PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Deposit Dispute

ochilmum
ochilmum Posts: 25
First Anniversary First Post
Forumite
edited 12 November 2023 at 11:23PM in House buying, renting & selling
Thoughts on this situation...

We just moved out of a house with a hardwood floor, during our tenancy we had a piano moved in which caused some dents in the floor, using our insurance we paid for the floor to be sanded and revarnished. On moving out our landlord said that the area where the piano was is still not acceptable and wants it sanded and revarnished AGAIN, plus we put down a rug which annoyingly left a faint raised pattern from the non slip underlay, we put it down much later than the time on the varnish stated so that's not the issue. I had a specialist out who re varnished that small section where the piano was and advised the raised pattern could only be fixed by re sanding and we decided that as the floor was in a bad state when we moved in and it was pretty much brand new except those marks when we moved out this was fair wear and tear. She disagreed and wanted us to re do the whole floor again. I stated that we were not prepared to do this and if she didn't agree it is fair wear and tear we would need to discuss it via the deposit third party adjudicator. 

In response to this she has said well you can do that BUT I will now be claiming for the ceiling repair. Back story to this... back in august/september a pipe cracked in the sink and caused a leak which dripped through to the ceiling below, a few days later (strange timing I know!) a separate water stain appeared from the shower door seal not being refitted properly after me cleaning it and water dripping through the floor. At the time she didn't say we would have to pay, and obviously the ceiling would need to be repainted from the sink leak anyway. Now I'm refusing to have the floor revarnished at my expense she is holding this thing over me... my question is can she back date a claim like this? Obviously it's pretty petty but is it actually not allowed? I don't have it specifically in writing that we didn't have to pay for the ceiling, but I do have an email from her saying what she found when looking at the ceiling and the next steps. She wants to just claim for just the part from the shower leak, not the sink leak, not sure how she would even do this, as you would have to paint the whole ceiling in one go either way

Comments

  • If the deposit issue is not resolved/agreed, yes she can claim whatever she thinks is valid.

    How did the sink pipe crack? Was this your fault?

    If you disagree with all or part of the deductions she is proposing, use the deposit scheme arbitration process. That's what it is for.
  • ochilmum said:
    Thoughts on this situation...

    We just moved out of a house with a hardwood floor, during our tenancy we had a piano moved in which caused some dents in the floor, using our insurance we paid for the floor to be sanded and revarnished. On moving out our landlord said that the area where the piano was is still not acceptable and wants it sanded and revarnished AGAIN, plus we put down a rug which annoyingly left a faint raised pattern from the non slip underlay, we put it down much later than the time on the varnish stated so that's not the issue. I had a specialist out who re varnished that small section where the piano was and advised the raised pattern could only be fixed by re sanding and we decided that as the floor was in a bad state when we moved in and it was pretty much brand new except those marks when we moved out this was fair wear and tear. She disagreed and wanted us to re do the whole floor again. I stated that we were not prepared to do this and if she didn't agree it is fair wear and tear we would need to discuss it via the deposit third party adjudicator. 

    In response to this she has said well you can do that BUT I will now be claiming for the ceiling repair. Back story to this... back in august/september a pipe cracked in the sink and caused a leak which dripped through to the ceiling below, a few days later (strange timing I know!) a separate water stain appeared from the shower door seal not being refitted properly after me cleaning it and water dripping through the floor. At the time she didn't say we would have to pay, and obviously the ceiling would need to be repainted from the sink leak anyway. Now I'm refusing to have the floor revarnished at my expense she is holding this thing over me... my question is can she back date a claim like this? Obviously it's pretty petty but is it actually not allowed? I don't have it specifically in writing that we didn't have to pay for the ceiling, but I do have an email from her saying what she found when looking at the ceiling and the next steps. She wants to just claim for just the part from the shower leak, not the sink leak, not sure how she would even do this, as you would have to paint the whole ceiling in one go either way
    I’m guessing from your user name that you’re in Scotland, is that correct? 

    How long have did you live in the property? 

    Unless you cracked the pipe or you incorrectly fitted the shower screen I can’t see that your landlord can make a claim from you for either. If tradespeople she hired incorrectly fitted the shower screen and it caused water damage she should have claimed the money from them. 
  • ochilmum said:
    Thoughts on this situation...

    We just moved out of a house with a hardwood floor, during our tenancy we had a piano moved in which caused some dents in the floor, using our insurance we paid for the floor to be sanded and revarnished. On moving out our landlord said that the area where the piano was is still not acceptable and wants it sanded and revarnished AGAIN, plus we put down a rug which annoyingly left a faint raised pattern from the non slip underlay, we put it down much later than the time on the varnish stated so that's not the issue. I had a specialist out who re varnished that small section where the piano was and advised the raised pattern could only be fixed by re sanding and we decided that as the floor was in a bad state when we moved in and it was pretty much brand new except those marks when we moved out this was fair wear and tear. She disagreed and wanted us to re do the whole floor again. I stated that we were not prepared to do this and if she didn't agree it is fair wear and tear we would need to discuss it via the deposit third party adjudicator. 

    In response to this she has said well you can do that BUT I will now be claiming for the ceiling repair. Back story to this... back in august/september a pipe cracked in the sink and caused a leak which dripped through to the ceiling below, a few days later (strange timing I know!) a separate water stain appeared from the shower door seal not being refitted properly after me cleaning it and water dripping through the floor. At the time she didn't say we would have to pay, and obviously the ceiling would need to be repainted from the sink leak anyway. Now I'm refusing to have the floor revarnished at my expense she is holding this thing over me... my question is can she back date a claim like this? Obviously it's pretty petty but is it actually not allowed? I don't have it specifically in writing that we didn't have to pay for the ceiling, but I do have an email from her saying what she found when looking at the ceiling and the next steps. She wants to just claim for just the part from the shower leak, not the sink leak, not sure how she would even do this, as you would have to paint the whole ceiling in one go either way
    I’m guessing from your user name that you’re in Scotland, is that correct? 

    How long have did you live in the property? 

    Unless you cracked the pipe or you incorrectly fitted the shower screen I can’t see that your landlord can make a claim from you for either. If tradespeople she hired incorrectly fitted the shower screen and it caused water damage she should have claimed the money from them. 
    it was the seal along the bottom that can be taken off. I'd taken it off to wipe it and didn't put back slightly wrong so there was a gap, so it was my fault but not the cracked sink pipe. I just find it odd she didn't ask us to pay at the time but is now that I'm not doing what she wants. Also it's odd that she's asking for it when she already has to repair a watermark less than a meter away in the same room that's her responsibility, I'm not sure how that cost would even be worked out.

    We lived there 2 years 2 months, and yep scotland. 
  • ThisIsWeird
    ThisIsWeird Posts: 4,458
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    The floor was "in a bad state when you moved in"? How was it described in the report, and we're there any photos? Or, just how 'bad' was it? 
    If the floor is in overall better condition now - freshly sanded and varnished - then I think they'd struggle to make a case. The marks from the anti-slip mat should only be in the top of the varnish layer, so a relatively easy light-sand (not going through the varnish) and recoat should sort this, so don't accept the cost of a 'floor' sanding.
    The leak from the broken pipe wasn't your fault, so presumably repaired by the LL?
    The ceiling isn't 'damaged', only stained? 


  • The floor was "in a bad state when you moved in"? How was it described in the report, and we're there any photos? Or, just how 'bad' was it? 
    If the floor is in overall better condition now - freshly sanded and varnished - then I think they'd struggle to make a case. The marks from the anti-slip mat should only be in the top of the varnish layer, so a relatively easy light-sand (not going through the varnish) and recoat should sort this, so don't accept the cost of a 'floor' sanding.
    The leak from the broken pipe wasn't your fault, so presumably repaired by the LL?
    The ceiling isn't 'damaged', only stained? 


    It was listed as 'excellent' on the inventory which I accepted, there are photos. When I have the contractors out to do the floor they commented on how the dents I caused were the least of the problems with the floor and it needed to be refinished years ago! He said he would be happy to provide a statement to that effect or ask someone from another company to do so which was very kind. I've never had hardwood floors before (and never will again!!) so I didn't know better than to accept the inventory comment unfortunately. Thanks for the advice on the light sanding vs full sanding, I hadn't thought of that.
  • ThisIsWeird
    ThisIsWeird Posts: 4,458
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    ochilmum said:
    It was listed as 'excellent' on the inventory which I accepted, there are photos. When I have the contractors out to do the floor they commented on how the dents I caused were the least of the problems with the floor and it needed to be refinished years ago! He said he would be happy to provide a statement to that effect or ask someone from another company to do so which was very kind.
    Excellent!

    (Any idea what type of wood? I'm surprised it's so vulnerable.)

  • How old is the floor do you know? 
  • How old is the floor do you know? 
    Pretty old, she told me it was reclaimed from a ballroom when they took the floor up, then it’s been in that house somewhere around 10 years as far as I can tell, she said it had never been sanded since getting it from the ballroom she just put more and more layers of varnish/polish on top. It was a pretty dramatic change when it was refinished, it honestly looks lovely! 
  • ochilmum said:
    It was listed as 'excellent' on the inventory which I accepted, there are photos. When I have the contractors out to do the floor they commented on how the dents I caused were the least of the problems with the floor and it needed to be refinished years ago! He said he would be happy to provide a statement to that effect or ask someone from another company to do so which was very kind.
    Excellent!

    (Any idea what type of wood? I'm surprised it's so vulnerable.)

    Junkers beech 
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards