Landlord Damage Request - Fair Price for Painting Polyfilla Marks etc?

[boletus]

No apology needed Steff, taken in the spirit it was given.

[Stef Cooke]

Ooh! boletus I am so sorry. I meant to delete the snob comment before I posted, a) because, even with a smile it was rude and b) I know what you meant about wanting to get the best tenants you can.

JKO I don't assign the cost, just the liability. And I do that according to AIIC guidelines and the reports from the arbitrators. If that does me out of a job, so be it. I fully expect there to be a drop off in business because of all the changes that are already n the pipeline. But I have no idea how big / small that might be. There may even be a pick up if some of the other mooted changes are brought in. Imagine an Australian system...compulsory independent inventories!!! Your worst nightmare

[boletus]

Maybe the Ts aren't all that great, maybe they are. Maybe the LL can't afford to complete refurb between tenancies, maybe the T can't afford anything in a 'better' area or condition. Don't be such a snob!

Guilty as charged! - I find the snobbier I get with tenant selection and property preparation, the less hassle I get.

But I do get your point about the life expectancy. But it isn't my fault the law is a ass!

That's just it Steff, 'life expectancy' isn't the law, it is just guidance for wise men*


*P.C disclaimer -or wise women, or wise children or wise transitionens or wise beings from any other wise group.

[JK0]

The thing is Stef, if landlords knew you only allow them a fiver for a £50 fridge drawer, they would not see any point in employing you at what, £50 to £100 a time? I think inventory clerks have talked themselves out of a job, haven't they?

I suspect in future landlords will just ask for 6 months rent up front, and a deposit against any missing rent. The whole inventory rigmarole is now pointless.

[Stef Cooke]

But don't worry, you won't get billed for having lived in a dump when you leave.

Happily, I don't work like that and, as far as I am aware, nor do any of the LAs or LLS I work for! Well, not using my reports as the excuse to do so they don't.

And plenty of the properties I do have defects at the beginning of the tenancy. Maybe the Ts aren't all that great, maybe they are. Maybe the LL can't afford to complete refurb between tenancies, maybe the T can't afford anything in a 'better' area or condition. Don't be such a snob! I think about 50% of the work I do is on less than perfect properties, with any or all of the defects you list. All listed in Check Out, Inventory and noted again at Check In!

But I do get your point about the life expectancy. But it isn't my fault the law is a ass!

Maybe we could all club together, start a petition, crowdfund, get the guidelines changed! No? Ah well....

[Flashback1966]

Freezer drawers can break, because people don't defrost regularly and so the drawers are frozen up and they try to force the drawer in or out. Especially if it is iced up and it does not budge. If the drawers splinters, it will leave sharp edges. Only you know, the truth of this.

[boletus]

So this tenant pays an adjusted % of the cost and the next tenant pays nothing if/when it breaks as there was pre-existing damage.

Welcome to your prospective new home!
The bog is just a bit cracked.
The doors have a few kicked in panels.
The carpets only have some fag burns.
Etc.
But don't worry, you won't get billed for having lived in a dump when you leave.
What kind of next tenant will be willing to take the property on? Certainly not the ones I'm looking for.

If the life expectancy theme is applied blindly without common sense, then a tenant could trash a property with impunity;

"Sorry about smashing all the windows in Guv, but they were past their average life expectancy so you can't bill me for them".

[JK0]

I can't speak for Stef.

The landlord's claim is for a loss that is beyond the fair wear and tear that is implicitly in the minds of both parties to the tenancy agreement. Both the landlord and tenant know that the tenant will live in the property and (again implicitly) will behave in a normal tenant like manner.

So some wear and tear is part of the agreement and is part of what's paid for in rent.

Where there is something beyond that, such as holes in a wall, which are not normal wear and tear, the landlord has a loss.

It's in calculating the loss that the need to consider what has been lost arises. While it seems as though the landlord has "lost" the cost of repair, they haven't. But the normal wear and tear did occur in parallel, and the landlord can't claim for putting that right, because that's already been paid for out of the rent paid by the tenant.

The fridge door that was broken was worth less than it was when it was new. And, while it looks daft when you write it down, the decrease in value is a tiny fraction of what the tenant buys from the landlord and pays for in rent.

No one says that the law is the same as common sense.

In the case of "my" car, the situation is different. I'm not making a contractual claim (assuming the other driver had agreed not to crash into me), I'm making a claim in Tort for the cost of the repair which would otherwise not have arisen had the other driver not been negligent. And even then, the claim would be capped at the value of the vehicle at the time of the crash as I can't benefit from the situation, it's still compensation.

Frankly, I think this is laughable legal mumbo jumbo. I'll leave it there.

[Stef Cooke]

Is it erroneous? I assign damage and compensation in the same way for white goods as I do for carpets etc, according to the extent of the damage. I can see your point, but whilst the drawers are part of the appliance and would normally be replaced with it they can be replaced separately, so the loss is not total... and then there can be no betterment, no new drawer for old.

But cracked is not the same as broken. The drawer may not need replacing. Without seeing it, I wouldn't know. So this tenant pays an adjusted % of the cost and the next tenant pays nothing if/when it breaks as there was pre-existing damage.

Whilst I can see what you mean, I think there is a real legal difference. But as the whole compensation 'thing' seems nonsensical for much of the time, I don't have a better solution. Which is why I am grateful that I only make suggestions and don't do the actual billing.

[jpkeates]

Stef, why do you and JPK keep (erroneously in my view) pushing the view that repairs to an appliance should have a deduction for life expectancy?

The owner would not normally replace his fridge drawers every few years, like he would other things. They would just get replaced when he changed the fridge. See my comments in Unintentional humour about JPK's car.

I can't speak for Stef.

The landlord's claim is for a loss that is beyond the fair wear and tear that is implicitly in the minds of both parties to the tenancy agreement. Both the landlord and tenant know that the tenant will live in the property and (again implicitly) will behave in a normal tenant like manner.

So some wear and tear is part of the agreement and is part of what's paid for in rent.

Where there is something beyond that, such as holes in a wall, which are not normal wear and tear, the landlord has a loss.

It's in calculating the loss that the need to consider what has been lost arises. While it seems as though the landlord has "lost" the cost of repair, they haven't. But the normal wear and tear did occur in parallel, and the landlord can't claim for putting that right, because that's already been paid for out of the rent paid by the tenant.

The fridge door that was broken was worth less than it was when it was new. And, while it looks daft when you write it down, the decrease in value is a tiny fraction of what the tenant buys from the landlord and pays for in rent.

No one says that the law is the same as common sense.

In the case of "my" car, the situation is different. I'm not making a contractual claim (assuming the other driver had agreed not to crash into me), I'm making a claim in Tort for the cost of the repair which would otherwise not have arisen had the other driver not been negligent. And even then, the claim would be capped at the value of the vehicle at the time of the crash as I can't benefit from the situation, it's still compensation.

[JK0]

(cost at new / life expectancy) x number of year life left.

£50 new / 10 years life expectancy (though if good quality that could be 15 years) = £5 a year left.

Stef, why do you and JPK keep (erroneously in my view) pushing the view that repairs to an appliance should have a deduction for life expectancy?

The owner would not normally replace his fridge drawers every few years, like he would other things. They would just get replaced when he changed the fridge. See my comments in Unintentional humour about JPK's car.

[Stef Cooke]

For the filled holes I would mark it as "See file for information" as I wouldn't know what your AST says. But at most I would expect it to be a proportional compensation charge for any wall that needed redecorating. Not the whole property. That, with 6.5 year old decor, could be nigh on £0, if you filled them and flattened them. But yes, that's for arbitration as it is not a yes/no decision.

The cracked drawer, I hate these. Neither side ever accepts my suggestion. As far as I am concerned it is damage: AIIC guidelines: If handles are broken and not just loose this is damage, as are cracked crispers, door racks or freezer drawers and flaps over and above fair wear and tear

So I would work out a cost using the usual compensation formul:

(cost at new / life expectancy) x number of year life left.

£50 new / 10 years life expectancy (though if good quality that could be 15 years) = £5 a year left.

Dispute her costs, make her an offer. Then take it to arbitration.

[mariner]

I read it as 'holes were present on last T move in and noted on the Inventory, which means LL accepted them as 'move in condition'.
My understanding of AST requirements is that the T has to return the Property in same decorative etc order to move in, less allowance for FW&T.
I do not allow T to make any decorative changes, even spot repairs, as they can up cock it or paint rooms in unacceptable colours..
They can live with any colour scheme they want. I will pursue cost of prof remedial action which they can contest via ADR.

[Lawcruncher]

I think it comes down to precisely what the tenancy agreement says.

[AndrewDod]

If the tenancy agreement says on the one hand says that the tenant is not to decorate the interior, but on the other says the tenant is to leave the interior of the property in no worse decorative condition than it was at the beginning of the tenancy, I think the latter obligation has to prevail.....

But that is not the conundrum. It would be an unusual AST that says that "the tenant is to leave the interior of the property in no worse decorative condition than it was at the beginning of the tenancy" -- it would say that the tenant is not to damage the property beyond fair W&T. The latter has nothing directly to do with "decorative condition" but may include decorative condition as a component.

There is no inconsistency between "You shall not damage" and "You shall not redecorate"

But that would not apply to all types of loss where the T **is permitted**

You shall not leave dust -- you may not vacuum or use a duster