Landords and end of tenancy

Haych

It's been a while since I rented a property, but I recall landlords and their agents being particularly evil and loathsome when it comes to the end of a tenancy and the state of the property when it's handed back.

A friend of mine has recently moved out of her flat and her landlords' agent is making lots of noises about it not being in a suitable state and that they're going to have to hire someone to do a deep clean and obviously this will have to be deducted from her bond.

I advised her straight away to ask for copies of quotes if this is what the agents intend to do - my experience suggests they charge for services that are never actually carried out, and charge mahoosive amounts at that.

However, I digress.  My main question is that it she's lived in the property for eight years, is there no leeway for wear and tear permitted?  Again, my own experience from many years ago was that essentially they want the property back as if the only people ever to have been there were a cleaning crew once a week.

I visited her flat to help her move about four days before she handed the keys back and apart from the carpets looking a bit worn it was in a very good state.  However, the agents' are have fits over every spec of dust.

She took out the let in March 2010 so her bond should be in a deposit protection scheme but she's unaware of whether it is or not.  I've advised her to ask her agents which scheme her bond was placed in.

But seriously, if you've lived in a place for eight years then the landlord cannot seriously expect it back in better condition than it was let in, can they?

TIA

octatonic

Yes it should be in a protection scheme and she should have been given the 'how to rent guide' as well.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674299/How_to_Rent_Jan_18.pdf
If the deposit wasn't put into a scheme then she has them over a barrel.

In terms of condition- landlords can deduct for cleaning, damage, unpaid rent and missing items if there was an inventory.
The problem is that 'damage' can mean many things to many people.

I charged a tenant £300 to repair a floor that cost us £1000 to replace.
There was wear and tear on the floor, but they specifically damaged it with their cat's water bowl and we had no choice but to replace it.
We could have just repaired the damage but it made sense to do the lot, so they contributed a bit and we covered the rest.

Other landlords would have asked for the entire amount and then it becomes a negotiation.

Some landlords will screw it into the ground, others won't care because it is all about the capital growth.
Often it depends on their disposition, or whether the property is fully managed (so the agent does the dirty work).
Some want an easy life, some want every penny.

I will say that not every landlord is a shark out to rip you off.
We like to think we are 'one of the good ones' and to act fairly- but also tenants like to think they can take you for a ride if you are seen as a soft touch.
It is all about finding a balance.

mistercharlie

It’s a bit late to do this now, but a trick I used in my student days was to not pay the final month’s rent (assuming a deposit of 1 month). I’d always leave on good terms, and often the place would be in a better state than when I moved in.

The only time I didn’t do this, the agent kept back the entire deposit because I’d drilled a hole in a window frame. He chose to ignore that I’d had the wooden floors sanded and restored, likewise with a terracotta tiled floor in the kitchen, and sundry other improvements. 

Still, he’s probably dead now, and I’m not, so there’s that. 

JAYJO

When i was a landlord my agent was a twat. Any damage to the house he would keep the deposit (he held it) and tell me he would get the work done.  He sent a handy man round to do a few bits and pieces and a french polisher he hired out the paper. For this he kept all the deposit. I didnt see a penny and neither did the Tennants.

octatonic

JAYJO said:

When i was a landlord my agent was a twat. Any damage to the house he would keep the deposit (he held it) and tell me he would get the work done.  He sent a handy man round to do a few bits and pieces and a french polisher he hired out the paper. For this he kept all the deposit. I didnt see a penny and neither did the Tennants.

This is why we never use a fully managed service.
They charge an extra 10% to do sod all and milk you dry.

Haych

octatonic said:

In terms of condition- landlords can deduct for cleaning, damage, unpaid rent and missing items if there was an inventory.
The problem is that 'damage' can mean many things to many people.

Yeah this is what I don't understand; after eight years of being lived in any property isn't going to be in perfect condition, and I imagine as a landlord, if I was to let it out again I would have to accept that I'd probably need to redecorate and maybe replace the carpets in any case before I could do so to make it attractive enough to potential tenants.

So, if the property is left in reasonable condition how can any landlord or agent charge for what would be done anyway.  I'm cynical I know but to me this just smacks of the agents trying to make a fast buck off the back of the tenant moving out, maybe the landlord too but in my experience agents are evil loathsome bastards.

We rented for years and the whole process sucks.  The agents would do sod all when it came to repairs and maintenance, and we often had to chase for weeks to get things done; once the boiler went caput and we were without heat or hot water for weeks in March with a baby, only when I threatened to get a new boiler installed and withhold rent did they finally move off their arses and do something!

Nitefly

It is usually the agents who are the arses. 

The same thing happened to my daughter when she moved out of her flat in Glasgow to move to New Zealand - the flat was in perfect condition, but the agents insisted it needed a full deep clean. It's how they make money, because they are on a fixed income as a percentage of the rent, so they'll try anything to make a quick buck.

She did eventually get some (but not all) of her deposit back; she threatened them with spreadsheets and a solicitor.

The cheeky bastards even told her she had to find a new tenant to take it over!  She referred two possible tenants, but the agency rejected both as being "unsuitable" - no reasons given.

Winny_Pooh

Agents will twat you over and even make things up. Inventory clerks are no better as they work for the agency, not you. 

octatonic

Winny_Pooh said:

Agents will twat you over and even make things up. Inventory clerks are no better as they work for the agency, not you. 

We do our own inventory too.
This is basic stuff- agents have a lot of lazy landlord clients.

Danny1969

Basically a small portion of the rent income is supposed to be put aside to cover wear and tear maintenance .... the deposit is another thing and you are entitled to your deposit back if you haven't damaged anything (beyond fair wear and tear ) even if your behind with your rent as it's a separate thing entirely and the monies held by a third party 

Heartfeltdawn

Haych said:

It's been a while since I rented a property, but I recall landlords and their agents being particularly evil and loathsome when it comes to the end of a tenancy and the state of the property when it's handed back.

A friend of mine has recently moved out of her flat and her landlords' agent is making lots of noises about it not being in a suitable state and that they're going to have to hire someone to do a deep clean and obviously this will have to be deducted from her bond.

I advised her straight away to ask for copies of quotes if this is what the agents intend to do - my experience suggests they charge for services that are never actually carried out, and charge mahoosive amounts at that.

However, I digress.  My main question is that it she's lived in the property for eight years, is there no leeway for wear and tear permitted?  Again, my own experience from many years ago was that essentially they want the property back as if the only people ever to have been there were a cleaning crew once a week.

I visited her flat to help her move about four days before she handed the keys back and apart from the carpets looking a bit worn it was in a very good state.  However, the agents' are have fits over every spec of dust.

She took out the let in March 2010 so her bond should be in a deposit protection scheme but she's unaware of whether it is or not.  I've advised her to ask her agents which scheme her bond was placed in.

But seriously, if you've lived in a place for eight years then the landlord cannot seriously expect it back in better condition than it was let in, can they?

TIA

They can expect it if they're idiots so you have to be prepared. I last moved into a rented place in 2009 and made sure to take pictures and video of everything. They stayed safe on a hard drive and DVD. 

When it came time to leave in 2013, we'd already negotiated an amount with the owner directly regarding carpet damage courtesy of the cat. We were waiting for the charges to come from the letting agent and we were not surprised:

£30 for a deep clean of the oven - laughable in that the oven was better since I was in there than ever before. Pictures and footage from 2009 got this removed. 

£200 for a flea infestation - this made me explode. There was no flea infestation when we were there as the cat was an indoor cat only. When we got the letter about the flea infestation saying that they would need to have it fumigated before being able to view and let, I blew up as the property was on their website as being available immediately. I called someone and got them to set up a viewing for the next day. He took a camera and filmed the entire place. No flea infestation was present and he asked about possible pets and issues with them as well just to make sure. After he had sent me the footage, I called the letting agent who assured me that the fumigation hadn't taken place yet and they were waiting for us to pay. I visted them the next day armed with a laptop and my usual sense of self-rightous bastard superiority The look on the face of the agent when I showed her the footage was priceless and only rivalled by the look on her face two years earlier when I found that their electronic records showed my signature had been falsified on several documents by an employee. 

Insist on a full written explanation of what will be carried out and ask for before and after pictures to be taken before any money is paid. 

underdog

@Heartfeltdawn good job, I love it when people refuse to be ripped off.

BigBearKris

Haych said:

It's been a while since I rented a property, but I recall landlords and their agents being particularly evil and loathsome when it comes to the end of a tenancy and the state of the property when it's handed back.

A friend of mine has recently moved out of her flat and her landlords' agent is making lots of noises about it not being in a suitable state and that they're going to have to hire someone to do a deep clean and obviously this will have to be deducted from her bond.

I advised her straight away to ask for copies of quotes if this is what the agents intend to do - my experience suggests they charge for services that are never actually carried out, and charge mahoosive amounts at that.

However, I digress.  My main question is that it she's lived in the property for eight years, is there no leeway for wear and tear permitted?  Again, my own experience from many years ago was that essentially they want the property back as if the only people ever to have been there were a cleaning crew once a week.

I visited her flat to help her move about four days before she handed the keys back and apart from the carpets looking a bit worn it was in a very good state.  However, the agents' are have fits over every spec of dust.

She took out the let in March 2010 so her bond should be in a deposit protection scheme but she's unaware of whether it is or not.  I've advised her to ask her agents which scheme her bond was placed in.

But seriously, if you've lived in a place for eight years then the landlord cannot seriously expect it back in better condition than it was let in, can they?

TIA

This is very similar to my current situation.

We've rented the flat since 2010 as a couple and over 8 years living there of course thw carpets don't look like when we've first moved in. There are 3 velux blinds that need replacing (two broken, one showing signs of severe wear) but apart from that we've looked after the flat really well - making sure all small repairs were carried out, as with some stuff (shower, no hot water, etc) there were ongoing issues - not always solved straight away (some after weeks of waiting). Now the flatmate moved out and I decided to stay and look for a new one to move in. I did agree to replace the blinds (almost £100 each so significant cost) but my landlord now says the carpets need replacing as it won't clean properly ( in few places there are bad stains and it's ripped as it's cheap shit) and that the flat needs painting (we've painted all the bedrooms and lounge last year to refresh it - some wooden bits would need repainting - that's true - but it's still 10x better than it was before, so painting would be necessary anyway) and that we have tonshate the costs. That will eat my whole deposit + £300 for the blinds. And then I'm told by my landlord that I should be doing all that work as well as it's unfair and costs him time and much more money. 
Clearly he thinks that I should do a major refurb and leave the flat in great condition.
In my opinion either I agree to do carpets/replace broken blinds etc and have my deposit back OR agree to have my deposit taken and I should not be interested how much it will now cost to renovate. 
Surely after 8 years of renting the property out you cannot expect it to be in the exact same state. Well.... he does.

Danny1969

@BigBearKris ;
When my wife moved out of her rented place after 6 years there was wear and tear on the carpets and paint work and the landlady wanted to keep the entire deposit. My wife took the landlady to court and won including court costs. The judge said anyone renting a property out for gain should be aware it's not all profit, wear and tear is to be expected and the cost covered by the landlord \ lady 
Don't roll over, if you have broke something out of negligence then fair enough but wear and tear is not a reason to hold back a deposit  

BigBearKris

@Danny1969 ;
It's a difficult one as my main mistake was to decide to stay in the flat and it's a private landlord which we always were quite friendly with. I already had one "unfriendly" conversation with him and I can see that the attitude is not going to change. I thoughts fair to pay for new blinds and would agree even with using some of the deposit money for necessary painting etc - but not all of it. I regret my decision but now it's bit late. 
Thanks for good info though, It's worth knowing.

hywelg

Every landlord is allowed to claim 10% of the rental income every year against tax as 'wear and tear'. So you need to calculate the amount the landlord has claimed in the 8 years and hit him with that, because here hasn't spent it, just pocketed it. So if there is general wear and tear that should not be coming out of the deposit.

BigBearKris

hywelg said:

Every landlord is allowed to claim 10% of the rental income every year against tax as 'wear and tear'. So you need to calculate the amount the landlord has claimed in the 8 years and hit him with that, because here hasn't spent it, just pocketed it. So if there is general wear and tear that should not be coming out of the deposit.

Is that right?
I've done some calculations and that tax reclaim would cover absolutely everything and more... any source?

Heartfeltdawn

Remember that you have the right to raise a dispute.

https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/disputes-and-problems

A threat of dispute resolution can turn the heads of agents and landlords. 

guitarcookie1

BigBearKris said:

hywelg said:

Every landlord is allowed to claim 10% of the rental income every year against tax as 'wear and tear'. So you need to calculate the amount the landlord has claimed in the 8 years and hit him with that, because here hasn't spent it, just pocketed it. So if there is general wear and tear that should not be coming out of the deposit.

Is that right?
I've done some calculations and that tax reclaim would cover absolutely everything and more... any source?

That ceased as of 6/4/16. 

octatonic

BigBearKris said:

hywelg said:

Every landlord is allowed to claim 10% of the rental income every year against tax as 'wear and tear'. So you need to calculate the amount the landlord has claimed in the 8 years and hit him with that, because here hasn't spent it, just pocketed it. So if there is general wear and tear that should not be coming out of the deposit.

Is that right?
I've done some calculations and that tax reclaim would cover absolutely everything and more... any source?

Actually that ended for 16/17 tax year.
The Cameron govt introduced a tightening of allowances.
We will soon no longer be able to write off mortgage interest either.

oaf

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/income-tax-when-you-rent-out-a-property-working-out-your-rental-income

I think the 10% allowance only counted if the property was fully furnished - and it looks like it has changed since 2016.

There's now "Domestic Items" relief:"If you let out residential property (a dwelling house) you may be able to claim a deduction for the cost of replacing domestic items such as:

• movable furniture for example beds, free-standing wardrobes
• furnishings for example curtains, linens, carpets, floor coverings
• household appliances for example televisions, fridges, freezers
• kitchenware for example crockery, cutlery

Replacement of Domestic Items relief is only available for expenses incurred from 6 April 2016 for Income Tax purposes.

Unlike the Wear and Tear allowance, for the Replacement of Domestic Items relief to apply the dwelling house can be unfurnished, part furnished or fully furnished. However, an expense must actually be incurred on purchasing a replacement domestic item, ‘the new item’.

The new item must also be solely provided for use by the tenants in a dwelling house and the old item must no longer be available for use in that dwelling house.

The initial cost of purchasing domestic items for a dwelling house isn’t a deductible expense so no relief is available for these costs. Relief is only available for the replacement item."

My dad has recently moved into a nursing home so I need to get up to speed on how to rent out his house for him. Looks like it is going to be a hassle (he's not local to me and I've heard many nightmare stories re agents too).