SMF - Just Installed!

Followed around house by off-duty housing officer!

Started by NorthAngle, September 24, 2015, 08:19:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NorthAngle

Um, well, that was an unusual experience! Just checked-out a tenant after amicably ending a tenancy (properly as far as I know) only to having an off-duty housing benefits officer from the local council hang on to my coat-tails as I walked around the house checking the inventory and noting damages. Only one of the two tenants was there (no explanation as to why the second one didn't turn up) so I'm going to assume that the council officer was there in a supportive friend  (but cannily knowledgeable) role.

I noted, amongst other things, orange stains in a carpet about the size of the palm of my hand. Not a spot stain by any standard. I couldn't live with it. I photographer it too, only for the council officer to tut and remark that it was merely wear and tear. She turned it around and said it was not their fault for staining / failing to clean the carpet but my fault for letting them have a house with light coloured carpets that show stains easily. I pointed out that the condition of the carpet in the inventory, which the tenants signed when they moved in, was clean, to which she said she had been there on their first night and had seen the carpet and it was dirty. Well I beg to differ, as does the inventory and the photographs I took at the time!

On the face of it I can't find a proper reason to object to the off-duty council housing officer being present and picking holes in the points made, but somehow this just doesn't sit right in my mind (conflict of interest? no right to be there? etc etc). She was introduced to me as the other tenant's sister (she doesn't have one - I know the family) and also advised the tenant who was there to not leave a forwarding address (why not? If he wants a copy of the inventory and me to post a cheque for their bond back how else does he think I'll get it to him?). It's as if they have something to hide - like I said, nothing substantive but it just doesn't sit right.

At the end of the check-out, with 40+ points of varying degrees of seriousness marked on the inventory, the council officer advised the tenant NOT to sign it. She suggested they come back, with the missing second tenant, some other day and have a proper look themselves (bearing in mind THIS was meant to be the official check-out, I've taken the keys off them, and have no intention of letting them back in to the house again).

So my question is, after all this emotional and muddled offloading of whats going through my mind:

Should I have insisted on both tenants being there and/or at least one of them signing the amended inventory today? I mean, practically, I couldn't have FORCED them to sign. But does an unsigned inventory penned by me (I had a witness with me) put me at any risk?

Anybody had a similar experience, or am I just attracting the odd-ball tenants out there (this is the third - AND FINAL - time!)?

Would love to hear your views. Thanks :-)

theangrylandlord

NorthAngle...
I don't really have much sageful advice other than have a drink, or smoke or other habitual stimulant and don't let the incident eat at your soul.
You couldn't make both tenants turn up (unless you are skilled in the ways of a Jedi) and given most likely they are joint and severally liable under your contract it technically wouldn't make difference if they were both there or not.

In the same way you could not make either one or both of them sign for the inventory.

The housing office is a complete moron (par for the course otherwise she would have a better job) what she really should have done is told the tenant to sign the inventory but note the objections in detail on the page with inventory and then taken an iPhone photo of the document at the time (rather like James Bond would have done but with a smaller camera).

Now you can take inventory before and after pictures and deduct the cost from the deposit. 
The tenant will then argue and you will produce your photos (with a date stamp).
It's then up to the TDS folks to arbitrate... Which would likely have been the case anyway as no doubt the tenant would have disputed the cost of the repair even if they admitted to its cause.
The fact they refused to sign the inventory at the check out date will play in your favour not theirs.

You haven't done anything wrong and I can't see that you have missed a step.
But this is just an opinion and probably the least qualified reply I have posted on this site.

Best of luck with the TDS.

Hippogriff

Just progress as you normally would. The presence of another person, or not, is actually no skin off your nose. If a deposit deduction is required and is agreed, then that's all well-and-good... if it's required and not agreed then you'll either cave-in (for an easy life) or go to ADR, then whatever would have happened will happen. It's not like this person will have had an impact on the outcome - yes, they may be giving advice (from an ostensible position of knowledge) to the Tenant, but everyone deserves that. Personally speaking, I would not have allowed a third-party to the tenancy, who is also a stranger to you, into the house for the Check-Out, so I think you were on the back foot from the start (especially if that person was already there when you turned-up). Let's move on, 'cos it's time to groove on...

NorthAngle

Thanks TheAngryLandlord and Hippogriff for your very prompt and supportive posts. I had to "tell someone" after I'd got home last night, just to calm down, and yes it was a bit intimidating having someone follow me around tutting and shaking their head as if it was me that was wrong for noting the damage done. Having slept on it, and read your posts this morning, I feel a lot more philosophical about it now. And the glass of wine helped! As you say, the fact that they refused to sign the inventory works in my favour. So much for getting advice from a council housing officer!

Anyway, off to roll up my sleeves and get on with some industrial-scale cleaning now ... after taking plenty more photos of course.

Thanks again.

boboff