Dispute deposit based on damage that landlord didn't repair?

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

    Dispute deposit based on damage that landlord didn't repair?

    Hello everyone,

    After signing the contract, but before moving in, the flat suffered some flood damage. 3 rooms needed repainting because of water stains and paint falling off.
    We were promised that this will be taken care of after moving in. We followed up several times, but the repairs were never done.

    Fast forward 1.5 years and having left the flat, the landlord wants to take 350 pounds for some "light cleaning" and door damage that we didn't do (neither us nor the agency have photos of the door from before).

    Could the flood damage that wasn't repaired during the whole tenancy be used in the TDS dispute?

    Any thoughts are appreciated!

    #2
    1.5 years later a claim is being made after leaving the property? Dispute it and see who gets what via the process....

    Comment


      #3
      We stayed at the property for 1.5 years and now we're dealing with the deposit return. We left 2 months ago.

      Comment


        #4
        I don't see why the flood damage is relevant to the claim being made or it being disputed.
        The place either needed cleaning or it didn't and the doors were either damaged or they weren't (sounds like not).

        If there's no evidence of the state of the place when you moved in, I'd say the landlord has almost no chance of success.
        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


          #5
          Separate to your deposit issue...........

          It goes to show why some LLs don't bother to maintain their properties - if tenants don't chase up and get the 3 rooms repainted as promised in 1.5 years of occupation then what incentive is there for the LL to shell out £££.

          While poor LLs need to be held accountable, tenants need to do their part too and not allow these LLs to continue as they have.
          My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

          Comment


            #6
            Thank you all for the thoughts. It seems that the damages that haven't been repaired aren't relevant? The way I thought about it is that in the contract, we were supposed to move into the place as seen before signing the contract. But when we moved in, the place was in a significantly different state. And had I been responsible for the flood damage, you bet the LL would've taken all my deposit... I guess my thinking was wrong since those are separate issues... breach of contract and the deposit.

            On the door damages... the original check-in inspection report doesn't have photos of that door so there's no way to know if the damage had been there. The check-out does and the damage is visible. Does that immediately make us responsible for them?

            Comment


              #7
              An inventory does not need photo's (it helps, but not necessary) as long as the description is sufficient.

              Comment


                #8
                Landlord is at fault for not doing as promised. It is not the tenants job to chase crap landlords continuously to do their part. It seems the same story ‘promise it will be done after you move in’. Convenient that.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Sounds like a poor LL. But if the damage is not noted on check-in and is listed on check out, then rightly or wrongly the evidence is in LL favour, surely?

                  If there was damage at check-in and it was not noted on the report, then it is the tenant's responsibility to have the report amended. That's how condition reports work. If the door were related to the flood problem then it might be arguable that it was part of the same problem and caused at the same time. But as I am reading this the door is a completely separate issue.

                  The damage is not listed on the check-in report and was not noted by the tenant. I don't think the argument that the walls were not painted is relevant. However, I would go back to LL and point out that you have been more than reasonable and tolerant, that the worst you have done is not made a note of pre-existing damage and that the least he can do is show you similar goodwill.
                  Assume I know nothing.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X