Damaged carpet / compensation issue

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

  • mind the gap
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault_girl
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Vault_girl View Post
    Edit: what mind the gap said!

    Whenever we have a carpet in need of replacement at the end of a tenancy we work out the cost against the depreciation as you have done so your offer seems very fair if you wished to try that first before going to dispute.

    As my inventories always include carpets and their state at the beginning of the tenancy I'm not sure if the LL could make a claim by arguing that carpets are mentioned in your tenancy agreement (if they are) or if they are implied in "fixtures and fittings" under your agreement and thus they are not required to be mentioned in the inventory. Anyone know if this is an issue?
    I do not think what I said needs editing, thank you.

    There is really no good reason why OP should offer any money so that his grasping LL can replace a 10 year old carpet with a stain under a rug caused by a child being bathed on it because the bathroom was freezing cold. OP should refuse on principle to admit any liability for replacing the carpet and he should certainly not offer him 50% of the cost of a new one. Why should he? It is optimistic to expect a rental property carpet (even a good quality one) to last 15 years. 10 is pushing it. The carpet is already 10 years old. It can reasonably be assumed to have lost 10% of its value each year. Hence its value is now negligible. Plus, if LL has no proof the carpet was even there at the start of the tenancy, let alone what condition it was in, how is he to support a claim for a new one?

    Of course the carpet - and its condition - needs to be specifically mentioned on the inventory!

    As for making him an offer rather than going to dispute, why should he? He has nothing to lose and raising a dispute with the scheme is not the same as going to court. Plus, scheme arbitrators tend to favour tenants. There is every reason why he should pursue the return of his deposit via the scheme.

    One is tempted to say, that if the LL hadn't been so greedy/unrealistic here, the T would probably have agreed to pay a small contribution. As it stands, the LL will probably get nothing. Good.

    Are you a letting agent, by the way?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault_girl
    replied
    Edit: what mind the gap said!

    Whenever we have a carpet in need of replacement at the end of a tenancy we work out the cost against the depreciation as you have done so your offer seems very fair if you wished to try that first before going to dispute.

    As my inventories always include carpets and their state at the beginning of the tenancy I'm not sure if the LL could make a claim by arguing that carpets are mentioned in your tenancy agreement (if they are) or if they are implied in "fixtures and fittings" under your agreement and thus they are not required to be mentioned in the inventory. Anyone know if this is an issue?

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    Thanks Mind the gap, will do!

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    Jeffrey, do you still think 50% for the carpet, or 30% to cover the additional 5 years the carpet is expected to last for?
    Last edited by Williams74; 16-07-2010, 12:30 PM. Reason: //

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    My advice is to raise a dispute with the deposit protection service and let their arbitrator decide what is fair. If the carpet is not mentioned on the inventory at all, you stand a very good chance of getting your whole deposit back. This LL is taking the proverbial. Stand firm - down be browbeaten!

    Good luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    It's little country cottage with only two rooms downstairs, the living room and the kitchen [that's it], so with access in and out of the house through the living room and two small children we put down the landlords red rug from the second bedroom bedroom to safeguard any damages... only ironically during the winter as the bathroom upstairs was freezing, we bathed our youngest [3 months at the time] in the baby bath by the fire - but he kicked the pug out momentarily and water that leaked out was enough to pick up the dye in the red rug and stain the carpet below..

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    No need to!
    Originally posted by Williams74 View Post
    a stain on the living room carpet which was caused when we spilt water on the LL's red rug covering the carpet and the dye in the rug staining the carpet below .
    And that* is a seriously dodgy film, Jeffrey. I'm surprised at you. (But not very).

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Williams74 View Post
    ... and the stain is under the hearth rug in front of the fire..
    How did it happen? Read http://uk.ask.com/web?q=%22women+in+...=196&o=0&l=dir

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    ... and the stain is under the hearth rug in front of the fire..

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    The carpet is not on the inventory at all.

    Yes our tenancy deposit is protected in a scheme and we have the details.
    Yes the LL is expecting too much, the carpet the LL wants brings the total to £500 over original cost in 2000.

    We are happy to arrange to have carpet fitted during our tenany and to allow viewings, but the LL has said he wants to do some repairs to the property before he re-lets anyway [not our repairs, he needs to re-insulate the roof etc..]..

    Under the circumstances, we know the carpet is not on the inventory, but do you think we should stick with offering to pay for the depreciated value of the carpet, being 10% of original price each year?

    thanks..

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Your offer sound eminently reasonable, however unless your LL is able to provide an inventory (agreed and signed by you) which proves the state of the carpet at the start of your tenancy (preferably supported by photographs), he will struggle to justify any claim at all. I would be tempted to tell him to take a running jump and dispute any demand for money at all at this stage.

    Was there a full check-in inventory taken? What does it say about the carpet?

    Is your tenancy deposit protected in a scheme and have you been supplied with the details of that?

    It is possible to interpret this LL's behaviour as pure greed/opportunism. He cannot insist on betterment and to be honest he could simply keep the rug over the stain, couldn't he? Or claim on his accidental damage insurance.

    Originally posted by jamesknight0 View Post
    I think you should really offer 50%, unless you are prepared to remove the furniture, have the work done, and replace all the furniture. If landlord has to faff with this once you have moved out, he won't be able to show viewers until the flat is restored. This will leave probably over a month void, and will incur council tax as well on a furnished flat.

    Is that fair comment?
    No, I think it is far too generous. There is nothing to stop the LL conducting viewings (assuming OP is minded to allow him to, which does not have to, strictly speaking, unless the LL obtains a court order to enforce any 'access for viewings' clause in the TA) - they can just keep the rug over the stain as suggested above. If LL wants the whole carpet replaced, he must do that in between tenancies unless T is willing to be inconvenienced (it takes one day to replace a carpet, when all's said and done) and at his own expense unless he can persuade a deposit scheme arbitrator otherwise. This is an old carpet and LL is being a Scrooge.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    I think you should really offer 50%, unless you are prepared to remove the furniture, have the work done, and replace all the furniture. If landlord has to faff with this once you have moved out, he won't be able to show viewers until the flat is restored. This will leave probably over a month void, and will incur council tax as well on a furnished flat.

    Is that fair comment?

    One further thought, do you have contents insurance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Williams74
    replied
    Thanks, in a snap shot: The carpet we stained is a good quality wilton with average lifespan of 10-15 years, as the carpet is already 10 years old [it was 8 years old when we moved in and we've been here for 2 years] are we right in believing that it is reasonable to deduct 10% per year for 'fair wear and tear'? We know the original cost of the carpet including fitting in 2000, is the apportion of costs for any damage owed by us [the tenants] simply cover the remaining 5 years worth of use of the carpet?

    Thanks for your help
    Last edited by Williams74; 16-07-2010, 06:01 AM. Reason: make shorter..

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X