To not put the house back to what it was?

[QuantumDog2]

I've rented the house I live in currently for nearly 9 years. When I moved in it was a new build and we were the first to live here, so obviously a buy to let. The walls were all trade paint magnolia and the carpets were cheap, exactly the way new builds are presented as standard.
Over the years I've decorated it and made some improvements like extending the patio and I spend £1400 on new flooring for the lounge because the carpet was worn out by that stage and looked grotty.
Now I'm leaving as I've bought somewhere with my partner, but contractually apparently I have to return the property the way I found it. I'm 6 months pregnant now and don't fancy donning my overalls and climbing ladders to paint. What would you do? I feel like after 9 years here and the time and money I've spent on the place (although my choice totally) I shouldn't really be penalised, but I expect I will lose my deposit?

At the end of the day I just think you are going about this the wrong way and refusing viewings is doing you no favours.

You've had a good relationship with your LL for 9 years who has allowed you to personalise and make changes. I think we all agree you have to forget the flooring as this was your choice and the newbuild had new carpet albeit thin that the LL did not feel needed changing. In addition, it was your preference to change the patio as the LL thought it was fine and it was your preference to plant up a garden. All perfectly understood.

In between this time you have made good certain repairs that was the responsibility of the LL and she should have done these and you should have waited until she had. But that is water under the bridge.

You have now mentalled checked out of the home, again all perfectly understandable, and want to move on with your new home and partner and baby on the way.

The way I see it, and I have been both a commercial tenant and a private landlord, is that you have a contract which really would be unreasonable to uphold the painting back to cream/neutral after 9 years. Yes I understand fully your point, but your contract says otherwise. But now at the end point you are not going about this the right way refusing viewings etc and riling the Lettings Agent, but more importantly your LL whom you have a good relationship with.

It would make FAR more sense to approach this calmly and rationally and directly approach your LL with an email reinforcing that you have been a model tenant, you have maintained and cared for the property, always paid rent on time etc. You can allude to the fact that you have planted up the garden, paid for flooring and extended the patio that you feel adds benefit to the property. (though do remember these were your choices.)

You can also state that during the 9 years of your tenure the property has not needed to be repainted or recarpeted and legal fees have not been incurred with additional tenants, all saving your LL money.
Therefore, you do not feel it appropriate to have to change the colour scheme back to cream especially since your LL would expect after this period of time that they would require the services of a professional decorator to refresh the property ready for the next tenant.

All of this can be done pleasantly to achieve your desired result. But I can't help but feel that you are listening to some silly advice on here about rip this and that up, take this down etc with people goading you further away from what you want and need to achieve.

Surely with a new house and a new future, getting your deposit back would be enormously helpful. I don't see why you should not if you handle this correctly, politely and appropriately. But being antagonistic normally does not achieve the desired result.

I wish you luck, but do strongly advise you to listen to the more reasoned people on here who are actually giving you sound advice.

@friendlycat

At the end of the day I just think you are going about this the wrong way and refusing viewings is doing you no favours.

You've had a good relationship with your LL for 9 years who has allowed you to personalise and make changes. I think we all agree you have to forget the flooring as this was your choice and the newbuild had new carpet albeit thin that the LL did not feel needed changing. In addition, it was your preference to change the patio as the LL thought it was fine and it was your preference to plant up a garden. All perfectly understood.

In between this time you have made good certain repairs that was the responsibility of the LL and she should have done these and you should have waited until she had. But that is water under the bridge.

You have now mentalled checked out of the home, again all perfectly understandable, and want to move on with your new home and partner and baby on the way.

The way I see it, and I have been both a commercial tenant and a private landlord, is that you have a contract which really would be unreasonable to uphold the painting back to cream/neutral after 9 years. Yes I understand fully your point, but your contract says otherwise. But now at the end point you are not going about this the right way refusing viewings etc and riling the Lettings Agent, but more importantly your LL whom you have a good relationship with.

It would make FAR more sense to approach this calmly and rationally and directly approach your LL with an email reinforcing that you have been a model tenant, you have maintained and cared for the property, always paid rent on time etc. You can allude to the fact that you have planted up the garden, paid for flooring and extended the patio that you feel adds benefit to the property. (though do remember these were your choices.)

You can also state that during the 9 years of your tenure the property has not needed to be repainted or recarpeted and legal fees have not been incurred with additional tenants, all saving your LL money.
Therefore, you do not feel it appropriate to have to change the colour scheme back to cream especially since your LL would expect after this period of time that they would require the services of a professional decorator to refresh the property ready for the next tenant.

All of this can be done pleasantly to achieve your desired result. But I can't help but feel that you are listening to some silly advice on here about rip this and that up, take this down etc with people goading you further away from what you want and need to achieve.

Surely with a new house and a new future, getting your deposit back would be enormously helpful. I don't see why you should not if you handle this correctly, politely and appropriately. But being antagonistic normally does not achieve the desired result.

I wish you luck, but do strongly advise you to listen to the more reasoned people on here who are actually giving you sound advice.

All of this ^

[quote Noodella18]@billy1966 do you really think a brand new house with fitted carpets was sold with just a mist coat? No way.[/quote]
That’s how all new builds are sold.

I also agree with every word that @friendlycat wrote but it seems to me the Op is well and truly got the bit between her teeth now and is spoiling for a fight no matter what. Which is a shame, because it will just cause needless stress and aggro when no-one really needs it.

@ManifestDestinee

However, if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement contract about end of tenancy viewings (assuming here are arranged with appropriate notice] the. You WILL be in breach of contract.By refusing to allow access, you are placing the landlord in a position where they could legitimately claim for loss of rent from you, if they cannot secure a new tenant until you have moved out, either via TDS or small claims. So I would suggest you listen to the estate agents advise rather than seeing access as a bargaining tool.The tenancy contract is the key, as others have said

Complete and utter rubbish, as already explained,the contract is not the key. OP does not have to give any access and the LL cannot claim loss of rent from OP...she's paying rent, and while she is living there she has the right to quiet enjoyment. She has no obligation whatsover to facilitate viewings for the LL so he can instantly have rent the second she is gone.

Merriboo is correct @BrightYellowDaffodil and @ManifestDestinee.

The clause is only unenforceable in the sense that if the tenant refuses, the landlord cannot go to court to force them to allow viewings because a contract cannot override the tenant's statutory right to quiet enjoyment.

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses.

It always exasperates me when people pop up on MN and tell posters that this clause in unenforceable without understanding the potential financial consequences. Although it makes me very angry when letting agents try to enforce the clause and tell tenants that they have to allow viewings. They don't but it might cost them money to exert that right.

The other one that makes me angry is the 24 hours notice for access clause... So many letting agents choose to interpret the law that the landlord must give 24 hours notice for access as a right for them to enter the property as long as they give 24 hours notice.

Hello everyone. I've just had an email from the director of the lettings agency. She wants to give me a call tomorrow afternoon to discuss. The email says that she has spoken to my landlord and wants to assure me that after I have been 'a good tenant at xxxxx now for many years, I will be treated with transparency and fairness'. It was a really kind email actually, but I guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what she says.
She also says that she wants me to be rest assured that for now all viewings have been put on hold.

Hopefully we can get this worked out fairly for both me and my landlord and viewings can resume next week.

I am not sure what is your problem with the whole situation, OP

you said the painting admission with the landlord went like this:
OP: Can I paint the walls to my liking?
Landlord: Yes, just put it back to the original shades when leaving

that is all what is relevant. You said you dont care about money, but you said something else in your earlier posts

just pay for the repaint from your deposit (as you should) and move to your new own house where you can paint the walls how you like it, bc its yours.

The way renters are treated in this country is appalling
Don't tar all landlords as pathetic as your friend. The vast majority are not. Why stay somewhere you feel.you are paying over the odds for?

I rented for many years and had a fabulous landlord for a long time but many, many landlords are not like this.

Another friend is a LL and has not raised the rent for years as her tenant would not be able to afford it & she is a good tenant. The rent covers her costs and a bit more to update bathrooms, windows etc. She is happy to have the equity from the flat rather than maximising rental income. She is in the minority IME.

A lot of my professional life is spent dealing with poor housing so I see first hand how things are for a large amount of renters. Crappy tenancies that mean people have to move every year, rent increases, evictions, poor quality neglected housing and rubbish furniture are the norm.
*
Why stay somewhere you feel you are paying over the odds for?*

Because people often don't have other options?

Op that sounds positive, glad the email was kind and I hope you get a good outcome.

@vivainsomnia

The way renters are treated in this country is appalling Don't tar all landlords as pathetic as your friend. The vast majority are not. Why stay somewhere you feel.you are paying over the odds for?

This is so amazingly naieve. I rented 6 places before I bought my house. I’d say I paid over the odds for at least 4. I didn’t really have a choice even the more expensive places were still falling to bits.

@GreenFingersWouldBeHandy

extending the patio and I spend £1400 on new flooring for the lounge because the carpet was worn out by that stage and looked grotty

Entirely you choice. But I would have asked the landlord to refresh it.

I've painted the kids bedrooms a bit more vibrantly and the hall stairs and landing are in Denim Drift, so definitely not neutral

No idea what colour 'Denim Drift is' but it sounds as though you have turned a neutral rental home (yes, magnolia) into your own home (personalised colours) and your landlords have asked you to return it to neutral.

I've done an excellent job with the finish, if I may say so myself

But as that's not what was in the contract and you can't be bothered; I would expect a hefty redecorating bill. You definitely won't get your deposit back. What a cheek!

Whether the OP is being cheeky or not is irrelevant..

After. 9 years with no interim maintenance or decoration, the LL needs to be responsible for redecorating.

The TDS would find in favour of thr tenant here... Just in the time elapsed.

Also the LL can 'ask' for anything, the OP is under no legal obligation ... Like I could ask for a mad reduction in Harrods...

OP, I’ve read all your posts on this thread. I think it’s a shame that the situation has escalated as it has done. It would arguably have been better not to let yourself get wound up about the issue of the deposit and just do what you originally intended - move out and then sort it via the deposit scheme administrator if you end up needing to do so. Now you’re in an active dispute with both the landlord and the agency and you’ve got a whole heap more hassle to sort out.

I suspect that your history of dealing directly with the landlord at times has made the situation more confusing for the agency because there are side-agreements which they are not involved in, for example the installation of the flooring. If the landlord is paying an agency to manage the property then they should be getting their money’s worth, not having to deal with tenants directly.

Anyway, that’s done now and can’t be changed. I would urge you to revert to your original stance of wait-and-see and resume viewings, blame it on pregnancy brain if you like! It’s not worth this fight.

It always exasperates me when people pop up on MN and tell posters that this clause in unenforceable without understanding the potential financial consequences. Although it makes me very angry when letting agents try to enforce the clause and tell tenants that they have to allow viewings. They don't but it might cost them money to exert that right.

If it's not enforceable then there can't be any financial consequences. If someone tried to charge a tenant with "losses" (e.g. to cover a void period) then the tenant wouldn't have to pay them and any attempt to enforce it through the courts would be unsuccessful because of the legal right to quiet enjoyment of a legally rented property. In this situation a clause attempting to enforce an obligation falls under "Lettings agents chancing their arm and hoping the tenant doesn't know the law".

That something might incur a legal cost if, say, the lettings agent tried to enforce "losses" through the court and the tenant had to pay for legal advice or had engaged a solicitor does not alter the fact that the original clause was not enforceable. And such costs can be avoided, as I know from experience, with a brisk "Fuck off".

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses.

You cannot be in breach of an unfair contract clause.

@BrightYellowDaffodil

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses.

You cannot be in breach of an unfair contract clause.

I don’t understand how it is an unfair clause. They are asking her to repaint in neutral colours because she chose to personalise the house to her own taste in dark (that denim colour is quite a dark blue) and vivid colours. Many landlords paint their properties in neutral colours and if a tenant personalises the home, especially in dark or bright colours that are not easily covered with a lighter paint, they should return it to neutral colours upon the cessation of the tenancy.

@BrightYellowDaffodil

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses.

You cannot be in breach of an unfair contract clause.

Unfortunately, it's not considered to be an unfair contract clause, as much as I think it should be. The OFT 2005 guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements actually gives it as an example of a fair clause:

"On giving the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing, to allow the landlord, or any person acting on behalf of the landlord, access to view the property, during normal working hours, accompanying a prospective tenant or purchaser of the property."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616956/oft356.pdf

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses

Still no. This has been proven in the courts many times.

Why don't you just do what you're supposed to do.

@ManifestDestinee

The tenant will still be in breach of contract though and liable for any losses

Still no. This has been proven in the courts many times.

Do you have links, @ManifestDestinee? I would be very happy if you could prove me wrong. I used to volunteer helping with housing issues and that is contrary to the advice we had from the legal team.

"Can a tenant of a residential property resist the landlord's contractual right to show prospective purchasers/future tenants...?"

"...If, however, the landlord has made a valid, lawful, request in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the tenant may be in breach if it does not allow access. The landlord may have potential remedies for damages or for an injunction/specific performance requiring the tenant to allow access. The landlord might also have grounds to serve a Housing Act 1988 section 8 notice (if you are dealing with an assured shorthold tenancy (AST)) but this won't necessarily assist in securing early access for viewings."

uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/a-130-8155?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

I don’t understand how it is an unfair clause. They are asking her to repaint in neutral colours because she chose to personalise the house to her own taste in dark (that denim colour is quite a dark blue) and vivid colours.

The unfair clause to which I'm referring is the "You must let viewings take place if you've handed in your notice" because it interferes with the legal right for quiet enjoyment of a rented property (that doesn't mean 'quiet' in the sense of 'lack of noise' but in the sense of 'without interference').

The OFT 2005 guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements actually gives it as an example of a fair clause:

The document does also state "Please note this annexe comprises examples of standard terms used by landlords in tenancy agreements that the OFT has seen, and the ways in
which they were revised to meet concerns raised by the OFT. It is not a list of terms that will always be found fair or unfair." It seems to be the OFT's views rather than a court ruling on quiet enjoyment .v. right to insist on viewings. As far as I was aware - and property law isn't my area - a landlord or representative can only access a property with the tenants permission OR in the event of an emergency.

@Cheeseplantboots

I used to be a landlord. Tenants were not allowed to paint. We painted it top to bottom every couple of years. Although if it needed new flooring or carpet we would have done that, I would have been furious if the tenant had decorated without asking especially if it was a bright or dark colour. Think you have to put it back or accept you’ll loose your deposit.

That isn't the law....

After 9 years the landlords would be expected to have to decorate it after a tenant has moved out. Ask the landlord you never know. Good luck with the baby and move

@seaandsandcastles

So if they must they can take my deposit. As I set out previously, I'll take that hit, provided it's reasonable and I see receipts that the work has been done properly.

They can take your deposit, and they can charge you on top of that for any work that needs to be done to put it back to how it was.

And no, they don’t need to show you any receipts either.

You being there for 9 years is irrelevant. You paying nearly £100k is irrelevant. You spent money knowing the property would need to be reverted back to exactly how it was when you moved in. You can’t throw your toys out the pram now.

Nope thr NINE years is relevant... The deposit scheme expects LL to redecorate every five years or so

"As far as I was aware - and property law isn't my area - a landlord or representative can only access a property with the tenants permission OR in the event of an emergency."

That's correct, @BrightYellowDaffodil. If the tenant refuses access, the landlord or their agent cannot enter the property, except in an emergency. They would have to get a court order to enter the property without the tenant's permission.

If there is nothing in the contract about allowing viewings, that would be the end of it. If there is a clause about viewings, see my previous post:

"If, however, the landlord has made a valid, lawful, request in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, the tenant may be in breach if it does not allow access. The landlord may have potential remedies for damages or for an injunction/specific performance requiring the tenant to allow access. The landlord might also have grounds to serve a Housing Act 1988 section 8 notice (if you are dealing with an assured shorthold tenancy (AST)) but this won't necessarily assist in securing early access for viewings."