View Full Version : Help Landlord has stiched me over!
28-03-2009, 08:38 AM
Hi I am new on here and have been reading posts for some time. I wonder if anyone could give me some advice please.
I moved out of a property on 28th Feb 2009 after nearly 3 years there. My landlord came to do an inspection and my daughter had spilt some ink on her bedroom carpet. I agreed to pay towards a new one as i admit that it was in a worase state than when we moved in. Nothing else was said and the landlord said that they would sort the carpet out and then forward the remainder of my deposit on, fine. 3 days later we get a cheque for £300 (our deposit was £440) and a snotty letter saying they were dimayed at the condition of the house and that we should of returned the painted bedrooms back to neutral colours as agreed. There was no agreement for this to happen that i can remember and certainly nothing in writing. The house was cleaned and hoovered through before we left and was in better condition than when we moved in as we had decorated the front bedroom in neutral colours and laid a good quality neutral carpet at our own expense just 3 months before leaving!
There was no inventry when we moved in to state the condition of the property and nothing when we moved out just signed to say we had notified the utility companies. I signed a new tenancy in Nov 2007 and am now thinking that they should of protected the deposit at that time also? which they havent.
So the main bt of my rant is that A they stopped out the full price of the carpet out of my depsit and is this classed as betterment as we had been in the property for nearly 3 years? and B she stopped money for cleaning services when yes maybe it wasnt up to her standard but yes it was clean. and c they didnt protect our deposit after new tenancy was signed in Nov 2007. Is it to late now after moving out last month to try and get my money back from them and if not sue them for 3x the deposit as it wasnt protected?
Thanks in advance for all your help:)
28-03-2009, 09:06 AM
Stop moaning is the answer to this, I think. You have been charged £140 for the provision and fitting of a new carpet, that you admit was damaged, and probably uncleanable. The Landlord still has to pay to return the paintwork in a room to its original neutral colour (which he will have to pay for) and which you appear to have agreed to (but failed to do) at the end of your tenancy.
To cap it all, you want to sue the Landlord for 3x the (possibly unprotected) deposit, a generous portion of which has been returned to you. I think you need to join the rest of us "in the real world".
I note that tenants now view the ridiculous deposit protection schemes as an possible chance at a money making venture, not withstanding, of course some of the ludicrous, anti-landlord arbitration decisions that are now being reported on this and other forums.
28-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Actually i didnt agree to pay to return the paintwork back to the original grotty mucky white that was already there and if the deposit was unprotected then thats his problem not mine when i sue him
28-03-2009, 09:17 AM
"Stop moaning is the answer to this"
I couldnt agree more.:p
mind the gap
28-03-2009, 09:31 AM
OP states s/he had lived in the property for 3 years. Unless the AST was renewed after April 6 2007, as opposed to being allowed to become periodic, the LL was under no obligation to protect it anyway.
OP, although your LL could not defend keeping £140 of your deposit in the absence of an inventory, I agree with the comments above. You are whingeing unreasonably.
Next time, make sure everything is in writing, and signed by both parties, then there is less scope for bad feeling and threats to sue. This is especially important when it comes to changes tenants make to a property.
For what it's worth, I would pay most of my tenants not to re-decorate my properties themselves. (In other words, because I have some professional expertise in painting and decorating, I do it myself. If I did not have this ability and experience, I would employ a painter and decorator. But a majority of people decorate very badly and I would not want to take that risk).
28-03-2009, 09:33 AM
Sorry, but the landlord is not entitled to claim the cost of a new carpet just because it had ink spilled on it. And he certainy cannot claim for redecorating just because the walls were not left the same colour.
Have any reciepts been produced to show the expense incurred?
28-03-2009, 10:15 AM
" Sorry, but the landlord is not entitled to claim the cost of a new carpet just because it had ink spilled on it "
I wouldn't of thought it would be down to fair wear and tear.
28-03-2009, 10:18 AM
Looks like the Trolls came out to play..........
Tenant could try to sue LL for remaining deposit as without evidence of condition of property at the start of the tenancy he would find it hard to justify deductions in court.
28-03-2009, 14:45 PM
Er, whats a Troll? My daughter spilt artists ink on our pine kitchen kitchen table, you can still see the patch today despite numerous scrubbings by me. If something similar has been spilt on this LL's carpet I'll wager my house that the thing is ruined. I had a similar problem with a Tenant a number of years ago, only the spillage was hair dye. I asked my usual carpet cleaning firm to come round, but they would'nt even bother and said get rid of it. The pile of the carpet had been dyed and would never clean, same principle here I think.
With regard to the inventory etc, been there before at the local County Court, photo's of the premises before and after the tenancy, a comprehensive inventory, expert witness report etc. Sat and listened for an hour whilst the former Tenants spouted a complete pack of lies and total nonsense, and finally listened agast as District Judge Gullible found in their favour on nearly every point after refusing to accept the solid evidence placed before him. Landlord, "Mr Tenant, can you show me any staining on the carpet in this photo taken at the start of your tenancy". Mr Tenant "No". Landlord " Can you tell me how the carpet came to be in the condition shown in the photo taken at the end of your tenancy". Mr Tenant "It was like that at the start of the tenancy". Utter drivel, the the DJ accepted, virtually completely.
28-03-2009, 15:10 PM
A carpet with a stain is not ruined. It is still perfectly serviceable. It is just a carpet with a stain. Of course the fact that it looks bad may put some prospective tenants off. I am not saying that no compensation is payable, just that a new carpet is not justifiable in very case - it may be in some. It has to come under fair wear and tear in most cases.
One landlord I know says she can and does furnish her buy-to-lets for £250 by buying at auction. It is unwise to provide a buy-to-let with the best quailty carpet.
28-03-2009, 15:58 PM
For a 2 bed house, it has just cost me £1400. (not expensive carpet).
I would be a bit peeved (to say the least ), if my tenant spilt ink on it and some of it had to be replaced--there is also the cost of a fitter to take into consideration.
So Imo think £140 is getting off lightly.
I do not think this is fair wear and tear.
It was not the tenants property and it has been damaged.
Then again, the t doesn't say whether the carpet was new, or the condition of the carpet when the t moved in?
28-03-2009, 16:28 PM
When did "have" become "of"?
What is happening to our language?
29-03-2009, 00:58 AM
When did "have" become "of"?
In speech in unstressed positions of and have = 've are pronounced the same and have been for a long time. Not everyone is aware that these two homophones are two separate morphemes with distinct spellings. Whilst writing "would of" instead of "would have" may not conform to the canons of Standard English that you were fortunate enough to have drilled into you, it hardly represents the end of the civilisation. It certainly does not lead to any confusion of meaning.
What is happening to our language?
Nothing that has not been happening to it since the first Germanic invaders landed.
29-03-2009, 10:06 AM
The OP says that she signed a new tenancy agreement in Nov 2007, which means I think that the deposit should have been protected.
In my experience, a stain on a carpet can be bad enough to warrant replacement; but sometimes it will not be. I recently had some heavily grease stained carpets steam cleaned using a van mounted unit and I have say the results were startling good, with the cost for a whole flat being less than the OP has paid for her stain to be sorted.
So, I have no idea whether the £140 is a reasonable figure or not, but if the OP thinks it isn't, then it seems to me that the deposit protection issue may afford her a fairly strong negotiating position with the landlord.
29-03-2009, 10:49 AM
Thanks for all your responses guys I did sign a new tenancy in Nov 2007 so the impression i am getting is that deposit should of been protected. I dont think the landlord is up to speed on what he should be doing as i know the new tenant that has moved in and they havent had their deposit protected either and also when they were showing new tenants around they didnt have an energy pack either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.