Mattress Disposal Charge

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

  • SofiaN.M
    started a topic Mattress Disposal Charge

    Mattress Disposal Charge

    Hello Everyone,

    My former landlord has just returned my deposit minus a £80 charge for disposing the mattress I have been using in the house since moving into the house in October 2016.

    The mattress was still in a good usable condition (no marks or any tears) but he asked me to remove the mattress from the room before leaving the property.

    I left it outside the house for him to take it away and a week later he emailed me asking me if there is anyway I could take it away as it was expensive (for him) to do so,I told him this will
    not be possible as I had no means of doing so.

    I have also just discovered that the deposit was not protected under the tenancy deposit scheme so not sure whom I can approach to dispute this charge?


    Many Thanks.


  • Logical.Lean
    replied
    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

    That would be fraud, unless you declared it as commercial waste and paid the tip's commercial waste rates.

    You also need a lower tier waste carrier licence to do this, although that is free of charge. If you charge a tenant to remove their waste, and move it yourself, you will need a higher tier licence.

    I'm sure it happens quite a lot, but my council has actually suggested that one of the main reason for mattresses being fly-tipped is because landlords cannot dispose of them free of charge.

    This is not my council, but explains the general rules: https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/18...from-landlords
    So everytime, I take something from the tip from a rental property, it's commercial waste, but if my tenant took it, it would be domestic ? The world is madder than I naively thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
    The reason for discouraging private landlords is the social harm that is resulting from the PRS.
    There's some truth in that but a certain level of PRS homes is a good thing and very necessary. Rather than making renting worse, they should be making home ownership easier/better.

    I suspect most landlords are right wing and deregulationist, so natural Conservative voters, not the people that the government would want to lose.
    I think they've worked out that they won't lose them, who else are they going to vote for?

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    The reason for discouraging private landlords is the social harm that is resulting from the PRS. I suspect most landlords are right wing and deregulationist, so natural Conservative voters, not the people that the government would want to lose.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    All those things have been going on for decades and government was well aware of them. Property conditions have actually improved quite dramatically.

    But government has very recently brought in a raft of legislation and taxes because it needs to reverse the increase in private renting.

    Renters vote Labour, homeowners vote Tory. Some tenants also benefitting is a bonus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by boletus View Post

    Of course it isn't. There are loads of political, financial and self interest reasons for legislation that are nothing to do with the actions of landlords.
    Deposit protection was brought in because tenants were getting ripped off.

    Banning payment of fees by tenants was brought in because tenants were being ripped off.

    Stopping the service of section 21 notices when tenants complained about the condition of a property was brought in to stop just that.

    Regulations relating to the condition of property were brought in because too many let properties were sub-standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • boletus
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    What I meant was that it is only the actions of landlords which have brought in new regulations.
    Of course it isn't. There are loads of political, financial and self interest reasons for legislation that are nothing to do with the actions of landlords.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Obviously landlords do not act collectively. What I meant was that it is only the actions of landlords which have brought in new regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    Charities are allowed to lobby for political change as long as that is not their primary purpose and the change supports their primary purpose: https://assets.publishing.service.go...actsheet_6.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    With respect, I disagree.

    Shelter have two primary functions.
    One is a charity that offers support for people who are homeless and advice for people relating to their homes.
    In this realm, they are close to exemplary.
    Their free advice is good and they are a valuable resource to tenants particularly.

    The second activity is as a pressure group in the domain of housing and homelessness.
    In this realm, they are political and profoundly anti-landlord.
    They conflate housing associations, private landlords and criminal/rogue "landlords" as though they are interchangeable.
    Their PR output is biased, inaccurate and profoundly hostile to the PRS.

    In an ideal world, the two functions should be split, so that the second (political/lobbying) activity is not linked to the charitable role - which is something that charities are not supposed to be involved with.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    It is landlords collectively who have made government action necessary, not Shelter. All Shelter do is point out where where things are wrong.
    One of the biggest underlying issues for landlords (and tenants, councils, shelter, parliament and everyone else) is that landlords don't act collectively and can't be addressed collectively.
    They're a massive number of independent small businesses, with varying levels of skill and experience.

    You might as well complain that the fast food industry "collectively" fails when trading standards finds a kitchen full of rats in Southark.
    In reality, it doesn't tell you anything about people selling take away food in Bolton.

    That's the fundamental error in shelter's PR thinking.
    Landlords aren't a collective.
    Someone criminally letting beds in sheds in Bristol doesn't tell you anything about landlords, anymore than someone selling cigarettes illegally in a pub tells you anything about tobacconists.

    It might tell you something about criminals - but no one thinks crooks are a collective.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Logical.Lean View Post
    **** land lords are fuel to Shelters firery hatred of all landlords, and make regulation and licencing more likely, and give Government more excuse to over burden Good landlords with tax and extra administration.
    I don't think that Shelter has a fiery hatred of landlords. They are a pressure group who business is to fight for decent affordable housing and against homelessness. I go to their site now and again and have found all their advice given in measured terms.

    Whenever regulation for anything is proposed we always hear it is the few spoiling it for the many. Very often the "few" are more than is admitted, but the point is that you cannot deal with those few, however many they are, without having regulations which apply to all. It is a fact of life that the many often pay for the actions of the few - prices in supermarkets would be lower if there were no shoplifters.

    We have to distinguish between regulation and registration. Registration is a tactic of government to make it look as if they are doing something, but registration means nothing if you can get registered just by filling in a form. When it comes to regulation how many regulations are there which are in fact unreasonable? Some may require a landlord to incur expense, but that does not make them unreasonable.

    It is landlords collectively who have made government action necessary, not Shelter. All Shelter do is point out where where things are wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    Originally posted by Logical.Lean View Post
    If I were the landlord. And there was an unwanted mattress, I'd have ratchet strapped it to the roof of my car, and dropped it off at the tip on my way home.
    That would be fraud, unless you declared it as commercial waste and paid the tip's commercial waste rates.

    You also need a lower tier waste carrier licence to do this, although that is free of charge. If you charge a tenant to remove their waste, and move it yourself, you will need a higher tier licence.

    I'm sure it happens quite a lot, but my council has actually suggested that one of the main reason for mattresses being fly-tipped is because landlords cannot dispose of them free of charge.

    This is not my council, but explains the general rules: https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/18...from-landlords

    Leave a comment:


  • Logical.Lean
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post

    If the mattress was the tenant's (otherwise why was it being thrown away if it was in decent condition) I'd suggest that the charge is actually reasonable.

    .
    If I were the landlord. And there was an unwanted mattress, I'd have ratchet strapped it to the roof of my car, and dropped it off at the tip on my way home.

    And not deducted a penny from.the deposit, which would have been protected. Because......id be happy that rent had been paid and the house was still in one piece.

    **** land lords are fuel to Shelters firery hatred of all landlords, and make regulation and licencing more likely, and give Government more excuse to over burden Good landlords with tax and extra administration.

    note: I'm.not saying I'm a brilliant landlord, but i do my best to provide a decent home for someone who is helping me pay for a house that one day I will.own outright.

    To the OP please educate your landlord in the appropriate manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stef Cooke
    replied
    ?? Let me just check:

    The mattress belongs to the landlord
    He is not claiming it is in any way damaged, stained or unusable
    He asked you to remove it
    He then charged you for its removal

    That is ridiculous. It is his property, he cannot put the onus on you to deal with it.

    As he has not placed your deposit ina scheme he has denied you the arbitration route, where he would be told he is being ridiculous. So you MUST challenge him. AT least a no win no fee lawyer will be little hassle for you

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    By not protecting the deposit, the landlord has also denied the tenant the ability to ask the deposit scheme to adjudicate on the disputed deduction.

    If the mattress was the tenant's (otherwise why was it being thrown away if it was in decent condition) I'd suggest that the charge is actually reasonable.

    But you can't not protect a deposit.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X