Tenant not cleaned properly at check out

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    kesm,

    Hiring a handyman to change a lightbulb and a battery and trying to charge the tenant for it?! LOL

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by BuyToilet View Post

      Hiring a handyman to change a lightbulb and a battery and trying to charge the tenant for it?! LOL
      You'd actually have to hire three. One to change the light bulb, one to safely hold the ladder and the third to ensure nobody is approaching to put themselves into danger of proximity. I think therefore the labour costs of these three should be the very basis of any claim.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by BuyToilet View Post
        Hiring a handyman to change a lightbulb and a battery and trying to charge the tenant for it?!
        I don't see why this would not be legitimate (assuming that replacing lightbulbs and smoke alarm batteries was the tenant's responsibility, that is - which doesn't seem to be in dispute here).

        It costs money to get damage repaired, or cleaning done, or rubbish removed. The bulk of these costs are labour. Surely these are valid deductions ; why are lightbulbs different?

        To put it another way, I live in a leasehold property. My freeholder doesn't come round and replace the lightbulbs in the communal areas himself (although of course it would be nice if he did). He pays a contractor to do it and charges it to the leaseholders.
        There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

        Comment


          #19
          I agree. It's perfectly legitimate to employ a handyman for this, although it isn't something I would do. If it is clearly in the TA and inconvenient for the ll to travel, the tenant can hardly complain, they should have replaced the bulbs and smoke alarm batteries themselves.

          Comment


            #20
            The landlord's basis for these claims is compensation for a contractual breach.
            That requires any loss to be kept to a minimum.

            If hiring a local handyman is cheaper than the cost of the landlord driving over and replacing the bulbs etc, then it can be claimed.

            However, we're discussing replacing a couple of light bulbs and cleaning between tenants.
            Making a claim at all seems a little ott.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              You can't penalise the tenant for your lack of proximity.
              Are you saying that you cannot charge the tenant for getting someone in to address tenant's failings, but if you employ an agent and the agent gets the same person in to address the tenants's failings, then the charge can be passed on to the tenant?

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                Are you saying that you cannot charge the tenant for getting someone in to address tenant's failings, but if you employ an agent and the agent gets the same person in to address the tenants's failings, then the charge can be passed on to the tenant?
                I'm not trying to say that.

                What I am trying to say is that the landlord is entitled to compensation for loss due to a contractual breach and the loss has to be mitigated.

                So whatever costs the least to put it right has to be used.
                And the loss has to arise naturally from the breach and be reasonably foreseeable.

                If the landlord lives in Australia, the cost of flights to replace the lightbulbs wouldn't be allowed.
                The cost of a handyman might be fine - but it can't cost simply because of the landlord's circumstances (unless that was reasonably foreseeable - the tenant knew that the landlord wasn't local, for example).


                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #23
                  I have a similar issue. Students insisted after several discussions and against advice on doing the cleaning themselves, and the Independent inventory clerk has not signed it off, so I am now getting professional cleaners in to reclean as required. Students think the quote received (by a reputable local company who viewed the property) is expensive and want to get another quote. I don't think they have a basis for saying this necessarily other than they are just looking for a lower price.

                  My understanding is that after checkout, the choice of contractor is at the Landlords discretion and the price will be what the price will be, if a receipt can be provided.

                  I haven’t been able to locate advice on this point anywhere online and I wondered if other forum members can help?

                  I am reluctant to get new contractors in to quote because I’ve got a lot to do in a short timescale before the next tenants come in, and it has already been difficult enough getting a suitable cleaning company.

                  However, whilst I don’t want to spend time with alternative cleaning companies, I don’t want a deposit dispute either, which is a possibility with this group.

                  Thank you.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by JuMo View Post
                    I have a similar issue. Students insisted after several discussions and against advice on doing the cleaning themselves, and the Independent inventory clerk has not signed it off, so I am now getting professional cleaners in to reclean as required. Students think the quote received (by a reputable local company who viewed the property) is expensive and want to get another quote. I don't think they have a basis for saying this necessarily other than they are just looking for a lower price.

                    My understanding is that after checkout, the choice of contractor is at the Landlords discretion and the price will be what the price will be, if a receipt can be provided.
                    You have a duty to mitigate your losses. I've actually got costs reduced from a dispute service in relation to cleaning:

                    Originally posted by DPS
                    The provision of an invoice or receipt does not prove that the works in question were actually required or that the costs listed therein were justified or reasonable. These documents can only reasonably be used as evidence of the Landlord’s actual or anticipated expenditure, and do not imply any liability on the Tenant’s part.
                    Originally posted by DPS
                    On balance, I find that the amount claimed for cleaning is excessive and a reasonable cost likely to be incurred when carrying out the further cleaning is £60 which is the reasonable cost of a cleaner for three hours which would be sufficient time to remedy the cleaning oversights."
                    It's very fact and case dependent, in this case we'd cleaned pretty well but there were a few oversights that could be rectified quickly meaning the amount taken was reduced by more than half.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by JuMo View Post
                      My understanding is that after checkout, the choice of contractor is at the Landlords discretion and the price will be what the price will be, if a receipt can be provided.
                      You're able to claim compensation for any unexpected loss that you incurred as a breach of a term of your tenancy agreement (explicit or implicit).
                      This loss must be kept to a minimum.

                      On the one hand that means you don't have to actually remedy the issue, you could claim the loss without actually employing anyone.
                      On the other, it does mean you may have to show that the cost claimed is reasonable and wouldn't have been incurred anyway (if you clean properties between tenancies as a matter of routine, for example).

                      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by doobrey View Post

                        I don't see why this would not be legitimate (assuming that replacing lightbulbs and smoke alarm batteries was the tenant's responsibility, that is - which doesn't seem to be in dispute here).

                        It costs money to get damage repaired, or cleaning done, or rubbish removed. The bulk of these costs are labour. Surely these are valid deductions ; why are lightbulbs different?

                        To put it another way, I live in a leasehold property. My freeholder doesn't come round and replace the lightbulbs in the communal areas himself (although of course it would be nice if he did). He pays a contractor to do it and charges it to the leaseholders.

                        I agree! Some people have responded joking around but this is very valid.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by kesm View Post


                          I agree! Some people have responded joking around but this is very valid.
                          The crux is that (as has been said already) the landlord has a duty to mitigate their losses. That's why the freeholder comparison is difficult because the freeholder doesn't have such a duty (they fulfill their obligations, not remedy their losses). So whether a handyman is allowed to replace batteries and light bulbs is a matter of fact in the given circumstances.

                          For example: If other works are also undertaken at the property and these replacements could have been done at that time then it's likely that the landlord will not have complied with their duty.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X