Two clauses in Tenancy agreement

Jonboy_1984

This reminds me of the teenage friends I had, one of whom painted their bedroom black (lived in rented) and another who drew a 4` high eyeball in theirs (HA property).

In both cases landlords were not bothered, but you can understand the need to return it to previous colour upon moving.... 

MultiFuelBurner

Reminds me of the black wall and ceiling bathroom we once got handed back. 5 coats of paint later.

theartfullodger

The second clause is unfair, unreasonable and should be largely ignored.

A tenant is obliged to return property as was LESS FAIR WEAR AND TEAR , ignoring damage that ain't their fault.

So if they stay for 30 years obviously carpets, floors, decoration etc will need largely complete replacement.  But if family of 6 with 3 rottweilers for a year a reasonable landlord would expect damage and significant wear.

And if say 2 windows smashed by local oiks and car runs through side wall, not tenant's responsibility. 

Simply dispute any unfair request for compo through deposit scheme.

Artful, Landlord since 2000.

Best wishes 

tacpot12

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. 

Unfortunately Schwarzwald has ommitted important words from his quotation. 

The essential phrase is "good and clean state of repair condition and decoration". This phrase covers the state of the decoration, i.e. it should be good and clean. I cannot see anywhere that says that the decoration needs to be returned to the identical colours that were there when the property was let. 

However this is somewhat moot as the landlord wants it restored, and if the outgoing tenant doesn't do so, they can expect to have to argue their case with the deposit protection scheme. It might be better to negotiate with the landlord so that both landlord and tenant pay a bit to avoid having a dispute.

The landlord seems very naive. I have exactly this situation in a property that I rent out. Tenants asked to redecorate, and I agreed. I assumed that they would not restore it to its previous colour. For one, how would they get the correct paint when I don't have any or even know what the colour was called? (The propety was let without redecorating as it was in a very good state because the vendor had redecorated to get the best price when selling). 

jj_43

It is a clear ask of the tenant to get permission to decorate and additionally return it to the original condition. Simply the landlord may not consider the redecoration to be suitable for a new letting.

Richard1212

If the landlord gave permission for painting work without saying " but the walls must be returned to original colour before you leave" then it makes it pretty clear who is in the right in this case.

If the landlord simply said it was OK to paint the walls but did NOT say the original colour needed to be put back again before leaving the property, then it is equally clear who is in the right in this case.

In any case, most leases state that property should be redecorated every [ whatever] years. And who can actually always be expected to find exactly the same paint colour as when they first moved in ?

eddddy

GrumbleBee said:

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.

I'd agree with @GrumbleBee and @tacpot12

The clause above can easily be interpreted to simply mean the property must be "in the same good and clean state of repair condition and decoration"

The walls can be a different colour, as long as they are "in the same good and clean state of repair condition and decoration".

i.e. the clause is about the "quality" of repair and decoration, rather than the "colour" of repair and decoration.

theartfullodger

Less fair wear 'n tear.

Grumpy_chap

GrumbleBee said:

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.

I think these two clauses are compatible with each other.

The permission is reasonable and the willingness to agree may vary depending upon what is requested.  Some changes are low risk while others may really require a professional to ensure the job is done properly.

The good state (less fair wear and tear) at the end of the term is about whether the LL has to do extra work for the next letting.  
I can see that colour could impact this.  If the walls were changed from Magnolia to Polished Pebble, the desirability to the next tenant is unchanged.  If, however, the walls are black, orange, purple and luminous green, then return to the original colour is reasonable.

Time can also make a difference here. 
If a tenant moves into a newly decorated property and vacates after one year, the LL may expect to have the property back in a good state that doe snot require any remedial for the next letting.
If the tenant has been in the property for, say, four years, the LL should expect to need to decorate regardless so the colour of the walls is irrelevant.

GrumbleBee

Thanks to all for your comments. Sorry I haven't replied to anybody sooner, but I started the thread and then went away on holiday the next day. Still away and just catching up on replies.

Yes, she does have evidence of original conversation asking for permission and LL replies to photographs saying well done after it was done 

Basically, LL put in to TDS for claim that totalled up to exactly the same amount to the penny of the deposit. TDS told daughter they had 2 weeks to come to agreement with LL. She sent 3 emails to LL asking for a breakdown of the charges so she could agree or contest them. Every reply from LL was random waffling and accusations with no breakdown of how LL came to the amounts he claimed to TDS. She has more or less concrete evidence against every claim apart from the walls she painted with permission in her first agreement. She had since signed a further 2 agreements since redecorating those walls. The only clauses in the contract that I can see that would relate are the 2 I posted in the first post. The reply to the last email basically said "why don't you just admit what you owe and I am happy to take to a judicator (sic)"

She ticked the box for TDS saying they cannot come to an agreement and we now await next step