Rented property - reasonable wear and tear
Discussion
The Restorer said:
Not necessarily. The TDS is there to help mediate in cases such as this. Is the landlords request fair that the tenant pays for a whole new surround when it's second hand and a repair is possible? Because the landlord did not register the deposit this can't be done now.
It wasn't the tenants responsibility to register into the scheme. It was the landlords.
Having been a landlord, will probably be one again soon and renting a property myself I'm not really one to be taking sides.
I am aware it goes both ways.It wasn't the tenants responsibility to register into the scheme. It was the landlords.
Having been a landlord, will probably be one again soon and renting a property myself I'm not really one to be taking sides.
If repair is possible, then repair is fair.
If repair to similar standard is not possible, a replacement is fair.
If the tenant wants to spend the time trying to arrange repairs, or finding used replacements, then that's fine.
If the landlord was to spend his time (possibly away from his job) trying to the above and charged for his time, the total cost might then end up being much higher than a straight replacement.
If the tenant doesn't want to spend the time arranging repairs / used replacements, etc, ... they just have to suck it up and pay.
I say this as soon to be tenant and soon to be landlord.
mnkiboy said:
It's a marble effect fire surround, we'd never get it to the original standard. I'm sure painting the whole thing wouldn't go down too well either.
If it were up to me, i'd just put something on top of the mark. It's a small mark, which doesn't effect the function of the fire surround, and certainly doesn't look like £350 worth of damage.
You damaged somebody elses property, if it can't be fixed which it seems it can't then you replace it. It doesn't matter how old it was, there was nothing wrong with it, it is your obligation to put the owners property back in the condition you found it. I find it amazing that you need to be told this, it's common decency.If it were up to me, i'd just put something on top of the mark. It's a small mark, which doesn't effect the function of the fire surround, and certainly doesn't look like £350 worth of damage.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th September 13:36
Bluequay said:
You damaged somebody elses property, if it can't be fixed which it seems it can't then you replace it. It doesn't matter how old it was, there was nothing wrong with it, it is your obligation to put the owners property back in the condition you found it. I find amazing that you need to be told this, it's common decency.
sounds like there's an element of betterment here. Why should he pay for a brand new one, when the previous one wasn't brand new when he moved in?If you damage a 8 year old Mondeo, you aren't expected to replace with a brand new one.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Bluequay said:
You damaged somebody elses property, if it can't be fixed which it seems it can't then you replace it. It doesn't matter how old it was, there was nothing wrong with it, it is your obligation to put the owners property back in the condition you found it. I find amazing that you need to be told this, it's common decency.
sounds like there's an element of betterment here. Why should he pay for a brand new one, when the previous one wasn't brand new when he moved in?If you damage a 8 year old Mondeo, you aren't expected to replace with a brand new one.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Bluequay said:
You damaged somebody elses property, if it can't be fixed which it seems it can't then you replace it. It doesn't matter how old it was, there was nothing wrong with it, it is your obligation to put the owners property back in the condition you found it. I find amazing that you need to be told this, it's common decency.
sounds like there's an element of betterment here. Why should he pay for a brand new one, when the previous one wasn't brand new when he moved in?If you damage a 8 year old Mondeo, you aren't expected to replace with a brand new one.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
ounds like there's an element of betterment here. Why should he pay for a brand new one, when the previous one wasn't brand new when he moved in?
That's just daft. It's a fireplace which is a fitting - the term "2nd hand" or "used" doesn't come into it. If the OP had smashed a window, would the landlord be expected to replace it with non-new glass?
mnkiboy said:
It's a marble effect fire surround, we'd never get it to the original standard.
...and yet you can't see why the whole thing needs to be replaced?As others have said - this is not fair wear and tear, this is avoidable damage and precisely the sort of thing the deposit is there for.
Where a Deposit is taken from a tenant, and then not protected by the landlord under the Housing Act 2004, then any dispute on deductions from the Deposit, the tenant would have the options of taking a case to the small claims court.
I have known of similar cases/damage to that the OP has posted, being considered by the TDS dispute resolution service, as fair wear & tear. These cases consist of damage to a kitchen work top, cracks to baths, sinks and shower trays.
I believe it is wholly unreasonable of any LL to expect to recover the full replacement costs of an item that has been partially marked, particularly where the landlord has given no consideration to the age of that item.
If a tenant was to find himself in a similar to the OP, with the Deposit not having been protected under the Housing Act, then I am certain the same would be used by the court as a point of evidence, with the decision being made by the court in favour of the tenant.
The offer by the OP of a deduction of £50 from the original Deposit, seems to me to be both fair and reasonable.
I have known of similar cases/damage to that the OP has posted, being considered by the TDS dispute resolution service, as fair wear & tear. These cases consist of damage to a kitchen work top, cracks to baths, sinks and shower trays.
I believe it is wholly unreasonable of any LL to expect to recover the full replacement costs of an item that has been partially marked, particularly where the landlord has given no consideration to the age of that item.
If a tenant was to find himself in a similar to the OP, with the Deposit not having been protected under the Housing Act, then I am certain the same would be used by the court as a point of evidence, with the decision being made by the court in favour of the tenant.
The offer by the OP of a deduction of £50 from the original Deposit, seems to me to be both fair and reasonable.
Not getting the whole, 'yes we damaged it, but you cant notice it if you cover it up, so why should we pay for it' mentality.
Or trying to say its wear and tear.
Person damages something even by accident, then said person should fix or replace said item, not make excuses as to why the other person should not be whole and get kind of pissy and offer a sub standard repair or a contribution.
Not broken before hand = fixed to non broken status afterwards.
Or trying to say its wear and tear.
Person damages something even by accident, then said person should fix or replace said item, not make excuses as to why the other person should not be whole and get kind of pissy and offer a sub standard repair or a contribution.
Not broken before hand = fixed to non broken status afterwards.
mnkiboy said:
Any suggestions? Also our deposit isn't protected under any scheme, as the house was rented from family (which makes the whole situation twice as stressfull!)
Your family is trying to screw you on the repair cost. They acted illegally (as in criminally) not putting your deposit in a third party scheme, and if you google it, you'll find that a court could award you twice the deposit back. Alternatively you could ask for a 'go' at fixing it, before you actually get into an argument.
Did you actually sign an AST? If you did, then the deposit should have been protected. If it wasn't, then there are certain things the landlords can't do. I can't remember off the top of my head what they all are, but I know there's certain things.
Could be a bit more relaxed if you were renting from family, and they only took a deposit?
Morally, though, you should offer to pay for the actual repair cost, so maybe get a few quotes of your own or a price for a replacement surround?
Looking at it logically, the type of fireplace surround isn't going to have that much of a bearing on whether the house can be let in the future, so a cheap surround, paid for by you, should be enough, or just re painted in a different finish. I can't see how a painted marble effect would look any good anyway? What has been painted to give the marble effect?
Renting is a minefield anyway, then you went and rented from family! You're a brave man!
Could be a bit more relaxed if you were renting from family, and they only took a deposit?
Morally, though, you should offer to pay for the actual repair cost, so maybe get a few quotes of your own or a price for a replacement surround?
Looking at it logically, the type of fireplace surround isn't going to have that much of a bearing on whether the house can be let in the future, so a cheap surround, paid for by you, should be enough, or just re painted in a different finish. I can't see how a painted marble effect would look any good anyway? What has been painted to give the marble effect?
Renting is a minefield anyway, then you went and rented from family! You're a brave man!
If it was the carpet which you had damaged then there is the ability to calculate it's average lifespan and therefore increase or decrease your contribution towards it's replacement accordingly. However, obviously a fireplace, if good, should last a very, very longtime so yes, unless it can be repaired then you are liable for replacement.
Re. The deposit, there are no longer fixed boundaries on what the LL can be charged for not registering. However, if taken to court I would guess that it could be argued you were complicit in not registering the deposit because it was a comfy family arrangement and therefore you'd be unlikely to have much if anything awarded in your favour.
Re. The deposit, there are no longer fixed boundaries on what the LL can be charged for not registering. However, if taken to court I would guess that it could be argued you were complicit in not registering the deposit because it was a comfy family arrangement and therefore you'd be unlikely to have much if anything awarded in your favour.
Slagathore said:
Renting is a minefield anyway, then you went and rented from family! You're a brave man!
No, i'm a stupid man.To draw a line under it, i'm agreeing to the £350 deduction from the deposit. It's more hassle than it's worth and the GF is getting stressed about it (we rented from her family).
They can pay for their own teabags, sugar and milk when they come round though. And electricity. And washing up costs.
mnkiboy said:
No, i'm a stupid man.
To draw a line under it, i'm agreeing to the £350 deduction from the deposit. It's more hassle than it's worth and the GF is getting stressed about it (we rented from her family).
They can pay for their own teabags, sugar and milk when they come round though. And electricity. And washing up costs.
When you rent from family , is it actually formal ? If her family kicked off about a small thing like this , then you might as well have rented on the open market ?To draw a line under it, i'm agreeing to the £350 deduction from the deposit. It's more hassle than it's worth and the GF is getting stressed about it (we rented from her family).
They can pay for their own teabags, sugar and milk when they come round though. And electricity. And washing up costs.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff