Two clauses in Tenancy agreement

GrumbleBee

There are 2 clauses contained in a Tenancy agreement that my daughter has for her rented house. One seems straight forward: 

- Not to alter the appearance or decoration or structure of the Property or its fixtures or fittings either internally or externally without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Landlord or his Agent. Such consent will not be unreasonably withheld.

The other one seems ambiguous:

- Deliver up the Property to the Landlord at the end of the Tenancy in the same good and clean state of repair condition and decoration as they were in at the commencement of the term.

My daughter painted a couple of walls after asking the landlord for permission, which he freely granted without any conditions and he later commented on how good it looked.

Now that she has left the property, one of the things he is trying to claim (among many) is that the walls should have been put back to their original colour. 

The way that I am reading the second clause above is that the decoration should be in a good and clean state, which it is. Others may read it a different way, but if you are going to make it a clause in a contract there should not be any room for doubt one way or the other.

Any thoughts or similar experiences?

BobT36

Look up conflicting terms in consumer contract law. Defend on that point. 
Unless it's explicitly made clear that CONSENTED alterations were only to be temporary, then this presumably would override the "clean state of condition and decoration as at the commencement of the term". 

Unsure if re-signing new agreements mid-term (after decoration has been done) would additionally help defence here, too. 

Not a lawyer so take with a pinch of salt, but where there's conflicting terms, courts would rule on how they interpret the intention of the parties. 
Defend via the tenancy deposit scheme, make sure you have EVIDENCE of the landlord giving consent for the works (or re-signing a new tenancy agreement after inspection, after it's been done). Otherwise you'll probably have to put it back, or accept deposit deduction for re-painting. 

user1977

Not so sure that it's necessarily conflicting to say you can make some changes but also that you need to put it back the same way before you leave. But should really have been clarified one way or another when consent was originally sought.

Richard1212

I feel same as BobT. Find all the paperwork, emails etc from time your daughter asked for permission to paint a different colour---and find hard evidence that she was not only given permission but that owner did not say it was agreed only on a temporary basis for the duration of her tenancy. Find that proof and IMO, you're home and dry.

If not, it becomes a little more problematic but still a long way from being a lost cause. Isn't it better to redecorate and keep home in good order rather than never to have painted any walls for 4 years ? Is there anything in the tenancy agreement that states your daughter had to redecorate every 3 years ( or any period )? That would be a big help.

Go to ADR ( or if landlord will not agree to that route, take him to court). Tenants win more than landlords do-------and frequently a partial return of deposit is the outcome.

But as BobT said : I'm not a lawyer , so.........look into ADR service, and then into the route that takes landlord to court. You really must fight this case as it does not sound as though your daughter has done anything wrong, and everything right. Good luck.

Schwarzwald

I dont think it is ambiguous at all.

“Not to alter the … decoration … without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Landlord ... Such consent will not be unreasonably withheld …  Deliver up the Property to the Landlord at the end of the Tenancy in the same …. decoration as they were in at the commencement of the term”

To me it sounds your daughter asked for consent to alter but failed to ask for waiver to needing to put it back. 

sevenhills

Schwarzwald said:

I dont think it is ambiguous at all.

“Not to alter the … decoration … without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Landlord ... Such consent will not be unreasonably withheld …  Deliver up the Property to the Landlord at the end of the Tenancy in the same …. decoration as they were in at the commencement of the term”

To me it sounds your daughter asked for consent to alter but failed to ask for waiver to needing to put it back. 

If the walls were painted a bright colour, it could very well look nice, but needs to be painted a neutral colour.

BobT36

Schwarzwald said:

To me it sounds your daughter asked for consent to alter but failed to ask for waiver to needing to put it back. 

I get what you mean, but it doesn't really make sense to even have the paragraph in about consent, if you're just meant to put it back anyway. 

If had to return everything as it was, there'd be nowt stopping you painting (while you were there) regardless, since as long as it's back to AS IT WAS at the end of tenancy, there's no problem. 

The only point of getting consent (for something like basic decorating, no chance of permanent damage) is the consent meant that becomes the new base state (where you return any further changes back to as it was consented to be). Otherwise you'd just be changing it all back anyway. 

If the consent was only to be temporary, would have expected the landlord to make that clear, and that the second term still applies, needs to be put back at the end. 

Pretty sure a judge would rule that the presence of BOTH clauses means the first overrides the second, otherwise it conflicts / is redundant. Either ways EVIDENCE of the consent, and current state obviously matching that consented to, is needed. Otherwise no chance on challenging it regardless. 

propertyrental

Since she obtained consent there is no problem.

Unless of course she has no evidence and the LL disputes giving consent.

If the LL tries to deduct from deposit, contest via the deposit scheme.

jj_43

Seems clear. Ask for permission, then return to original decoration. What  is unclear?

BobT36

The "returning" part. 
What's the point of asking for permission, if you'll just be returning it anyway? Even if you did it without permission, if you returned it at the end of your tenancy, there's no loss to the landlord.

If the landlord gave permission and especially allowed to sign new tenancy agreements with it in place, surely that becomes the new base? 

Bit woolly.

user1977

I'm more used to this sort of discussion in commercial leases, but it's perfectly commonplace for those to say the tenant needs to seek permission for alterations, but also has to undo them at the end of the lease. That isn't viewed as being contradictory - not sure why the principle ought to be any different for residential tenancies, especially for something easily done such as painting the walls.