Fair deduction from deposit from damaged sanitary ware
Discussion
I've been helping a friend through the process of getting their deposit back after moving out of a rental property which has ended up with a decision from the TDS regarding the dispute and I was wondering what PH thought about the outcome.
The initial claims of damages I found particularly egregious as the agent had listed all kinds of issues and damage that was present at the time of check in and documented in the inventory. It seems the agent hadn't even bothered finding their copy of the inventory to determine preexisting damage and were seemingly trying their luck. Luckily my friend was able to provide their copy and shut all that nonsense down. There was one item of damage that my friend admitted to, a small chip in the bathroom sink. The landlord wanted to replace the sink at the cost of £100 and provided an invoice.
The sink in question was at least 15 years old. It's my understanding if an item is replaced, it's expected lifespan needs to be established and calculations are done based on the time in situ and the time lost after replacing it before it reached it's end of life.
Take a carpet for instance
a) Cost of similar replacement carpet/item = £500
b) Actual age of existing carpet/item = 2 years
c) Average useful lifespan of that type of carpet/item = 10 years
d) Residual lifespan of carpet/item calculated as ‘c)’ less ‘b)’ = 8 years
e) Depreciation of value rate calculated as ‘a)’ divided by ‘c)’ = £50 per year
f) Reasonable apportionment cost to tenant calculated as ‘d)’ times ‘e)’ = £400
Now, I couldn't find any concrete info on the expected lifespan of a bog standard £100 sink but I know in social housing, a bathroom is expected to last 30 years.
Ultimately, the TDS decided a deduction of £75 was fair. To me, to charge £75 for a small chip in an old sink seems a bit excessive. I know there will be some disagreements on this and a landlord is 100% entitled to costs for damaged items but a replacement for a chip? The apportioned cost doesn't seem appropriate to me. That's borderline betterment surely?
The initial claims of damages I found particularly egregious as the agent had listed all kinds of issues and damage that was present at the time of check in and documented in the inventory. It seems the agent hadn't even bothered finding their copy of the inventory to determine preexisting damage and were seemingly trying their luck. Luckily my friend was able to provide their copy and shut all that nonsense down. There was one item of damage that my friend admitted to, a small chip in the bathroom sink. The landlord wanted to replace the sink at the cost of £100 and provided an invoice.
The sink in question was at least 15 years old. It's my understanding if an item is replaced, it's expected lifespan needs to be established and calculations are done based on the time in situ and the time lost after replacing it before it reached it's end of life.
Take a carpet for instance
a) Cost of similar replacement carpet/item = £500
b) Actual age of existing carpet/item = 2 years
c) Average useful lifespan of that type of carpet/item = 10 years
d) Residual lifespan of carpet/item calculated as ‘c)’ less ‘b)’ = 8 years
e) Depreciation of value rate calculated as ‘a)’ divided by ‘c)’ = £50 per year
f) Reasonable apportionment cost to tenant calculated as ‘d)’ times ‘e)’ = £400
Now, I couldn't find any concrete info on the expected lifespan of a bog standard £100 sink but I know in social housing, a bathroom is expected to last 30 years.
Ultimately, the TDS decided a deduction of £75 was fair. To me, to charge £75 for a small chip in an old sink seems a bit excessive. I know there will be some disagreements on this and a landlord is 100% entitled to costs for damaged items but a replacement for a chip? The apportioned cost doesn't seem appropriate to me. That's borderline betterment surely?
However the sink could not be replaced for £75 if you take in to account the labour and time to replace it. If the sink has a smart repair by somebody who comes to the house again that will have a cost involved. It isn’t a huge sum so I would just leave it. The landlord will have to visit the property decide on the best course of action and then sort it out and It all takes time. Do you value your time ?
We rent out three properties to private tenants and if one of those had chipped the sink I would either replace it or try a smart repair first, however these do have a cost so the tenant really should pay especially if they have admitted they have chipped it.
We rent out three properties to private tenants and if one of those had chipped the sink I would either replace it or try a smart repair first, however these do have a cost so the tenant really should pay especially if they have admitted they have chipped it.
Thermobaric said:
I've been helping a friend through the process of getting their deposit back after moving out of a rental property which has ended up with a decision from the TDS regarding the dispute and I was wondering what PH thought about the outcome.
The initial claims of damages I found particularly egregious as the agent had listed all kinds of issues and damage that was present at the time of check in and documented in the inventory. It seems the agent hadn't even bothered finding their copy of the inventory to determine preexisting damage and were seemingly trying their luck. Luckily my friend was able to provide their copy and shut all that nonsense down. There was one item of damage that my friend admitted to, a small chip in the bathroom sink. The landlord wanted to replace the sink at the cost of £100 and provided an invoice.
The sink in question was at least 15 years old. It's my understanding if an item is replaced, it's expected lifespan needs to be established and calculations are done based on the time in situ and the time lost after replacing it before it reached it's end of life.
Take a carpet for instance
a) Cost of similar replacement carpet/item = £500
b) Actual age of existing carpet/item = 2 years
c) Average useful lifespan of that type of carpet/item = 10 years
d) Residual lifespan of carpet/item calculated as ‘c)’ less ‘b)’ = 8 years
e) Depreciation of value rate calculated as ‘a)’ divided by ‘c)’ = £50 per year
f) Reasonable apportionment cost to tenant calculated as ‘d)’ times ‘e)’ = £400
Now, I couldn't find any concrete info on the expected lifespan of a bog standard £100 sink but I know in social housing, a bathroom is expected to last 30 years.
Ultimately, the TDS decided a deduction of £75 was fair. To me, to charge £75 for a small chip in an old sink seems a bit excessive. I know there will be some disagreements on this and a landlord is 100% entitled to costs for damaged items but a replacement for a chip? The apportioned cost doesn't seem appropriate to me. That's borderline betterment surely?
The lifespan of the sink is irrelevant - It doesn't need replacing due to old age, it needs replacing because somehow, your friend has managed to damage it.The initial claims of damages I found particularly egregious as the agent had listed all kinds of issues and damage that was present at the time of check in and documented in the inventory. It seems the agent hadn't even bothered finding their copy of the inventory to determine preexisting damage and were seemingly trying their luck. Luckily my friend was able to provide their copy and shut all that nonsense down. There was one item of damage that my friend admitted to, a small chip in the bathroom sink. The landlord wanted to replace the sink at the cost of £100 and provided an invoice.
The sink in question was at least 15 years old. It's my understanding if an item is replaced, it's expected lifespan needs to be established and calculations are done based on the time in situ and the time lost after replacing it before it reached it's end of life.
Take a carpet for instance
a) Cost of similar replacement carpet/item = £500
b) Actual age of existing carpet/item = 2 years
c) Average useful lifespan of that type of carpet/item = 10 years
d) Residual lifespan of carpet/item calculated as ‘c)’ less ‘b)’ = 8 years
e) Depreciation of value rate calculated as ‘a)’ divided by ‘c)’ = £50 per year
f) Reasonable apportionment cost to tenant calculated as ‘d)’ times ‘e)’ = £400
Now, I couldn't find any concrete info on the expected lifespan of a bog standard £100 sink but I know in social housing, a bathroom is expected to last 30 years.
Ultimately, the TDS decided a deduction of £75 was fair. To me, to charge £75 for a small chip in an old sink seems a bit excessive. I know there will be some disagreements on this and a landlord is 100% entitled to costs for damaged items but a replacement for a chip? The apportioned cost doesn't seem appropriate to me. That's borderline betterment surely?
In a similar way, your carpet example doesn't stand up to scrutiny either.
Let's say the carpet is only 2 years old, and your friend has damaged it somehow ( dropped red wine on a light coloured carpet, set fire to it somehow, dropped engine oil all over it whilst doing an engine rebuild, spilled bleach all over it - Whatever).
Regardless of how much longer the carpet should have lasted, it needs replacing immediately due to the damage, and your friend would be expected to pay the full cost of it, not a proportion based on the fact that it should have lasted another 8 years of normal use.
The chip in the sink may sound like a minor issue, but if a future tenant cut their hand open on it, the the landlord could be in for an expensive lawsuit.
Your friend damaged the sink, and now they have to pay for it - Perhaps they might be more careful in the next place they rent?
You may well be right when looking at the plain maths and age of sink but the fact is had your pal not chipped it, it may well have lasted many years more for the landlord.
Essentially it has to be replaced or repaired and it is hard to see how replacement can be much less than 75 quid. Landlord may need to clear the area and all that, not an expense as such but still taking time and if you want to look at maths, costing him petrol money to go there on this extra trip?
A smart repair even if possible at say 20 quid is only giving him 55 quid for the hassle and time lost.
I think no matter how you spin and cook the books, this landlord is only going to 'make' a few quid - 20 or 30 at most (if at all).
Does not seem worth bothering about, you got it reduced from 100 to 75 so if (if) he gets 25 quid the other way, all is swell?
Essentially it has to be replaced or repaired and it is hard to see how replacement can be much less than 75 quid. Landlord may need to clear the area and all that, not an expense as such but still taking time and if you want to look at maths, costing him petrol money to go there on this extra trip?
A smart repair even if possible at say 20 quid is only giving him 55 quid for the hassle and time lost.
I think no matter how you spin and cook the books, this landlord is only going to 'make' a few quid - 20 or 30 at most (if at all).
Does not seem worth bothering about, you got it reduced from 100 to 75 so if (if) he gets 25 quid the other way, all is swell?
Fair enough. It's all done and dusted anyway. The landlord decided to replace the sink immediately supposedly months ago and the dispute has finally run it's course and final charges have been accepted. I'm still happy I was able to save my friend a considerable amount as initially, the entire deposit was claimed for. Maybe I'm biased as I know the state of the bathroom, the general quality of property etc but I see where everyone is coming from.
4rephill said:
In a similar way, your carpet example doesn't stand up to scrutiny either.
Let's say the carpet is only 2 years old, and your friend has damaged it somehow ( dropped red wine on a light coloured carpet, set fire to it somehow, dropped engine oil all over it whilst doing an engine rebuild, spilled bleach all over it - Whatever).
Regardless of how much longer the carpet should have lasted, it needs replacing immediately due to the damage, and your friend would be expected to pay the full cost of it, not a proportion based on the fact that it should have lasted another 8 years of normal use.
This specific example is used on thousands of inventory reports and similar calculations are used by all the deposit protection companies all the time. It's incorrect to say a tenant would be facing the full cost of a replacement carpet. The law does not allow landlords to claim 'new for old' from the tenant's deposit. Let's say the carpet is only 2 years old, and your friend has damaged it somehow ( dropped red wine on a light coloured carpet, set fire to it somehow, dropped engine oil all over it whilst doing an engine rebuild, spilled bleach all over it - Whatever).
Regardless of how much longer the carpet should have lasted, it needs replacing immediately due to the damage, and your friend would be expected to pay the full cost of it, not a proportion based on the fact that it should have lasted another 8 years of normal use.
If you think you can find a plumber to supply and fit a basin for £75 then go ahead!
I think you got an absolute bargain, pay the money and run before the Landlord realises he could have charged a lot more.
You are right about betterment and the landlord could not have charged the full price for a replacement but the cost of fitting the new basin is the same, regardless of who paid for it!
I think you got an absolute bargain, pay the money and run before the Landlord realises he could have charged a lot more.
You are right about betterment and the landlord could not have charged the full price for a replacement but the cost of fitting the new basin is the same, regardless of who paid for it!
Thermobaric said:
Fair enough. It's all done and dusted anyway. The landlord decided to replace the sink immediately supposedly months ago and the dispute has finally run it's course and final charges have been accepted. I'm still happy I was able to save my friend a considerable amount as initially, the entire deposit was claimed for. Maybe I'm biased as I know the state of the bathroom, the general quality of property etc but I see where everyone is coming from.
Wow! Housing tenants do have it easier than everyone else. 4rephill said:
In a similar way, your carpet example doesn't stand up to scrutiny either.
Let's say the carpet is only 2 years old, and your friend has damaged it somehow ( dropped red wine on a light coloured carpet, set fire to it somehow, dropped engine oil all over it whilst doing an engine rebuild, spilled bleach all over it - Whatever).
Regardless of how much longer the carpet should have lasted, it needs replacing immediately due to the damage, and your friend would be expected to pay the full cost of it, not a proportion based on the fact that it should have lasted another 8 years of normal use.
This specific example is used on thousands of inventory reports and similar calculations are used by all the deposit protection companies all the time. It's incorrect to say a tenant would be facing the full cost of a replacement carpet. The law does not allow landlords to claim 'new for old' from the tenant's deposit. Let's say the carpet is only 2 years old, and your friend has damaged it somehow ( dropped red wine on a light coloured carpet, set fire to it somehow, dropped engine oil all over it whilst doing an engine rebuild, spilled bleach all over it - Whatever).
Regardless of how much longer the carpet should have lasted, it needs replacing immediately due to the damage, and your friend would be expected to pay the full cost of it, not a proportion based on the fact that it should have lasted another 8 years of normal use.
drdino said:
Picture of the damage for reference?
I don't have one handy but I'll try and find one.NGee said:
If you think you can find a plumber to supply and fit a basin for £75 then go ahead!
I think you got an absolute bargain, pay the money and run before the Landlord realises he could have charged a lot more.
You are right about betterment and the landlord could not have charged the full price for a replacement but the cost of fitting the new basin is the same, regardless of who paid for it!
Considering the quality of the previous work and fittings at the property, it wouldn't surprise me if the landlord just whacked in a £30 Wickes special. I have no idea about a plumbers rate to replace a sink tbh (west country fwiw). I think you got an absolute bargain, pay the money and run before the Landlord realises he could have charged a lot more.
You are right about betterment and the landlord could not have charged the full price for a replacement but the cost of fitting the new basin is the same, regardless of who paid for it!
king egregious. Thermobaric said:
Considering the quality of the previous work and fittings at the property, it wouldn't surprise me if the landlord just whacked in a £30 Wickes special. I have no idea about a plumbers rate to replace a sink tbh (west country fwiw).
Take the price of your stated "Wickes special" at £30. Something like this:https://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes-Portland-Ceramic-B...
Ask your local plumbers what it will cost to remove the old sink, take the taps off, disconnect the waste, fit the new sink, connect to drainage, plumb the taps back in and adjust & re-grout adjacent tiling, mastic-work etc. It won't be 45 quid, a minimum of £100, more likely £150 which is a standard labour day-rate for a skilled tradesman.
The fact that you are arguing over £75 is ridiculous quite frankly, you and your friend are idiots.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff