Damaged carpet / compensation issue

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

    #16
    My apologies I did not mean I was editing what you had said. I wrote a response during which time many other shorter responses were added including the tenants description of how the stain happened and your advice to dispute so I edited my response as you had basically said what I wanted to. I agree that the tenant should dispute this matter, esp under the circumstances which caused the stain to occur, and he has every chance of winning. I simply meant if the tenant (for any reason) did not wish to go straight to dispute and try to arrange an amicable arrangement with his landlord his offer (and how he has worked it out) is fair.

    I have been informed that a landlord won a dispute where he had left a couple of vases (or something similar) at a property which weren't included on the inventory which he was able to make a claim for as the tenant admitted they had been present at the beginning of his tenancy but he had thrown then away instead of amending the inventory or having the landlord remove them. As the tenant here has obviously admitted to the carpet being present to the landlord if they have been in contact regarding it I am not sure if there is a way the landlord could still manage to make a claim. I would normally have said that the fact that the carpet is not present on the inventory would mean that the LL doesn't stand a chance, however the fact that some kind of flooring would have had to be present even though not listed and the fact that obviously the LL will have significant expense to refit a new carpet of the same standard (taking into account that the landlord would probably have to pay for most of it anyway) the arbitrator may not fully vote in the tenant's favour.
    Having said that I have known disputes lost on far more minor technicalities than the gaping omission of a carpet from an inventory.

    Comment


      #17
      Yes. The more I think about this carpet, the more cheeky I think the LL is being in demanding the Ts replace it. T's consicence may prompt him to offer to contribute, but I really do not think he is under any moral obligation to.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment

      Latest Activity

      Collapse

      Working...
      X