Boomed & Doomed - suing the old landlord

[Paddy]

Ok - so I haven't been on for a while as I have just moved house (what a mare). But it's nice to finally have my own place - great feeling.

On the other hand I have an absolute **** of an ex-landlord. He wants to replace the whole carpet, using my money, for a very small carpet burn.

We had paid to get the place professionally cleaned and left the place in 10 x better condition than what we received it. We even had a rug made from left over carpet to cover it up as well as offering them £50 compensation for the burn. I looked similar cases up on the web and it seems the TDS don't consider it legitimate to replace the whole carpet for a burn unless the carpet is rendered unusable (it can even be counted as wear and tear).

Normally this would be straight forward as I'd go straight to the TDS to resolve the matter, however they have around 20 days overpaid rent in their account which they are saying they will use to pay for the carpet. Hence I have sent an initial warning letter requesting the overpaid rent and deposit to be returned (minus £50) with a warning of court action.

Also please note this is not about the money - landlord is extremely arrogant and nasty (slammed phone down on me when I tried to reason), so this is just to teach them a lesson.

Has anybody else had similar experiences in the past? Also any idea on which forums to go on to post this question, CUK has become my go-to point for any questions.

HTF did you burn the carpet?

Two ex GFs managed to burn brand new carpets on a two rented properties.

The first one burnt the carpet with an iron. I cut the burnt square out and replaced it with an off-cut using a very sharp knife to get the exact fit. The carpet pile was then brushed.


The second one was with burning food and a new carpet. The carpet was patterned, I cut around the pattern and replaced it with the same pattern from a less noticeable area (under some drawers)

[doodab]

HTF did you burn the carpet?

I have a small burn due to heating some heat shrink with ms doodab's hair dryer. Solder blobs are a recipe for disaster as well.

[Basil Fawlty]

I think someone made a point about a hire/lease car earlier. If you have a contract for a month, its for a month, if on the second week you realise you don't need it, it doesn;t matter if you communicate they can let it out again in the remaining time, they will anyway, and keep your money. The moment you hand your keys over, you are giving responsibility back to the landlord. Then he's free to make the choices he requires.

Me, I'd have done what the chap did with me.

I've done a bit more digging with regards to this...it's a slow day in the office .

Anyway I'm not sure you're correct on the above. I'm a member of the National Landlords Association and I've just given their legal advice line a call to ask about this very scenario. The car hire example is irrelevant as it's governed by a completely different set of laws. Anyway what the NLA said is that basically the property is the tenants until the end of contract and a landlord cannot move someone else in unless they have consent from the tenant - whether the tenant has handed the keys back or not is also irrelevant the AST or Periodic Tenancy agreement is the overiding document.

Also according to the NLA the landlord is now screwed with regards to the deposit as he has moved someone else in before the end of the contract so this make it difficult to assess when any damage was caused.

The OP needs a well worded solicitors letter ASAP....

[northernladuk]

I've done a bit more digging with regards to this...it's a slow day in the office .

Anyway I'm not sure you're correct on the above. I'm a member of the National Landlords Association and I've just given their legal advice line a call to ask about this very scenario. The car hire example is irrelevant as it's governed by a completely different set of laws. Anyway what the NLA said is that basically the property is the tenants until the end of contract and a landlord cannot move someone else in unless they have consent from the tenant - whether the tenant has handed the keys back or not is also irrelevant the AST or Periodic Tenancy agreement is the overiding document.

Also according to the NLA the landlord is now screwed with regards to the deposit as he has moved someone else in before the end of the contract so this make it difficult to assess when any damage was caused.

The OP needs a well worded solicitors letter ASAP....

Good stuff. With regard to assessing damage what if there is a detailed exit and entry inventory. I get my agent to do a very detailed one including photos of noticeable scuffs on walls etc.

[Basil Fawlty]

Good stuff. With regard to assessing damage what if there is a detailed exit and entry inventory. I get my agent to do a very detailed one including photos of noticeable scuffs on walls etc.

As far as inventories go then I think the more detail the better, particularly if you've got pics to back things up.

From what I could gather from the NLA the issue in this case is the landlord has moved someone else in prior to the end of contract - hence there could not have been a proper check out performed at end of said contract.

[Incognito]

If they agreed in writing to pro-rata the rent, doesn't that supercede the contract?

You would think, but that's not how contract law works. There needs to be consideration for the agreement, i.e. both parties need to receive value out of an agreement.

This is the leading case for that concept, however the rule is quite narrow and would depend entirely on how the agreement has been structured. So for instance if there's mention of the landlord getting the benefit of being able to rent the property out earlier then it would be considered good consideration if you get what I mean.

As for someone else's point, the OP may have an argument if he hasn't agreed to him renting it out the next day as he would be losing the benefit from the contract, but that will all revolve around the wording of the rental agreement and anything else posted here would be pure conjecture.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

I wouldn't know. I use an agent and do it by the book. There are good tenants who you have no problems with and are willing to go the extra mile with and then there are pain in the arse tenants who take the piss so you play their game. The agent keeps it legal and reasonable between us. If you go direct with a landlord then you are on your own. I would hardly call that crying about tenants. It's business.... for me anyway. Oddly enough as much as the OP is having a go at the two landlords that actually took the time to respond, I do feel his pain as I also have had crappy landlords in the past and had to fight tooth and nail with them.

Thing is - You can keep firing abuse at me, but it really doesn't bother me. The reason I said it is foolish is because you shield yourself from these discussions but getting the agents to deal with it, so why then post your opinion on the matter only to say "I let the agents deal with it". If you had said it the opposite way round then it would be more appropriate.

[d000hg]

Man you are ******* prick. You say I look foolish when you are the idiot crying on here with all your personal tulip that no gives a toss about whe you can't run your life by yourself. You are also stupid enough to post it in general and expect a sensible answer. Now THAT is foolish.

The post you linked indicated I don't give a tulip about tenants legalities, someone esle does it for me? How does that indicate I am robbing someone and pretending to know? The fact I pay someone else to do it shows I don't know.

If you want to post stupid situation you are incapable of thinking your way out of and want lots of cuddles and 'there there's' the sod off to mumsnet.

BTW there is a fine line between robbing people and getting away with what you can. Tenants are right pain in the arse and it is often the landlords that get screwed over by them. If you can claw that back through playing tough then so be it. It's called life.

To think, I even gave you some +ve this week to stop you crying over that little episode

This is how you get to be top poster on CUK? Blimey.

the property is the tenants until the end of contract and a landlord cannot move someone else in unless they have consent from the tenant

Didn't the OP say/imply he had given consent?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

This is how you get to be top poster on CUK? Blimey.

Didn't the OP say/imply he had given consent?

Regarding your first point - I know, tell me about it.

Second point - spot on, I have given consent and we agreed the dates on email.

So now I am owed my rent + deposit. Funny thing with this case is I don't even mind losing, I just want to give the idiot the headache of taking him to court and wasting his time. He and his Mrs are doctors and have less interpersonal skills than the worst guys on here. Were I to win the case, then that would just be the icing on the cake. Of course I wouldn't risk it unless I felt I had a pretty damn good case.

[northernladuk]

This is how you get to be top poster on CUK? Blimey.

Didn't the OP say/imply he had given consent?

Doohgy Doohgy Doohgy.... You should know better... 3/10... You know this isn't my posting style so can hardly use one rant at the forum tit to justify my award.