I am wondering if someone can help out - I have a situation where the tenant has damage the kitchen countertop of my rental unit with a very large burn stain. I need to get this replaced and the cost for replacing this is quite high… The tenant has admitted it is there fault but they feel they should not be responsible for 100% of the costs as this would fall under the category of “betterment” as the unit has some minor burn marks before…
I disagree with this and want to deduct 100% of the costs as this is clearly damage and this is a repair and cost I would not incur if this damage hasn’t been done (the burn marks were there for 7 years since I bough the flat)
Can anyone advise here? This feels highly unfair if somehow I have to apply a deprecation calculation similar to that of a sofa, etc as this is structural damage to the property
Unfortunately, a deposit scheme would most likely agree with your tenant on this issue. The value and average lifespan of the countertop needs to be considered and the purchase cost split over the lifespan. The tenant would only pay the apportioned cost of the replacement.
That calculation can be evidenced by a copy of the original purchase invoice, to explain how the expected lifespan of the asset was calculated (e.g. manufacturer’s guarantee). This plus the inventory report will be required by the deposit scheme in the event of a dispute.
As Mita says, the tenant is correct. You have to use the value of the item at the start of the tenancy, which is the original price depreciated by age and condition. You then claim the difference in value between that figure and its current value.
I would suggest you come to some agreement with the tenant because if you make a claim through the deposit scheme or the courts you are unlikely to get very much for cosmetic damage.
Thanks fr the reply - there is no invoice or guarantee form the manufacturer as this came with the building which is 15 years old …what would you advise? There is an inventory report which would show the damage clearly was done by the tenant
Tricia’s calculation is correct. The tenant damaged and already worn worktop you will replace it with a brand new work top. You will get the majority of the value of that not the tenant so that’s why it’s skewed in their favour.
I’d agree that tricia’s calculation is what you could claim.
I also dont think it’s fair as worktop is part of a kitchen and if kitchen has lifespan of 20 years then in 5 years you may want to replace the kitchen and be left with a fairly new worktop which you would have to either keep or replace with a new one and incur new set of fitting charges which make up most of the cost…
It is just so unfair - I had no interest in replacing this countertop and am actually truing to sell this apartment because I am bleeding money on it and this is the thing I need… Now because of intentional damage by the tenant which she admits to and is clearly her fault I am left with a £1000 bill while she pays pennies towards the damage and if I take any legal recourse I am bound to get even less…
The system is so unfair towards landlords I really can’t wait to get out!
Worktops are a tricky think to claim for. The cost of fitting them is often far more than the cost of the material itself, especially if you have a couple of seamless joins to install. If you could get the court/deposit scheme to agree that it was reasonable to replace the worktop, then you could charge for the material less depreciation, but the full cost of the fitting. However, they are unlikely to agree this if the worktop is still functional, so you’re left trying to come up with a reasonable compromise. On this basis, the suggestions above are probably better than most.
Edit: cross posted with yours Rafael. I agree with you that the system can be unfair to landlords who experience cosmetic damage.