A Legal Question - Views Appreciated

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

This is the scenario regarding one of my landlord friends:

 

1.He rented out his property to this person on a 6 month AST before the TDS rules were introduced.

2.No inventory was taken but property contents were noted by the folks that clean,upkeep and remove rubbish from his properties.A receipt/sworn statement can be presented if needed and the matter goes further.

3.Tenant was always paying the rent on time.

4.Tenant served notice to vacate after the fixed term expired.

5.Tenant left property for work overseas.

6.After leaving it was noted that tenant caused damage to furniture which was by the way very expensive - the damage was beyond repair (as it was scalded by an iron) - the damaged iron also was left in the property after the tenant had vacated.

7.Now the ex-tenant is trying to get all deposit back in full using an England based lawyer but the landlord wants compensation for the damaged furniture.The furniture was purchased at a reduced price but to replace it - not betterment would probably cost him more than the deposit received from the tenant.

8.The landlord feels victimized here - yes amazing! Normally,it is visa versa!

 

 

I want some views taking into account the fact that the tenant does not live in England at the moment and as mentioned before currently lives and works overseas.

 

I have one question also:

 

If this ex-tenant has instructed the lawyer - can the lawyer try and claim more against this landlord due to these reasons taking into account

the deposit money involved here is 400 quid?

 

Many thanks in advance.

[MrShed]

Hi N4B.

 

Difficult to give a 100% opinion(as I'm sure you know). But if the damage is provable, then a successful claim shouldnt be too difficult. What was the furniture exactly? Sofa?

 

Plus I dont entirely understand your second question(probably because I am drunk ) - but would you mind clarifying?

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi Mr.Shed.

 

Many thanks for your reply.

 

Yes,the furniture is a sofa bed to be exact.

 

Again this is a legal question and not anything to do with landlord and tenant laws or rules etc.:

 

Regarding the question - perhaps I did not word it very well - just recovering from a very bad headache!

 

In the worst case scenario can this lawyer try and claim any further monies against this landlord apart from the summons fees in the event of losing?

 

Assuming the lawyer issues the county court summons on behalf of the ex-tenant and attends court on behalf of the ex-tenant taking into account the fact that the deposit that was paid was 400 quid if it makes any difference.

 

I hope this is slightly clearer!

 

Another thing -

 

I am fully aware how to calculate the amount due to the landlord but not to be betterment:

 

Assuming the life of the sofa bed is 10 years,so:

 

350/10 = 35 pounds reduction for every year used.

 

Depreciation/Total Reduction in Value = No. of Years Used x Reduction = 3 x 35 = 105 pounds

 

Amount Due to Landlord = Price Paid - Depreciation/Total Reduction in Value = 350 - 105 = 245 pounds

 

The main question is can the landlord claim more than the 245 quid if it costs more than this to replace the item? And not being a "betterment".By the way the original item that was damaged was priced at 550 quid before the discount if it is of any benefit here.

 

Many thanks in advance.

[MrShed]

Right, sorry, I thought you meant that. In my now(hungover) state I am fairly positive the answer is no. As far as I was aware small claims court does not require a lawyer or solicitor, and as such the court would not entertain any claim for legal costs. HOWEVER, it would allow a claim for out of pocket expenses, were the tenant to win. These can add up. For example, you can claim the time spent on preparing the case in lieu of having a solicitor, petrol costs, etc etc. However, I have never been involved in a case where these costs have been claimed, so I cannot advise 100% that they can be - it is just what I have been informed.

 

With regards the betterment question, as long as the replacement was not betterment, and you can show(somehow) that the price was not "fixed high" in some way in order to cost the tenant more, then there is no reason why you cannot charge the actual cost, provided you can find a like for like replacement.

[Nightmare4banks]

Mr.Shed,many thanks for your input.

 

What you are saying makes sense and more or less on the lines that I have been thinking too.

 

The only possible snag I can see is the higher non betterment amount to claim.

 

 

Over the 2 years(before this ex-tenant moved in) - the previous tenants seemed to have taken good care of the sofa bed and it was almost new condition before this last ex-tenant damaged it.

 

Anyway,wait and see what happens!

[JonCris]

The landlord is entitled to have the furniture returned to his care in the condition in which he supplied it, allowing for wear & tear. - If the furniture is damaged beyond use through negligence & he has to purchase a new piece of furniture to replace it then he is entitled to the full price paid - you could try & claim betterment but if he's got a good lawyer then you will lose

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi JonCris.

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

The main question is

 

Can the landlord claim a figure higher the 245 pounds quoted based on the ownership of the furniture over 3 years(purchase price 350 pounds) less depreciation of 35 pounds per year? Assuming the maximum life of the sofa bed is 10 years.

 

ALSO..

 

By the way,there was no intention in claiming any betterment as the original piece of furniture was obtained at a discount(original price 550 pounds) and the current replacement cost could well exceed the 245 pounds.

 

Many thanks in advance.

[JonCris]

He can claim for a like for like replacement no matter it's present day costs. - However you could argue a depreciation on the basis of normal wear & tear but as part of that deprecation you could not take into account the damage caused by negligence

[MATTYFEZ]

The landlord had no inventory and took the whole deposit?

 

It does sound like betterment, even if thats not the actual case.

 

What the landlord should have done is make an inventory, listing the sofa bed, saying it cost for example £550, it was "X" years old making it worth £250, it was then damaged by the tennant's iron, so the tennant will pay £250 from his deposit, for its current (un-ironed)value.

 

If there is no proof of the good condition of the sofa bed at the commencement of tennancy, then it becomes impossible to prove that its condition worsened during the tennancy.

 

Taking the entire deposit insted of just £250-ish could go against the landlord, assuming the deposit was larger than £250.

 

I think the important questions here are,

 

1.are they claiming the sofabed was not part of the tennancy agreement due to it not being on an inventory, and/or, have they admitted damaging the sofabed and aknowledged it belongs to the landlord?

 

2.How much was the deposit?

 

3.How much of the deposit was deducted due to the sofabed issue?

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Thanks for the views.

 

JUST TO CLARIFY...

 

1.The sofa bed was in the property prior to the ex-tenant moving into the property and the main evidence is the folks that clean and tidy up the properties can confirm the condition of the sofa bed plus the abandoned broken iron that caused the damage to the sofa bed was also found in

the property.

 

2.Nothing has every been denied as yet all that was asked was proof of the damage via the solicitor.

 

3.The sofa bed in its current state is not even worth 10 quid despite the fact that it retailed for 550 quid only 3 years ago.So,if the landlord kept the deposit in full 400 quid that would cover its non betterment value plus cleaning up the property and the rubbish removal.Looking at current prices,he may be owed money too!

 

I hope this helps.

 

Many thanks in advance.