UK Landlord Forum / Life

Deleted

It's not clear from your account if you have reported all these issues or not.Either way,it would be a foolish landlord who tried to penalise a tenant who has been living in a place that could be condemned for habitation. Has she made some comments that make you suspect trouble?
Did you pay a deposit?

Deleted

If she deducts anything state that due to the length of the tenancy you are not liable and this is in line with fair wear and tear.

If she doesn't back down, raise a deposit dispute.

I am pleased that you have reported this to the council. She really should not be allowed to be a landlord,so I hope she learns her lesson and sells up. 

Deleted

This list of hers is laughable.I don't think you need to pay out for legal advice at this stage.She is seriously deluded.Give your evidence to the adjudicator and see what happens.I would be very surprised indeed if she gets the deposit. If she is mad enough to try to go to court the same applies,and by that time the council will have been there and reported their findings.If you want to give the council a nudge to get round there quickly,get onto your local town councillor or M.P and they will get things moving for you. 

Deleted

Quote from: Jubes on July 14, 2022, 09:37:37 PM
Landlord won. We just had the decision.

Would you care to post the exact wording of the decision please?

Would love to know the wording of the decision. As a clerk our association tells us that damaged items past their sell-by-date are no longer tenant liability.

I don't always agree with this but is not a bad rule of thumb.

I honestly think tenants need to start looking to companies like Deposit Negotiatiors when their landlord is deducting big money from their deposits. For a reasonable fee they take care of the negotiations and if it goes to a dispute help tenants with the wording of the dispute.

On the face of it,this is an extraordinary outcome.I had hoped the landlord would find herself being fined and the property condemned.Very odd.

Quote from: heavykarma on July 16, 2022, 07:25:42 AM
On the face of it,this is an extraordinary outcome.

Which it would be instructive to see the decision notice...

And perhaps then, depending on what the decision notice says, the tenant's submitted evidence...

And perhaps then, depending on what the tenant said, the landlord's submitted evidence...


@Jubes, even if posting the decision notice does not help you directly, it may be helpful to others on this forum, so I hope you will do it, please.

Deleted

If I was you I'd walk away.

Tenants and landlords don't follow the rules of tenancy agreements all the time with no penalty.

It appears that major damage was occurring without you reporting any of this.  Tenancy law will always put the responsibility on the tenant to report issues to allow for the landlord to deal. If you had done this and the landlord did nothing, you'd have been absolved of responsibility.

The landlord is not legally obligated to inspect the property so your argument against this will almost certainly not hold up in court.

Deleted

Quote from: Jubes on July 16, 2022, 06:44:56 PM

Quote from: Inspector on July 16, 2022, 06:40:20 PM
If I was I'd walk away.

Tenants and landlords don't follow the rules of tenancy agreements all the time with no penalty.

It appears that major damage was occurring without you reporting any of this.  Tenancy law will always put the responsibility on the tenant to report issues to allow for the landlord to deal. If you had done this and the landlord did nothing, you'd have been absolved of responsibility.

The landlord is not legally obligated to inspect the property so your argument against this will almost certainly not hold up in court.

Many of the structural issues existed when we moved in. Such as huge chunks of plaster bowing outwards around the windows. Conveniently not pictured when we moved in and hidden behind curtains provided by the landlord. The leaking roof too. It's all very frustrating. They are contractually obligated to visit the property, which I assume is why they withheld the tenancy from the adjudicator.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem.

You were sent an inventory report and by tenancy law you had a period to respond to say if anything had been missed. If you didn't respond then it is taken that the report is accurate.

The structural issues could have been reported by you at any time.

There's no point in holding onto them being obligated to visit the property. By law, they are not.

The way the situation was handled, made it your word against theirs.

Adjudication just looks at the paperwork. Your inventory report shows no structural damage, your checkout shows structural damage. You have no written evidence to show you ever reported this, making you liable.

Quote from: Jubes on July 16, 2022, 05:33:51 PM
Adjudicator: "I have been provided with an audio recording from the end of tenancy inspection, in which
the tenant makes an admission that the attic roof has been leaking since the start of the
tenancy, which lasted for approximately fifteen years. The tenant described a number of
damp issues in the property, including, but not limited to, mildew, water damage in the
walls and floorboards, and bowing and cracking ceilings and walls. The tenant has also
made an admission that powder was coming out of the cellar walls during the tenancy,
indicating a woodworm issue, and that they did not report these issues to the landlord
when they became aware of them."

I agree with @Inspector.  Walk away with 'just' a £550 loss. You stand to lose much, much more if you try to take this further.

Why on earth did you not report the roof as leaking for 15 years?

What does the tenancy agreement say about your responsibility to notify the landlord about problems?

Nice move @Jubes, deleting all your posts.

Had they remained, they may have been helpful to others in avoiding deposit disputes.

Quote from: HandyMan on July 17, 2022, 06:46:36 AM
Nice move @Jubes, deleting all your posts.

Had they remained, they may have been helpful to others in avoiding deposit disputes.

Yep.

Jubes was so sure he/she was right and on the face of it due to the length of the tenancy suggested Jubes had a strong case.

But on revealing details of the case Jubes hadn't reported major structural damage throughout the tenancy and lost £550 of their deposit as a result. Jube was clinging onto the idea that the landlord was contractually obliged to inspect the property and failure to do this absolved the tenant of responsibility.

Could have been a good learning thread for people. Shame it got deleted.

I find this quite discourteous to those of us who tried to give advice. We were led up the garden path.Time waster.

Quote from: heavykarma on July 17, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
I find this quite discourteous to those of us who tried to give advice. We were led up the garden path.Time waster.

I agree.

Quote from: heavykarma on July 17, 2022, 08:31:47 AMI find this quite discourteous to those of us who tried to give advice. We were led up the garden path.Time waster.

I didn't want to jump in negatively, so I didn't jump in at all. I read this [what the OP started with] and I could smell that something wasn't quite right with the OP (or their recounting).