heebs Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 hello i have a dilema...a tenant has burned the kitchen worktop...its a wrap around kitchen so many pieces...i know the tenant will not be able (as we have already looked) to find a matching piece...so is he liable to pay to change the whole lot so it matches or does the tenant pay for their bit and we have to pay for the rest my take is...we didnt burn it...we had no intention of budgeting for this extra expense so why do we have to fork out for the larger part of the job any thoughts from you more experienced landlords...dont want to be unfair to tenant..but dont want to be taken for a ride either. many thanks for reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 You will have to allow a figure for "fair wear and tear" depending on age of the Kitchen But i would hit T with full bill minus w/t allowance (not the easiest thing to agree on tho!) And completely agree with you ...you didn't burn it so why should you be paying for it ?! The Rodent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPEL Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 The tenant's deposit isn't a new for old insurance policy. I would value the work surface allowing 20% depreciation per year and make a deduction for diminution, especially if still serviceable. The only thing wrong with it is that the mark is unsightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heebs Posted March 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 thank you both...i agree...i dont deserve new for old...but there was nothing wrong with the old one and it was very good quality...i am willing for the tenant to replace with the cheapeast he can find..i am still making a loss as new cheap for old nice... and i dont understand how i can deduct for diminuation without having to fork out some money towards the replacement costs..and fitting...so in the end ..i will still have to pay...>> is this correct..if i have understood correctly... thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPEL Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 From the info provided, the tenant is under no obligation to replace the surface therefore you can/should only charge for some inherent loss of value caused by the damage. For example as a principle, a new carpet suffers an iron burn in the corner - £30 for the cost of a mat to cover it. Carpet still serviceable but unsightly though can be disguised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heebs Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 From the info provided, the tenant is under no obligation to replace the surface therefore you can/should only charge for some inherent loss of value caused by the damage. For example as a principle, a new carpet suffers an iron burn in the corner - £30 for the cost of a mat to cover it. Carpet still serviceable but unsightly though can be disguised. Ok...thanks...put like that..i dont feel so bad in having to fork out to change the worktop..which i will as i need to rent the house out to new tenants and need it looking nice. thanks for the guidance..really has put my mind at rest...and wont be mean to tenant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Next time you lend your nice shiny red ferrari to a mate ......and they "ding" the door..... will you be happy with a green door replacement to "match" the red ferrari ? Rug over a iron burn is not acceptable to me .....or insurance co: as their assessor deemed it "non repairable" and T own insurance stumped up to replace ... Also on kitchen worktop a good friend of mine (in Bristol) had exactly the same scenario , burn, couldn't match etc so tried to bill T for complete replacement .....to cut a long story short it ended up in court as neither LL nor T would compromise .....Court ordered 50/50 on Worktop invoice .......... I would reach an "agreeable ...reasonable" fig with T as one off full and final payment "to compensate" for the problem .....then silicon a nice tile on top of the burn !!! and use the cash towards the new worktops at a later date ... Lookout .......Trenners is now prob going to accuse me of sharp practice !!!! Clearly the worktop WILL be replaced so charge is legitimate ....it may just take "some" time due to you trying to match it .... Standing well back !! The Rodent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPEL Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Simon might not be acceptable to you but completely unjustified in the eyes of the courts, though it depends on the extent of the damage. There are precedents regarding the carpet example also check ARLA guidlines. A circular burn mark on a work surface from a hot pan isn't going to get awarded 50/50 replacement in a court. If you want a replacement you use your own insurance policy, which is what it's there for. To test it, bill for full amount, let it go to dispute and see what the deposit protection scheme come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heebs Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hi rodent thanks for your reply...agree with you totally...we didnt want this extra expense,...only have buildings insurance at the mo..so cant claim from it.. just wanted to ask re "then silicon a nice tile on top of the burn !!!"...would consider this...but dont know what it means...not very good at diy..but willing to try it..please enlighten me....many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 1. Wouldn't claim on insurance for this a it will load your premium for next year 2. Find a nice decorative floor tile big enough to cover burnt patch then put bead of silicon round the edge and place squarely over damaged area ......kettle stand .....pot stand etc GPEL "A circular burn mark on a work surface from a hot pan isn't going to get awarded 50/50 replacement in a court." Result of Bristol court case was 50/50 as stated for 2 burn rings ....this was around 12 mths ago..(based on the fact that kitchen was fitted immediately prior to occupation by said T ) The Rodent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPEL Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 My insurance premium doesn't increase with claims and you're likely to get a better look with replacement than bodged makeover job but each to their own. There is still an obligation to minimize tenants costs whether liked or not. Tenant pays the excess for accidental damage so no cost to landlord, otherwise I still say that tenant not liable for replacement costs but for loss in value. Bristol judge very lenient and probably much more to the case. Fortunately for the landlord, he must have overlooked earlier case law. Grey area; the only definate answer to which is if each case is tested in court on its own merits but not practical so need to seek solution acceptable to both parties or go to deposit scheme for arbitration. As an aside, buildings insurance usually includes fitted kitchens so not necessary to claim under contents inusrance. However not all policies cover malicious or accidental damage caused by the tenant. Worth checking what you've got, cheapest isn't best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.