Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3988 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

My name is Sandra, I've left my flat after 5years living there. It was left in good conditions, although the wood floor has been damaged by my fault.

 

The size of the damage is like less than 1squared meter, however it cannot be replaced locally. Thus the landlord said he will have to replace all the wood floor. The cost represents 1,500pounds.

 

I understand it makes sense to charge part of the repairation, however I do not agree with the fact that I should pay the FULL REPLACEMENT of the wood floor :

After 5years living in the flat, the wood floor was anyway not brand new and the varnish thus, unable to protect efficiently. The time spent in the flat is so that I don't think it makes sense to charge the tenant only, and if landlord changes the totality of the floor, I would expect to share the price.

 

Could someone please confirm if this makes sense, and, if so, how to complain?

 

My deposit is held by the estate agent via the Tenancy Deposit Scheme

..

 

 

Many thanks in advance for your help and suggestion,

Sandra,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you would have to dispute the deduction or negotiate. The Tenancy Deposit Scheme should have a free dispute resolution procedure that you can use.

 

I think the following reasons for disputing it could be considered depending on the scale of the damage and the cause of the damage:

 

1. The landlord is entitled to a proportion of the cost according to the normal lifetime of the flooring. Is it a real wood floor, or is it a fake wood floor. The latter has a much shorter life than the former. Unfortunately for you, a good quality wood floor should last for decades if looked after.

2. Does the whole floor *really* need to be replaced?

3. Can the damage be adjudged as wear and tear?

4. Has the landlord obtained 3 quotes. And is he replacing the flooring with something of similar quality, or is he using better materials?

 

Personally, I would try and get a quote of my own. And if possible, to go into the property with a tradesman to discuss it.

 

Let us know how you get on as we haven't had many reports here of people using dispute procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandra has contacted me with some more information. I've suggested she finds out what the normal "maintenance" period of the floor is recommended so as to argue for a proportion of the cost to be wear and tear.

 

A question I can't answer is the following:

 

The landlord has taken an apparently adequate amount of professional advice that says that repairs to one part of this floor will require the whole flat to be resanded and varnished, otherwise the repair won't match. The flooring is continuous throughout the flat.

 

Is the landlord likely to be able to justify this in all circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge problem Steve with wooden floors insomuch as any repairs do most times require the whole surface to be sanded and varnished to get an exact match.

 

It can be massively unfortunate for people to have to do this upon exiting a property. I always suggest to Tenants that they take out accidental damage insurance cover on all properties and make sure that the floor is covered in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - although it may seem harsh in one respect, the landlord is entitled to the return of the property in its original condition. In certain circumstances, and especially with wooden/laminate flooring, this would require such drastic action.


7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE ON THE SITUATION :

 

Hi all,

 

More than two weeks ago, I have specified the landlord that I disagree with the fact that he wants to charge me the FULL REPLACEMENT of the floor after living 5years in the flat.

 

The letting agency specifically said that the deposit was HELD BY THE AGENCY UNDER THE TDS.

 

2 weeks ago, I notified both the letting Agency and the landlord that I DO NOT AGREE with the landlord about the amount he wants to keep from the deposit. Thus I specifically said that I do not want anyone to take money from the deposit until we find a solution.

 

However, after two weeks, the estate agent just replied, saying that "the deposit is held by the landlord, and NOT by them".

 

Is that something authorised ?

 

I thought that under the TDS, the deposit was held by the Estate Agent, and NOT the landlord ?

 

What should I do in order to get my deposit back?

 

Should I contact the Alternative Dispute Resolution services ?

 

If so, do you know anyone I should contact at the ADRS ?

 

 

Thanks for your suggestions, I really don't know how to sort this and get my deposit back...

 

Sandra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were in the property for 5 years then this pre-dates TDS (intoduced Apr 07). I am not sufficiently knowledgable to know what your next course of action should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, I have signed a Tenancy Deposit scheme Agreement in 2007. So my understanding is that the deposit is covered by the TDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guidlelines are unclear if the deposit was paid before April 2007. What they do say is that if a new AST is signed then the deposit should be protected. However this is unclear as guidelines also say to get advice if deposit paid before this time.

There has been a case won where it was a new AST but paid before. Also one case lost too.

I am suing my LL and i had a new AST but my deposit was paid before too.

I am just going for it x


Please note, my advice is only my opinion.

If you have found my advice helpful, please tip my scales, thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is with TDS (or TDSL) then the landlord can hold on to the deposit, but pays the scheme a fee. Therefore the fact that the landlord holds the deposit does not necessarily mean that the deposit is not protected.

 

If you want to dispute this you need to contact the scheme ASAP to find out if the deposit is protected and, if so, to open a dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...