Can agent ask me to pay for a hob that is chipped?

alandaniel132

macman said:

'Wear and tear' = some light scratching of the hob surface due to pans being moved over it. Over two years, perfectly normal.
'Damage' (accidental or deliberate) = a crack or chip in the surface, due to impact with a pan or other heavy object. Not normal, and 100% the tenant's responsibility.
As other have said, why you would waste the time of the TDS disputing this is quite beyond me. 

If the chip is 3mm?
NOT a 1cm chip, can it consider as a big /small chip?

comeandgo

alandaniel132 said:

macman said:

'Wear and tear' = some light scratching of the hob surface due to pans being moved over it. Over two years, perfectly normal.
'Damage' (accidental or deliberate) = a crack or chip in the surface, due to impact with a pan or other heavy object. Not normal, and 100% the tenant's responsibility.
As other have said, why you would waste the time of the TDS disputing this is quite beyond me. 

If the chip is 3mm?
NOT a 1cm chip, can it consider as a big /small chip?

It is a damaged hob.  If I was moving into the property as a tenant I would ask the landlord for a replacement as I would be concerned on the safety issues of using a damaged one.  

cymruchris

alandaniel132 said:

macman said:

'Wear and tear' = some light scratching of the hob surface due to pans being moved over it. Over two years, perfectly normal.
'Damage' (accidental or deliberate) = a crack or chip in the surface, due to impact with a pan or other heavy object. Not normal, and 100% the tenant's responsibility.
As other have said, why you would waste the time of the TDS disputing this is quite beyond me. 

If the chip is 3mm?
NOT a 1cm chip, can it consider as a big /small chip?

Either way - that's damage - not wear and tear. Big - small - medium - a chip is a chip - and not a light surface scratch. 

Falafels

To the OP - when I rented out my property, a tenant caused serious damage to my hob. I offered a settlement, which he didn't accept, and he took me to the TDS - who awarded me more than my initial offer.

Look at the responses you've had on here. They will help you decide what a reasonable offer should be, and only go to the TDS if you can show that you've been polite and reasonable throughout. It's not true that you've got nothing to lose; they don't always find in favour of the tenant and, in the case of my little guy, the fact that his correspondence was rude and intimidatory did him no good at all.

nyermen

Agree with the comments here, that looks like damage caused by a wet pan being left on the hob, so it goes rusty, and then over time, the damage to the hob gets worse due to resulting heat / scouring / etc.  
One thing I find interesting though is that the OP pays for pro-rated replacement, which the landlord doesn't have to replace (ie. they could run it for the remaining X years or so but damaged).  I've never been clear why the tenant shouldn't have the option to receive the damaged item if they've technically paid for it?.  Eg. If the tenant had actually taken the hob with them, would they be paying any more or less?

davidmcn

nyermen said:

I've never been clear why the tenant shouldn't have the option to receive the damaged item if they've technically paid for it?.  Eg. If the tenant had actually taken the hob with them, would they be paying any more or less?

If the tenant wanted that option then I suppose they could have arranged the replacement with a new (or at least undamaged) hob before they left.

alandaniel132

Falafels said:

To the OP - when I rented out my property, a tenant caused serious damage to my hob. I offered a settlement, which he didn't accept, and he took me to the TDS - who awarded me more than my initial offer.

Look at the responses you've had on here. They will help you decide what a reasonable offer should be, and only go to the TDS if you can show that you've been polite and reasonable throughout. It's not true that you've got nothing to lose; they don't always find in favour of the tenant and, in the case of my little guy, the fact that his correspondence was rude and intimidatory did him no good at all.

The adjudicator will not deduct more than the disputed amount from the deposit.

Falafels

alandaniel132 said:

Falafels said:

To the OP - when I rented out my property, a tenant caused serious damage to my hob. I offered a settlement, which he didn't accept, and he took me to the TDS - who awarded me more than my initial offer.

Look at the responses you've had on here. They will help you decide what a reasonable offer should be, and only go to the TDS if you can show that you've been polite and reasonable throughout. It's not true that you've got nothing to lose; they don't always find in favour of the tenant and, in the case of my little guy, the fact that his correspondence was rude and intimidatory did him no good at all.

The adjudicator will not deduct more than the disputed amount from the deposit.

All I can tell you is that the adjudicator did just that, in my case. 

Were_Doomed

Falafels said:

alandaniel132 said:

Falafels said:

To the OP - when I rented out my property, a tenant caused serious damage to my hob. I offered a settlement, which he didn't accept, and he took me to the TDS - who awarded me more than my initial offer.

Look at the responses you've had on here. They will help you decide what a reasonable offer should be, and only go to the TDS if you can show that you've been polite and reasonable throughout. It's not true that you've got nothing to lose; they don't always find in favour of the tenant and, in the case of my little guy, the fact that his correspondence was rude and intimidatory did him no good at all.

The adjudicator will not deduct more than the disputed amount from the deposit.

All I can tell you is that the adjudicator did just that, in my case. 

In your case had any of the deposit been returned at that point?

nyermen said:

I've never been clear why the tenant shouldn't have the option to receive the damaged item if they've technically paid for it?.  Eg. If the tenant had actually taken the hob with them, would they be paying any more or less?

This is a valid question ... if the tenant is being charged for the balance of value of the goods then said goods should belong to the tenant - the LL can't claim (well, shouldn't be able to claim) for a loss of value and retain the goods.

alandaniel132

Were_Doomed said:

Falafels said:

alandaniel132 said:

Falafels said:

To the OP - when I rented out my property, a tenant caused serious damage to my hob. I offered a settlement, which he didn't accept, and he took me to the TDS - who awarded me more than my initial offer.

Look at the responses you've had on here. They will help you decide what a reasonable offer should be, and only go to the TDS if you can show that you've been polite and reasonable throughout. It's not true that you've got nothing to lose; they don't always find in favour of the tenant and, in the case of my little guy, the fact that his correspondence was rude and intimidatory did him no good at all.

The adjudicator will not deduct more than the disputed amount from the deposit.

All I can tell you is that the adjudicator did just that, in my case. 

In your case had any of the deposit been returned at that point?

nyermen said:

I've never been clear why the tenant shouldn't have the option to receive the damaged item if they've technically paid for it?.  Eg. If the tenant had actually taken the hob with them, would they be paying any more or less?

This is a valid question ... if the tenant is being charged for the balance of value of the goods then said goods should belong to the tenant - the LL can't claim (well, shouldn't be able to claim) for a loss of value and retain the goods.

Yes, had return the rest of the deposit, and already past 2 months. 
I accept the payment of hob.