise a dispute via the deposit scheme. They’ll ask the landlord for evidence to substantiate their claim. 

Deposit scheme will commence adjudication and take into account the condition at the commencement of the tenancy, length of the tenancy, amount of occupants, lifespan of damaged items and fair wear and tear etc. 

Even if you are at fault, the deposit scheme would not award the full amount for replacement tiles or a new bath panel due to betterment. 

Likelihood is that the landlord will be awarded far less than he claims!