Can a landlord simply pocket money withheld for repairs/replacement?

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

    Can a landlord simply pocket money withheld for repairs/replacement?

    I've recently had the opportunity to re-visit a property I rented several years ago.

    When I left the landlord withheld a large amount of money to cover the replacement of the living room carpet. The carpet was new when I moved in, I spilled some wine on it and when I left 12 months later the landlord insisted that the carpet was ruined and demanded it was replaced. He claimed the normal life of the carpet was 10 years, so he allowed for 10% depreciation and charged me 90% of the new cost and 90% of the cost of fitting.

    I still have the old emails covering the period in question. The carpet was otherwise very clean, I suggested he simply move the telly to cover the stain, he insisted that wasn't good enough and demanded the cost of replacement (and fitting). Seven years later I find myself back in the same living room (as the guest of the current tenant) and the same carpet is still in place, still in pretty good condition the only difference is the telly is now covering the wine stain.

    Is the landlord allowed to do this? If he's claiming money to replace an item doesn't he have to actually replace it? It seems like he's on a nice little earner, his carpet is still in use after 8 years, and he's already taken the money off me to replace it!

    #2
    Pres you accepted LL proposed reasonable deductions without ref to ADR. ADR would prob awarded similar amount to LL. LL is not required to replace/repair as he is only being compensated for loss in value of the item.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by mariner View Post
      LL is not required to replace/repair as he is only being compensated for loss in value of the item.
      Still doesn't really seem quite fair. The landlord was charging market rent for the property when I was there, and he is still charging market rent now (with the same damaged carpet) so how can he be claiming for loss of value?

      Is this the same principle for other deductions? if a landlord holds back money to get the property professionally cleaned, does he actually have to employee cleaners? If he holds back money to do the gardening, does he actually have to employ a gardener?

      Comment


        #4
        No, he doesn't.

        Comment


          #5
          The landlord is asking for compensation for a loss.
          It was beyond fair wear and tear and you (presumably) agreed on the compensatory figure.

          I suspect that agreement was not as fair as it could have been, as the carpet still functions as a carpet, so it wasn't as if (as claimed) 90% of its lifetime was lost.
          On the other hand, you probably had six years to make a claim against the landlord if you felt hard done by, and, from the sound of it, that ship has sailed.
          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


            #6
            It would be interesting if the landlord were to claim further compensation from the latest tenant.
            Can't suffer the same loss twice.
            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


              #7
              Originally posted by StuartH View Post
              No, he doesn't.
              Really? Even if he explicitly states that he's holding back money for (say) a cleaner, he can just keep the money?

              Comment


                #8
                jpkeates,

                I did agree initially, on the understanding that the carpet had a 10 year life, and was (according to the landlord) unusable as a carpet. He billed me 90% of the carpet on the grounds that he'd lost 9 of the 10 years he expected to get out of the carpet.

                I appreciate I have missed my opportunity on this one.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by OhMyGod View Post
                  Really? Even if he explicitly states that he's holding back money for (say) a cleaner, he can just keep the money?
                  Yes, regardless of how the request is expressed or valued, a landlord is entitled to anything agreed in the tenancy agreement, anything you agree to otherwise and compensation for any loss beyond fair wear and tear that arose in the tenancy.

                  They don't have to make good the loss (and may not be able to).

                  Cleaning is usually a term of the tenancy agreement, so it is slightly different in practice, you would normally be compensating the landlord for a minor breach of the contract.
                  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


                    #10
                    OMG, a sig red wine stain in body of carpet is NOT FW&T. LL only charged 10% depreciation for your 1 year Tenancy.
                    You could have stayed for 10 years, moving TV to hide the stain, LL prob would not have been much for carpet damage.

                    jpk, any sensible future T should note carpet stain on move-in Inventory, so LL cannot claim again for same damage.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Maybe as a result of the stain, or the impossibility to move the TV as required to cover the stain, he is renting the place £10 less than he could have otherwise. So as such, he made the decision to pocket the cash, and lose out monthly. That's why it is not about replacement but about compensation.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        You admit you caused the stain and therefore landlord was within his rights to claim for it.

                        It's his own choice whether to replace it or not.

                        I was involved in a car accident and my insurance wrote off my car and paid me its value. It was a catagory D write off and they let me keep the car as well as Their payout.

                        I chose not to have the damage repaired and still drive the car. That's not illegal.

                        A colleague ripped her trousers at work because they had left a loose nail in her dress. Employer reimbursed her the cost of the trousers. She didn't buy a new pair.

                        My point is that you were responsible for the carpet you damaged, and it isn't your concern what landlord does next.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by OhMyGod View Post
                          Still doesn't really seem quite fair. The landlord was charging market rent for the property when I was there, and he is still charging market rent now (with the same damaged carpet) so how can he be claiming for loss of value?
                          How do you know he is charging market rate? Maybe he is charging market rate minus £15 per month (which over two years would pay for the carpet). You really have no tool for determining market rate with this degree of precision.

                          He may simply have decided that a small hit on rent would be a better solution, and would avoid a longer tenancy void (which might cost more than the carpet) while the carpet is replaced. Which raises the other point - you cannot assume that the only cost you caused is the cost of replacing the carpet.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X