Help! Landlord witholding part of deposit...

ChrisH

Hi all,

Hope you can help and sorry if this is a long one, I'll try to keep it brief.

Essentially, I have just moved out of a property. Before I (and my other flatmate moved in) the two tenants (out of 3) we replaced trashed the hall carpets - few oil stains/cigarette burns etc.

Naively, when I signed the tenancy agreement, I didn't realise I was taking over their responsibilities and thus being liable for damage caused by tenants prior to me living at the house. One of the original tenants was still living at the property until recently, which was why a new agreement was never produced.

Now - firstly, there was never an inventory produced - the property was 'brand new' when the tenants moved in....so I hope this is a bit of a loophole.

Essentially, they want £350 out of our deposit to recarpet a hallway that is approx 24 square metres (ridiculous!). We've said that we're not happy with that and as the carpet is 3 years old, we're prepared to pay 40% of the cost of a REASONABLY priced replacement.

I'll copy and paste our e-mails below for you to have a look - I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me where we stand legally.

E-mail #1 (to me)

Chris/Natalie

John and I had a long chat about the our conclusion was the deposit of £750 should be returned less the cost of replacing the carpet in the hallways.

This is has come about because once the carpets were cleaned there were grease marks and two burn holes in the carpet which no amount of cleaning will repair. The other items thought the flat just little bids, light bulbs not working, oven cleaning, and deep cleaning in general etc John is prepared to let these things go.

The cost of this carpet unfortunately as it is almost the same area of the lounge, the cost is approx £350.00 plus vat. John has already paid out for the cleaning of the existing carpet and spent time in cleaning the flat. The decoration and repairs John said he would do anyway. So John is to only going to withhold £350 of the deposit.

So to be returned is £400.00 is this to be split two or three ways please advise me.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to let me know.

My response
Thanks for your response.

That's a fair comment regarding the hall carpet needing replacing - but after searching several sources and seeking a bit of advice, I'm not happy about either the value of the deduction and the fact that you have not deducted costs for what is defined as 'fair wear and tear'.

If a case like this was to be heard in a court it would seem that the assumption used is that a hallway carpet has a lifespan of approximately five years. Therefore, if a carpet was replaced early, the cost beared by the tenant would be the cost of the carpet minus a deduction for how long the previous carpet has been in use for.

In our instance, the flat was renovated back in 2005 (I believe) - and so the carpet has been laid for roughly three years. As the carpet needs replacing two years early, we should only be bearing a cost of 40% of the replacement value, as the carpets would had needed doing after roughly five anyway.

Regardless of this point, the cost that you have advised (£350+ VAT) in my mind is a little excessive, and again in accordance to advice provided to me, I would like to see details of the quotes that you obtained to choose someone charging this price. As I already have the dimensions of the hallway, I've spent the last ten minutes searching the web for example quotes and have come across a website called 'Carpet.it'.

They will do a 'SIESTA 30' carpet (same as what we have, it would appear) for £9.99 per sq/m fitted, which would total £239.76. They also do high quality hallway carpets for £350 fitted, but I do not think that the carpet fitted in the flat at the moment is of that quality.

EZCarpets.co.uk even do a hallway carpet fitted with underlay too called 'Antrim Twist', same colour as we had for £10.99 per sq/m, totalling £263.76.

This is based on a piece of carpet measuring 300cm x 800cm (much bigger than is needed, also takes into account the fact that the hall is T shaped) and therefore 24 square metres.

As the carpets have been laid for 3 years (approx) already, we should only be footing the other two years of wear (40%), making the final cost to us either £95 or £105.20 respectively for the carpets that I found online.

And lastly on this point, I have e-mails from you saying that this carpet was due to be replaced anyway and that it was being arranged to be replaced at the same time as the lounge carpet when we were still living there?

Both myself and Natalie feel that an offer of paying 40% (or 5 year lifespan minus how long the carpets have been laid for) of the best quote after seeking some legal advice is more than adequte, considering that you advised that this carpet was being replaced anyway, and also taken into consideration the fact that no inventory/schedule of contents was ever produced, so there is no legally admissible evidence that the carpet was new when the tenants first moved in. The carpets were disgusting when myself and Natalie moved in and I raised this issue to you and the response was along the lines that it was 'no big deal'.

I look forwards to your response on this note.

Email #2 (to me)

Chris

Without Prejustice


The formal quote I am waiting for, with regard to the lifespan of the carpet this is a non issue as the carpet is damaged not worn.

The offer is very fair looking at the whole picture but if you wish to look into further into the mater I will add all the other items in that I mentioned earlier and this will nearly double the total, also understand that John has not included VAT on your deductions.

Being fair is the way that you have always been treated and I am not about to change that. By the way the advice that you were given is a little misleading as the case in question has been quoted a number of times and is not as clear as the advice centres like to make be, It is not applicable in this case.

With regard to the carpet being new the whole building was new along with everything in it I administered the contract build and have all the bills. The legal position is very clear the flat was new in is entirety you entered the AST taking joint and several liabilities with your fellow tenants in regards to rent and condition.

I as far as I am concerned tithe mater is closed and I will proportion the remaining deposit fairly between you.

So, does anybody know where I stand? I can't see why we have to replace a 3 year old carpet with a brand new one - surely it's like-for-like (hence either second hand or we pay a percentage of the cost of a new one)? I'm happy to make a contribution, but it's just a little unfair that I'm paying for damage that occurred before we even lived there!

Thanks,
Chris.

clutton_2

normally if there is no inventory you have a good case to say "no deductions" as the LL cannot prove the condition on move-in therefore there is nothing to compare move-out condition to - but with a n ew build i'm not sure .....

ChrisH

Hi Clutton,

Yes my thoughts exactly. What I'm unsure about is whether receipts etc are acceptable to show that something is 'new'.....ie: the carpet fitters could have damaged the carpet when fitting it, or, for example a kitchen unit could be damaged when fitted but this wouldn't normally show on a receipt.

Arggh, what a nightmare!

SquatNow

The rules are pretty clear on damage... the 3 years of wear-and-tear have to be deducted.

Fill out the online money-claim forms and send them to your landlord. They don't have a leg to stand on.

In court, the emails you have would be evidence AGAINST the landlord shoing that they tried to mislead you about your right and the law.

Most judges would throw the book at them and they'll get nowt.

Tell the landlord they can have £95 or meet you in court.

ChrisH

Squatnow,

Thanks for the reply.

So I have a couple of further questions:

The most recent e-mail sent to me from the LA was marked 'without prejudice' which I thought meant that you couldn't use this as evidence in court...though he misspelt it which could come in handy!

The only reason I question this part is because he's effectively threatening that if I don't agree with the £350 deduction, he'll add on a load of other things and effectively double it.

So, can they do this after they have already offered to refund us £400.00 out of the £750.00? I can't see how they can retrospectively change their minds.

And also, does anybody have any clarification of where I stand with the lack of inventory, but new property whereby landlord has invoices for goods?

Thanks
Chris

real1314

The "lack of inventory" thing is often quoted, but I've never seen anyone produce any regs, laws or cases that actually substantiate it. I think most people who quote it are mixing it up with evidence, which could just be receipts for items, cleaning etc from the start of the tenancy.

In the case of a new build it would be fairly evident that the level of decor, carpets, fittings would be an "as new" condition.

As regards the wear and tear or full cost, do you think they have a point on the other items or not? I'd wonder how well the place was kept if there were fag burns and oil stains on carpets?

As for the claim that their email would constitute them trying to mis-lead you, the same could be said of your "5 years" wear and tear etc - In truth I doubt a judge will worry one jot about the to-ing and fro-ing in the argument before court unless one party has been blatantly unreasonable, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Bear in mind too that the LL could get professional cleaners in where needed just to hammer back at you.

I'd suggest you try to negotiate a fair settlement before going to court, judges tend to react badly to people who resort to litigation too quickly.

bunnydrumming

That's a fair comment regarding the hall carpet needing replacing - but after searching several sources and seeking a bit of advice, I'm not happy about either the value of the deduction and the fact that you have not deducted costs for what is defined as 'fair wear and tear'.




I do not understand why you complained that the landlord had not charged you for fair wear and tear - dirty oven, blown bulbs and stained carpets are not wear and tear!!!. I can understand why he now wants to charge you for that cos it does sound like he was not charging you for heaby wear and tear cos he was charging you for carpet.

Professional cleaners can charge £50 to 70 for cleaning an oven (it sounds like yours was not clean) and they could charge you a couple of hundred for professional cleaners if you have not cleaned bathroom, kitchen etc.

I took photos of my rented flat when i moved in cos there are stains on carpet and house was filthy so just let her try charge me for that.

If i was you i would pay the 350 and learn from it -if you signed tenancy you are responsible for damage beyond 'normal' wear and tear which it sounds like there is in your flat. You could go to citizens advice bureau for advice or ring your local council to ask for their advice but..... think you may now end up paying more if her charges you cleaning fees etc

olly300

ChrisH wrote: »

Squatnow,

Thanks for the reply.

So I have a couple of further questions:

The most recent e-mail sent to me from the LA was marked 'without prejudice' which I thought meant that you couldn't use this as evidence in court...though he misspelt it which could come in handy!

The only reason I question this part is because he's effectively threatening that if I don't agree with the £350 deduction, he'll add on a load of other things and effectively double it.

So, can they do this after they have already offered to refund us £400.00 out of the £750.00? I can't see how they can retrospectively change their minds.

And also, does anybody have any clarification of where I stand with the lack of inventory, but new property whereby landlord has invoices for goods?

Thanks
Chris

I've sent you a pm as I don't want to get into an argument with some of the other posters on this thread.

clutton_2

chrish - i wonder if you would be willing to say which forum - this or LandlordZone - has given you the most useful replies to your problem here - and tell us why please ?

ChrisH

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Definitely had the best response here vs LL Zone, though I have a couple of points to clear up as I feel like I've been jumped on by a couple of people!

• The flat had been treated poorly prior to me moving in - I only lived there from August 07 to Feb 08, and spent a fair proportion of this time scrubbing things down with a toothbrush, repainting etc.
• The light bulbs were all working, present and correct - most of the light fittings are dodgy (very poor electrics in the flat, had a few nasty bolts off things) and work intermittently, hence we relied on floor standing lamps
• The stained hall carpet was due to a previous tenant storing and servicing his bike there (!!!)
• The flat was very clean when we left, I'd literally cleaned the bathrooms/kitchen with a tootbrush so I'm unsure as to why they're going on about a deep clean
• Oven was pristine when we left, perfectly clean and 'as new'

From the negative response, it doesn't seem worthwhile pursuing, though it really makes me angry every time I think about it! And before you say it, I know that it's my own fault.

tbs624

Chris - IMO the LL cannot justify charging you for the full cost of a new carpet, when the damaged one had been down for around 3 years. A LL cannot use a tenant's deposit for "betterment".

Yes, without prejudice means that email is not admissible, but as the first emails suggested a specific amount of money I think any court would realise what was going on if the LL suddenly produced a much bigger claim. (I know it doesn't help you now, but if any other tenant is moving out and the LL is not available on that day to do a joint check over of the property with you, then it can be helpful to take photos or a short video of the property to show that you have left it in a good clean state.)

You don't say whether or not your deposit is registered with one of the schemes?